John UK wrote: I suggest you read the gospels and observe the religious worldlings who tried to debate The Incarnate God, Jesus Christ. The puny little men lost the debate every time.
Well of course Jesus Christ won every argument in those stories. The Gospels were written by His followers! Do you think His followers are going to publish something that makes Him look bad? Try having the debate today and trust me things won't go so well for your side. Especially now that science has made so many wonderful discoveries. I could tie Jesus up in knots.
Science is the assertion that the universe is best understood through evidence from careful observation and experimentation. Faith is the assertion that the universe is best known not through evidence but through information revealed by an authority. There are many faith-based explanations for the universe and many such authorities; some of these are believed by people today while others have gone extinct.
If evidence is not necessity for understanding, how is one to tell which faith-based explanation is correct? I would assert that without the need for evidence all communication eventually breaks down and the only way for those of different faiths to reconcile is physical violence.
John UK wrote: The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
The heavens declare the nonexistence of God; and the firmament shows the handywork of evolution.
the truth is wrote: If you cannot read the "evidence" in Scripture it is because God has not picked you and you are reprobate on your way to hell.
My friends, this is what's known as an ad hominem argument, where you ignore the issue and go after somebody personally.
Oh wait, it all makes sense now! The reason atheists are building churches is because they know deep down these really are the last days and they need a place to stockpile weapons for their fight against the Lord when He returns. *Laughing out loud*
Christopher000 wrote: There is so much evidence that points to God and creation.
Give me your best piece of evidence, please.
Christopher000 wrote: Mankind thinks they are so powerful, but we are nothing but weak little specks.
We're more powerful than we used to be, but not as powerful as we need to be.
Christopher000 wrote: We are nothing but weak little specks that God can crush with a word, yet we think we can rise up and rage against Him, take up arms against Him, etc. Satan tried that.
Fantasyland. You're not going to find atheists "taking up arms" against a being whose existence they don't think has been demonstrated. That'd be ridiculous.
John Yurich USA wrote: Just what exactly is the outline of a worship service in an atheist church? And whom do you atheists worship in the worship service of an atheist church?
Science is God. Technology is the savior. Men like Newton, Pasteur, Einstein, Galileo, Turing, and Darwin are the saints.
John Yurich USA wrote: There are Unitarian atheists? I always thought that all Unitarians believed that there is a Supreme Intelligence.
The atheist community here in the United States has already beat them to it. I'm the pastor of a church and I'm also an atheist. It's a small invitation-only "house church" for like-minded individuals.
Fender wrote: "movement’s founder, Lord Baden-Powell. He ranked atheism alongside gambling, swearing and drunkenness in a handbook for boys."
Listing things together doesn't prove there's a correlation between them. Proving there's a correlation between them doesn't prove one caused the others.
Lowson wrote: You are lying about Calvin and Spurgeon...
My opinion is that the theory which best describes the teaching of salvation as written in the Bible is Calvinism. However, I don't believe the Bible is actually true, which means the whole controversy isn't of much interest. So I guess you could call me a Calvinistic atheist.
Now is it that I can't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster or that I won't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Mike wrote: Is it that Pastor Mike cannot believe, or will not believe?
It's actually not that I can't or even that I won't believe. There's something you must know: There's more going on here than meets the eye.
My thoughts and actions are being controlled by the government through the use of a mind control device which was implanted in my body the last time I was abducted by aliens. The CIA acquired the technology for thought manipulation several years ago from a secret underground research facility run by the Proctor and Gamble corporation in conspiracy with Satan and with the support of the Illuminati. They were unsuccessful in their plot to destroy America by planting explosives in the World Trade Center and faking a terrorist attack. So it was agreed upon to use a method more subtle and difficult to detect this time. They decided to send corrupt members of the clergy such as myself onto Christian websites to convince the people of God to turn against the Lord and usher in the New World Order.
Watch out! I'll use science and so-called logic to get you to accept that nonsense about evolution instead of the true creation account as given in the Holy Bible: the talking snake theory!
Idah wrote: i have an uncle that believes similarly to you but wont talk about it.
That's interesting. I know your questions are sincere, and I apologize for not making that clear in my last posting. I'd like to wish you the best as well. I'm a frequent visitor to this website so I'm sure I'll see you on other discussion boards.
Mike wrote: Where does the raw materials come from? ... Mike. Maybe the real reason u are a atheist, Is accountability. Mike. My family will pray, that the Lord open your eyes. I pray u open the Bible alone. And the Lord open your eyes.
The raw materials often come from transcription errors in the genetic code. You'll find this spelled out in full detail in any introductory biology textbook.
The rest of your argument is ad hominem, and thus not worthy of serious reply. You Christians sure do love going after people personally, don't you? How is it that people who supposedly have the "Truth" find this so necessary?
One of the reason I don't have much patients for these discussions is that most of you didn't come to "faith" through a careful consideration of the evidence. These conversations about the second law of thermodynamics or genetics are for you an after thought which would never even enter your heads if it weren't for folks like me. You came to believe as you do usually through a childhood indoctrination program.
As for this "I'll be praying for you" business, it's nothing more than a passive-aggressive form of the ad hominem fallacy.
idaho wrote: my full mental prowess is on display here. it wasnt newton. it was a french guy.
We'll call it even because I didn't catch your mistake. However, now that you point it out, I realize that I should have picked up on that.
idaho wrote: without positive/constructive energy things that are in order would start to become out of order.
The key is 'without energy.' You've just explained why animals die without food and plants die without light. Energy is needed to arrest the tendency towards disorder.
idaho wrote: that is why i feel the question of the natual/observable laws of our universe are important. did they change and will they change again? if so, then we are up a creek, because they are no longer laws that we can no longer count on because they may change on us down the road.
That's a very good point. I agree.
idaho wrote: what is it that a humanist holds as yhe highest calling or main goal of ones life?
The highest calling is the advancement of humanity and the protection of life.
Mike wrote: Where did all things come from? How does nothing create something? Everything u have, was created and made. It did not just appear by chance. How do you explain, as a atheist and evolutionist? Thank you.
Evolution doesn't teach that the lifeforms alive today are the result of pure chance. They're much too complex for that to have been probable. What it does teach is that chance provides the raw materials (genetic mutations which manifest as observable characteristics) on which natural selection can act, allowing complexity to build over time.
Evolution accounts for the diversity and complexity of life, but not it's origin. To explain the origin of life another theory is needed. The study of how life could have arose from nonliving material is called abiogenesis. This is still an area of active research. However, what evolution has done is to significantly lower the threshold of complexity which would need to be reached by chance alone.
I hope I've answered your question. There's more to learn than I can express here in writing, but I'm sure you'll be able to find more details online. Good luck to you!
idaho wrote: here is another [thought] that came to mind. if random chance and servival of the fittest is how we got to where we are, then shouldt we just let it keep improving us? if evolution an all it aspouses are true then why are we so comcerned by the effects of our choices?
Excellent question!
The problem is that evolution isn't necessarily improving us; it's merely helping us (specially our genes) survive. Think of the whale going back to live in the water, although it had once lived on land, having originally come from the water. That's evolution's problem. It has no plans and no vision.
In the past the survival adaptations with which evolution has afforded humans have been an improvement. However this may not always continue to be the case. I can think of several scenarios where a change that society would consider an improvement wouldn't necessarily result in a survival advantage.
idaho wrote: in high school i learned about newton's 2nd law of ... has that always existed or did it just start at a certain time?
You'd do better asking this question of a physicist. I honestly don't know if certain laws came into being as the universe developed or if they always existed. My expertise is biology.
Hi Idaho, I haven't had a chance to write you a reply, but I just wanted to let you know I haven't forgotten about you. Sundays are my busy day. I'm sorry. I'll post my thoughts soon. Thanks for your patience.
Michael Hranek wrote: Satanist? Witchcraft? or don't you know yet?
Humanist.
KJB Believer wrote: If you looked in the KJB you will notice that at least all of the medical advances are from the Bible
Great! Please give Harvard Medical a call with the chapter and verse in the Bible with the cure for Stage IV terminal cancer.
Direction and truth wrote: The point raised about the common cold is to demonstrate how ignorant primitive unenlightened and indeed puerile mankind is in comparison to God.
I hope I don't need to remind you that the Figment of the human imagination you worship has yet to provide a cure for the common cold either.
Direction and truth wrote: God warns you... that they all might be damned who believed not the truth
You've given up the debate and have resorted to threats. See my posting about the fallacy of ad hominem arguments.
idah wrote: so here we go. im going to try to engage in a sport im not very good at. have you ever believed, or were raised to believe in a god or "The God"? not trying to get personal, just trying to get a picture of where you are cominh from. i was raised in a home that believed in God/Christ. It is now my own belief/faith.
My friend, you're welcome to ask anything you'd like.
My answer to your question may sound rather autobiographical. I was raised in a Christian home, but was skeptical about the religion from my earliest memory. Four years of my young adulthood were spent wrestling with questions of faith. I ultimately concluded that my beliefs were without support.
I had the fortune of being born independently wealthy. Today I devote myself full-time to science and my ministry. I hold an undergraduate degree in biology and three masters degrees in psychology, divinity, and evolutionary biology. I'm the pastor of a church, and I'm also an atheist. It's a small invitation-only "house church" for like-minded individuals.
1/5/13 6:46 PM
