Christ is Risen

[Monster]

God created all things visible and invisible.

If God created all things, then surely he is an evil being.

 

[Monster]

When I was in the hospital with my son for two weeks, people would say they were praying for all of us, it was nice to know they were thinking about us and they cared but it would have been a lot more helpful if they would say, bring us lunch or go to my house to feed the cat.

It's easier to pass off your responsibilities as a friend. And like jdeb said, God created all things visible and invisible. Whatever happened to your son was on account of him. Doesn't make much sense praying to something to help when it was the cause of the problem.

 

[KAWDUP]

Making fun of religions is enjoyable for me though, especially when KAWDAP gets mad and starts insulting people, claims he's not actually mad, and then argues over who insulted who first

HA. You may certainly believe that I am mad at your ignorance. That is your prerogative. In fact, it really doesn't matter, unless its true that somehow when discussing with me, you are in fact projecting you own anger onto me. That is OK. You are what you are.

As usual - the argument over the first insult only enters the picture, when some schmuck questions why I would ever stoop to insult them in the first place. So it's perfectly OK for you to drop an insult, or make a really offensive remark, but if someone answers with an insult, your response is "he gets mad and starts insulting people"? That is a pretty moronic thing to say.

So now, am I angry at you? Am I mad in general? Did I call you a moron, like you do to so many others?

Answer to all three is no - too bad you are so wrapped up in your own emotion not to see it.

So is that last thing I said above an insult to you?

 

[tinselwolverine]

how did I miss out on all this fun.

I'm sure that champs life will be enhanced by the fact that you mumbled something under your breath about him at church, that's powerful stuff.

Prayer is a good way to make an individual feel better about something they have zero chance of impacting. you have a sick family member, you pray and that makes you feel better, it has no impact on the sick person though. Praying is similar to superstition, I found a penny face up on the airport on my way to the rose bowl, kept it in my pocket for the game, made me feel like I had some control over the outcome, like my penny made a difference.

Except we don't know 100% for sure that a whole bunch of people putting positive mental energy into Universal energy pool for someone has 0 impact on what's going on with the person they're putting it out there for.

Sure likely it doesn't - but we don't know that.

Way back as an undergrad at Michigan, I was taking this acting class. The teacher held something behind her back, and asked me to close my eyes and see if I could "see" what it was and describe it.

So I did it, and sure enough, I "saw" and I told what I "saw" - "I'm seeing this little octangular shaped green thing, with white trimming around the edge."

Well...she pulled out from behind her back a little cloth green coaster with white trim around the edge.

That was wacky.

So we don't know anything 100% for sure about all that kind of stuff.

 

[KAWDUP]

You are completely blinded by your faith and can not make clear headed decisions when it comes to thinks like this. I, and several others on this board, just ask for some shred of evidence for what you say. That is science. It's not a religion. It's an actual path toward knowledge.

The more you deny things that are accepted by the most educated men and women in the world, the deeper you fall into ignorance. Show us some proof. Give us something that says, "You're so wrong and this is why".

I expect you made this statement about being blinded by faith as a clear headed analysis of the mental state of that person? Poppycock!! You have done exactly what you are accusing him of right there.

Also the next paragraph can be turned right around on you. The more you deny things that are accepted by many educated theists, the deeper you fall into ignorance. What you believe about science comes from other learned scientists. Why would you believe what they had to say any more then what you believe a very well educated religious scholar might have to say?

You already have your own bias, and you believe what scientists say since what they are saying obviously makes sense to you. Therefore it must be true, whereas religion does not make sense to you, so it is fantasy.

Have you ever read about Descarte - the philosopher who said - "I think therefore I am". He made amazing discoveries in geometry, and laid the groundwork for theories that developed into calculus - surely a smart kind of "scientist", no? Well he also believed in God, and believed very much that he had proved God's existence starting only with that first famous statement.

Many of his philosophical theories still have merit today, just as his mathematical ones do also.

I am not really offended, but when you call someone "totally blinded", and "falling deeper into ignorance", I'm not sure what response you expected, but I say look into a mirror.

 

[Monster]

Except we don't know 100% for sure that a whole bunch of people putting positive mental energy into Universal energy pool for someone has 0 impact on what's going on with the person they're putting it out there for.

Sure likely it doesn't - but we don't know that.

Way back as an undergrad at Michigan, I was taking this acting class. The teacher held something behind her back, and asked me to close my eyes and see if I could "see" what it was and describe it.

So I did it, and sure enough, I "saw" and I told what I "saw" - "I'm seeing this little octangular shaped green thing, with white trimming around the edge."

Well...she pulled out from behind her back a little cloth green coaster with white trim around the edge.

That was wacky.

So we don't know anything 100% for sure about all that kind of stuff.

if prayer worked, no child would ever starve to death. I would say that there may be something to the whole "energy" thing. I don't necessarily believe in it, but I do think that a sick person surrounded by love has a better chance of survival than a man with nobody. But then again, that could have something to do with the sick person's resolve to live.

There are a lot of things in this world that I don't understand, but I won't immediately jump to conclusions without some sort of evidence. And all the evidence I've seen tells me that prayer does not work.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Except we don't know 100% for sure that a whole bunch of people putting positive mental energy into Universal energy pool for someone has 0 impact on what's going on with the person they're putting it out there for.

Sure likely it doesn't - but we don't know that.

Way back as an undergrad at Michigan, I was taking this acting class. The teacher held something behind her back, and asked me to close my eyes and see if I could "see" what it was and describe it.

So I did it, and sure enough, I "saw" and I told what I "saw" - "I'm seeing this little octangular shaped green thing, with white trimming around the edge."

Well...she pulled out from behind her back a little cloth green coaster with white trim around the edge.

That was wacky.

So we don't know anything 100% for sure about all that kind of stuff.

 

[Monster]

I expect you made this statement about being blinded by faith as a clear headed analysis of the mental state of that person? Poppycock!! You have done exactly what you are accusing him of right there.

Also the next paragraph can be turned right around on you. The more you deny things that are accepted by many educated theists, the deeper you fall into ignorance. What you believe about science comes from other learned scientists. Why would you believe what they had to say any more then what you believe a very well educated religious scholar might have to say?

You already have your own bias, and you believe what scientists say since what they are saying obviously makes sense to you. Therefore it must be true, whereas religion does not make sense to you, so it is fantasy.

Have you ever read about Descarte - the philosopher who said - "I think therefore I am". He made amazing discoveries in geometry, and laid the groundwork for theories that developed into calculus - surely a smart kind of "scientist", no? Well he also believed in God, and believed very much that he had proved God's existence starting only with that first famous statement.

Many of his philosophical theories still have merit today, just as his mathematical ones do also.

I am not really offended, but when you call someone "totally blinded", and "falling deeper into ignorance", I'm not sure what response you expected, but I say look into a mirror.

Like I said, give me some evidence of God and I will gladly admit I am wrong. Nobody has ever done that for me. God requires faith. There is no reason or need for a god in this universe. Science does not have all the answers yet and it does not pretend to. But, they aren't going to stop trying to figure it out. I'm not blinded by my lack of belief. I'm eyes wide open to anything with substance. The bible and any other gods have no substance.

You can't turn my original statement around on me. Almost all scientists are atheists of some form or another. Religious scholars study the bible and all things related to the bible. And any scientists that actually do believe in God make exceptions to things in the bible to enable their own faith. Believing in the big bang and evolution means that you have to set aside what the bible says. I've yet to see an actual scientist with any credibility claim that God caused the big bang and evolution.

And you're right. Religion does sound like fantasy. What else would you call a talking snake, a man made from dirt, a woman made from dirt man's rib, people who live hundreds of years, a world populated not just once, but twice by one single family, mentions of witches, unicorns, and giants, a god that kills people for idiotic things like disobedience to parents and calling someone baldy, and predictions of doom and gloom that could fit nearly every period in time in history?

The difference between you and I is that if something is proven wrong in science, I don't really care. It's a new and exciting discovery. Move on. If you're ever proven wrong and someone like Noah never existed, you're going to fight it and no amount of evidence will ever persuade you. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Descartes lived in the early to mid 1600's and was someone who gave the appearance of a Christian, but there were always rumors about him having no belief at all. Actually just checked his wiki and Blaise Pascal said of him, "I cannot forgive Descartes; in all his philosophy, Descartes did his best to dispense with God. But Descartes could not avoid prodding God to set the world in motion with a snap of his lordly fingers; after that, he had no more use for God."

In that time, being an atheist, especially a well known atheist, was very dangerous. Didn't matter where you live or what local religion you believe in. Not to outwardly believe would have been suicide for him or at the very least, career suicide.

And what would you call someone who is given actual evidence of something and they prefer to believe in something that has no evidence? Ignorant.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Almost all scientists are atheists of some form or another.

http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/

I've yet to see an actual scientist with any credibility claim that God caused the big bang and evolution.

Maybe you haven't seen that specific claim, but to think there aren't credible scientists that believe this is absurd. The physics professor credited with 1st proposing the Big Bang theory was a Catholic Priest.

 

[KAWDUP]

Like I said, give me some evidence of God and I will gladly admit I am wrong. Nobody has ever done that for me. God requires faith. There is no reason or need for a god in this universe. Science does not have all the answers yet and it does not pretend to. But, they aren't going to stop trying to figure it out. I'm not blinded by my lack of belief. I'm eyes wide open to anything with substance. The bible and any other gods have no substance.

You can't turn my original statement around on me. Almost all scientists are atheists of some form or another. Religious scholars study the bible and all things related to the bible. And any scientists that actually do believe in God make exceptions to things in the bible to enable their own faith. Believing in the big bang and evolution means that you have to set aside what the bible says. I've yet to see an actual scientist with any credibility claim that God caused the big bang and evolution.

And you're right. Religion does sound like fantasy. What else would you call a talking snake, a man made from dirt, a woman made from dirt man's rib, people who live hundreds of years, a world populated not just once, but twice by one single family, mentions of witches, unicorns, and giants, a god that kills people for idiotic things like disobedience to parents and calling someone baldy, and predictions of doom and gloom that could fit nearly every period in time in history?

The difference between you and I is that if something is proven wrong in science, I don't really care. It's a new and exciting discovery. Move on. If you're ever proven wrong and someone like Noah never existed, you're going to fight it and no amount of evidence will ever persuade you. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Descartes lived in the early to mid 1600's and was someone who gave the appearance of a Christian, but there were always rumors about him having no belief at all. Actually just checked his wiki and Blaise Pascal said of him, "I cannot forgive Descartes; in all his philosophy, Descartes did his best to dispense with God. But Descartes could not avoid prodding God to set the world in motion with a snap of his lordly fingers; after that, he had no more use for God."

In that time, being an atheist, especially a well known atheist, was very dangerous. Didn't matter where you live or what local religion you believe in. Not to outwardly believe would have been suicide for him or at the very least, career suicide.

And what would you call someone who is given actual evidence of something and they prefer to believe in something that has no evidence? Ignorant.

Where do I even start? Ignorance flows freely in just about every paragraph you typed here.

1) I am not blinded by my belief any more than you are by your lack of belief.
2) The bible has no substance? That is prima facie ignorance of the highest order. There is no valid definition of substance that makes that statement anything but false.
3) I can't turn the statement around on you? All evidence to the contrary - and rather effectively I might add - your opinion here isn't worth any more than mine. . . . and I think Red more than debunked your statement about scientists all being atheists. Why do all religious scholars have to study the Bible? Just more ignorance.
4) Your fantasies are very good at cherry-picking various aspects that you are already biased against. I can find 20 passages to every one of yours with not only some merit, but quite a bit truth to them. Free will allows you to not believe anything you like, but certainly doesn't make it contain any more or less truth, just because you choose not to believe it.
5) I would be glad to correct you on this statement. If something is proven wrong, I work to add it to my world view - a world view that still includes religion. That is the real difference between you and I.
6) His conclusion was that God exists - not sure why you even quoted that. He did do his best to dispense with God, and could not - I think that was my point.
7) Umm . . . there are quite a few very well known atheists from that time. I am sure you can Google them all. They may not have professed such views for fear of death at the time, but doesn't mean they didn't have atheist views and were willing to talk all about them. Notable ones, in case you don't care to look - Da Vinci, Machiavelli, Marlowe, Shakespeare, and quite a number who did meet death, but never gave up their atheistic views. Descarte's life was never in danger (he was sickly), even though he started out with complete skepticism as it pertains to religion. Even many of the famous ones that did die, had their writings published after their death, so am not really sure why you think Descartes' conclusions had anything to do with the "danger" of having them.

BTW - your last definition of ignorance isn't even close. It most certainly does not show a lack of knowledge to have faith in something in the face of what you are calling evidence. I think you are ignorant of the definition of ignorance. :*)

 

[tinselwolverine]

This is what these threads do to me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2eUopy9sd8

 

[KAWDUP]

This is what these threads do to me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2eUopy9sd8

 

[Gulo Blue]

Like I said, give me some evidence of God and I will gladly admit I am wrong.

 

[Monster]

Where do I even start? Ignorance flows freely in just about every paragraph you typed here.

1) I am not blinded by my belief any more than you are by your lack of belief.
2) The bible has no substance? That is prima facie ignorance of the highest order. There is no valid definition of substance that makes that statement anything but false.
3) I can't turn the statement around on you? All evidence to the contrary - and rather effectively I might add - your opinion here isn't worth any more than mine. . . . and I think Red more than debunked your statement about scientists all being atheists. Why do all religious scholars have to study the Bible? Just more ignorance.
4) Your fantasies are very good at cherry-picking various aspects that you are already biased against. I can find 20 passages to every one of yours with not only some merit, but quite a bit truth to them. Free will allows you to not believe anything you like, but certainly doesn't make it contain any more or less truth, just because you choose not to believe it.
5) I would be glad to correct you on this statement. If something is proven wrong, I work to add it to my world view - a world view that still includes religion. That is the real difference between you and I.
6) His conclusion was that God exists - not sure why you even quoted that. He did do his best to dispense with God, and could not - I think that was my point.
7) Umm . . . there are quite a few very well known atheists from that time. I am sure you can Google them all. They may not have professed such views for fear of death at the time, but doesn't mean they didn't have atheist views and were willing to talk all about them. Notable ones, in case you don't care to look - Da Vinci, Machiavelli, Marlowe, Shakespeare, and quite a number who did meet death, but never gave up their atheistic views. Descarte's life was never in danger (he was sickly), even though he started out with complete skepticism as it pertains to religion. Even many of the famous ones that did die, had their writings published after their death, so am not really sure why you think Descartes' conclusions had anything to do with the "danger" of having them.

BTW - your last definition of ignorance isn't even close. It most certainly does not show a lack of knowledge to have faith in something in the face of what you are calling evidence. I think you are ignorant of the definition of ignorance. :*)

None of what you just said is worthy of an actual response. I will say that you are manipulating everything i say into whatever you want it to say. I do enjoy debating and I will concede that red's poll pokes holes in my idea, but my point still stands. What was it, 33%? Another big chunk believe in some form of god?

 

[Sbee]

if prayer worked, no child would ever starve to death. I would say that there may be something to the whole "energy" thing. I don't necessarily believe in it, but I do think that a sick person surrounded by love has a better chance of survival than a man with nobody. But then again, that could have something to do with the sick person's resolve to live.

There are a lot of things in this world that I don't understand, but I won't immediately jump to conclusions without some sort of evidence. And all the evidence I've seen tells me that prayer does not work.

prayer is therapeutic for the person doing the praying. that's about the value of it. I could pray that my putting gets better, but I think i'd be better served getting a lesson from the pro

 

[Monster]

Also, Red, if you check the most respected Scientists (National Academy of Sciences), you'll find their number to be in the 80+ range. Higher if you add in doubters and agnostics, which you should.

 

[KAWDUP]

None of what you just said is worthy of an actual response. I will say that you are manipulating everything i say into whatever you want it to say. I do enjoy debating and I will concede that red's poll pokes holes in my idea, but my point still stands. What was it, 33%? Another big chunk believe in some form of god?

Your crap was even less worthy of a response, and I still responded. You like to debate do ya? All my points stand whether you think they are worthy of your lofty opinion or not. I even posted quite a number of facts. You had none - just more of your own ignorance.

So are you done, or have you just accepted all my points?

 

[byco42]

prayer is therapeutic for the person doing the praying. that's about the value of it.

How can you possibly even begin to speculate on the benefits of prayer when you don't practice it or believe in its purpose? Or even know its purpose?

Talk about criticizing what you do not understand.

 

[Monster]

On the 8th day, God created beer and he saw that it was good. On the 9th day, God killed everyone for being drunken bastards.

 

[Monster]

How can you possibly even begin to speculate on the benefits of prayer when you don't practice it or believe in its purpose? Or even know its purpose?

Talk about criticizing what you do not understand.

you act like none of us were ever Christian and have never known any other Christians.