The belief there was absolutely nothing. And nothing happened to the nothingness until the nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and everywhere. Then a bunch of the exploded everything magically rearranged itself for no reason whatsoever into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs.
And they mock your beliefs.
And they mock your beliefs.
Citation needed. :P
And they mock your beliefs.
If you are going to copy someone, at least give them credit. You didn't write this and you aren't clever "Kurt"
shareThe belief there was absolutely nothing.
they mock your beliefs
Let's skip the bit where you don't understand what 'atheism' actually means, and get straight on to the evolution denial... What's that all about?
shareThen a bunch of the exploded everything magically rearranged itself for no reason whatsoever into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs.
You're basically doing the exact same thing that this movie does: take a straw-man fallacy with no basis in reality, and try to attack the 'other side' with it. Nothing you said in your OP is what atheists or non-christians believe, so your argument is moot.
I simply am not there...
So Film says below that there's no such thing as "nothing"... But STILL won't acknowledge an uncreated creator? Uh..uh...uh....What the heck????
https://youtu.be/cTZ1NWB32Qc
Respectfully, I don't think Film has really studied things carefully...ī¹
Okay. So if there was ALWAYS something, what or who (hint: a uncreated God) created the something that was always there?
Atheists have no explanation as to how there could always be something but that something didn't have a "creator"... Something had to come before the something which takes place of their nothing. But can they explain what that is without God?
No. It's like Hawking and his "quantum foam" which he says came before the Big Bang. He just has no clue about who created quantum foam or what created the subparts that make up quantum foam.
Revelation 22:13The atheists don't get that Jesus is the "glue" that holds the universe together....."through him all things consist" (consist meaning "hold together")
I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.
Colossians 1:16
The Supremacy of Christ
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. . 18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. 19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell; 20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things to himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.
Strawman of atheist position + argument from ignorance= Another Lena post. Respectfully.
share"Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong." - Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Respectfully....
Galena
A misuse of Rousseau, as he was referring to when all a person does is respond with an insult. I packaged two legitimate criticisms of your post with a dig at your usual posting style. It's not really an insult to point out your arguments are often logically fallacious.
share"Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong." - Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Atheists have no explanation as to how there could always be something but that something didn't have a "creator"... Something had to come before the something which takes place of their nothing. But can they explain what that is without God?
I notice no atheist will touch that very short video from Fuel Project discussing the Bible references to "hate" being okay when it is hating evil. The Righteous hate evil and love good.
Why? Because it undermines the whole Schtick of "if you are a Christian you have to sit there and let me attack" you and God theory of atheists.
Galena
I notice no atheist will touch that very short video from Fuel Project discussing the Bible references to "hate" being okay when it is hating evil. The Righteous hate evil and love good.
Many Christians? Full of hate? At what? Where do you generalize?
Here's an example. I hated Madonnas speech saying she thought about bombing the White House. Am I an intolerant Christian? Or do I get to think bombing the White House is an evil sentiment?
Ashley Judd went to the Women's March and denounced Donald Trump while calling herself a nasty woman who came to Washington to be "nasty. If I think those comments are vile, am I intolerant or can I reasonably think her spewing that verbal vomit suggests a defiled spirit?
Next, lots and lots of stories of people throwing things at people, hitting people, while wearing vagina hats, and carrying signs at the Woman's March with profanity that can't be shown on tv while their 10 year old daughters watched. Do I have a right to believe those actions stem from a spirit which is not at peace at the behavior wrong and possibly evil, or as a Christian do you believe I need to be tolerant and accept the vile behavior?
Bill Clinton raped women. But no one marched on Washington while he was president. But these women marched on Washington before Trump made ANY policy whatsoever? Can I believe Bill Clinton was evil for raping the women and abusing his power as president and also believe the march was not righteous and good because the marchers stood for the right to kill unborn babies?
So, in essence, am I hateful for hating the evil act of killing unborn babies? Or if I was a good Christian would I just take a live and let live stance?
And if it is the latter, that is why Mark Fairley says folks who say that have never read the Bible. Why? God wants us to not only hate evil and love good but to fight against evil.
Galena
So, in essence, am I hateful for hating the evil act of killing unborn babies?
You never answered the question about whether it's okay to think it is evil to hate the act of killing unborn babies. You think it is irrational? The more rational stance is to love the act of killing unborn babies? I don't even think women who have had abortion glorify their acts as logical and good.
Anti gay bigots? Why would I think those people are acting righteously? I would hate those acts as well. Now, are you talking about hating the act of homosexuality? I don't glorify homosexuality. No. I don't glorify adultery. Do I condemn those people? No. It is for God to judge and we are ALL sinners.
Do I then translate my lack of judgment of the people that do those acts (adultery, homosexuality, slander, murder) into activism to make sure they have a right to do what they want
and change laws that affect all of us? No.
Ephesians 6:12 (NKJV)
"12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age,[a] against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly realms"
You say I am talking negatively about left leaning values or something? Well, yes, I think more evil stems from left leaning values. I don't share your view that a political conservative needs to apologize for being so.
But, obviously the left believes it can effect change (at least in this country) through violence. Another evil act. And ineffective to be sure.
Galena
You never answered the question about whether it's okay to think it is evil to hate the act of killing unborn babies. You think it is irrational?
Now, are you talking about hating the act of homosexuality? I don't glorify homosexuality. No. I don't glorify adultery.
Do I then translate my lack of judgment of the people that do those acts (adultery, homosexuality, slander, murder). . .
You say I am talking negatively about left leaning values or something? Well, yes, I think more evil stems from left leaning values.
But, obviously the left believes it can effect change (at least in this country) through violence. Another evil act. And ineffective to be sure.
I don't think of them as babies. I think of them as dependent tissue.
No matter what stage in a pregnancy, would you consider the life form a human one, always in a constant state of development?
Considering it was a simple question as opposed to an argument, I fail to see how you'd rush to such a conclusion. Are you so reluctant to engage in discussion that answering a simple question now gives you pause?
shareI answered the question. Deal with it.
shareI answered the question.
I answered the question. It has been duly noted that you didn't like the answer. Deal with it.
shareOK. Let's assume you did and I'll guess it's a no. When does it become a human being, then?
shareWhen does it become a human being, then?
I do appreciate you answering, but none of that is rooted in fact or science at all. Can you back your opinion up with either of those?
shareI do appreciate you answering, but none of that is rooted in fact or science at all.
Comprehension isn't the problem here, as much as you wish it to be. I'll present it in what is hopefully a more direct manner.
When a life form is produced by two human beings as offspring and I ask when it becomes a human being itself, HOW is biology NOT involved? Can you back up your opinion or not? Hint: This is not answered by restating your opinion.
I'm only attempting a serious conversation here. If you're not interested, just tell me that.
This is a completely out of left field question that really has nothing to do with your debate. But I'd like to know. When do Christians believe a soul forms? Like when an egg or sperm cell die do you believe they have a soul and go to heaven?
Comprehension isn't the problem here, as much as you wish it to be.
When a life form is produced by two human beings as offspring and I ask when it becomes a human being itself, HOW is biology NOT involved?
Before I was formed in the womb, God knew me (Jeremiah 1:5). He created my inmost being; he knit me together in my mother's womb (Psalm 139:13). From my birth, while I was still in the womb, I cast myself into God's loving hands.
We have medical advances to make it very possible to sustain those teenie weenie preemie precious little ones lives out of the womb ... Under archaic notions of viability some woman could have had an abortion and torn that little sweet pea to shreds in the protection of her mamas womb.
Childish? Nice try Film. Your only intent in communicating with me on this board is to try to get a rise out of me (and others) I'm sure. With your witch burning comment and this one today.
Here's some reality for you. Let's hope that you are pro life. Anyone who isn't prolife, look at this 40+ second video and let me know your humanity...id love to hear your justification..
https://youtu.be/7Uz4fWYhBTk
Galena
*Free speech opinion w/ pseudonym internet moniker w/o malice for debate and discussionš
Before we start going on about archaic laws, which is ironic given your opposition on abortion, it should be pointed out for the sake of the facts (what do they mean these days, anyway?) that many states understand that scientific advancements have changed what constitutes 'viable'. Many states allow doctors to make that assessment, with numerous requiring them to prove the pregnancy has not reached viability yet.
The reason why Christians are crying for so many millions of lives lost is that medical science has progressed so far since Roe v Wade that we now have scientific confirmation that the baby is viable much earlier.
But the scriptures ALWAYS instructed us that we are viable at "go." As noted above. Although many of us just rejected it for various reasons
Did you watch the video I posted?
*Free speech opinion w/ pseudonym internet moniker w/o malice for debate and discussionš
So ignore everything I wrote so you can try and provoke and emotional response. Fair enough. Yes I did.
shareI also think you are reading Casey wrong. First it was a weak plurality decision dealing with third trimester issues and parental consent. Also it discusses stare decisis as one basis for upholding a case ruled on not to far before. But, the plurality did recognize that continuing advancements in medical technology proved that a fetus could be considered viable at 22 or 23 weeks rather than at the 28 weeks previously understood by the Court in Roe. The dissent which was strong raised the issue that there is nothing in the constitution which allows the right to an abortion.
So, the left should be very worried at this point as more than 40 years later, we know how to keep these little babies alive out of the womb and the court will most likely change very soon.
Also, something like 7 countries and the Vatican City prohibit abortion altogether. It is plausible we will see this change in my life. Come soon is what I say.
Galena
*Free speech opinion w/ pseudonym internet moniker w/o malice for debate and discussionš
I also think you are reading Casey wrong. First it was a weak plurality decision dealing with third trimester issues and parental consent. Also it discusses stare decisis as one basis for upholding a case ruled on not to far before. But, the plurality did recognize that continuing advancements in medical technology proved that a fetus could be considered viable at 22 or 23 weeks rather than at the 28 weeks previously understood by the Court in Roe. The dissent which was strong raised the issue that there is nothing in the constitution which allows the right to an abortion.
So, the left should be very worried at this point as more than 40 years later, we know how to keep these little babies alive out of the womb and the court will most likely change very soon.
Also, something like 7 countries and the Vatican City prohibit abortion altogether.
I was more focused on the dissent which questioned the Roe decision altogether. There is always a slippery slope when we start talking about 22 weeks, 25 weeks and set case law on that basis.
But once again you are wrong as obviously the doctors in this article were able to extend viability 1 week to 21 weeks.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1021034/The-tiniest-survivor-How-miracle-baby-born-weeks-legal-abortion-limit-clung-life-odds.html
You miss the entire point and miss the forest through the trees on this topic. Earlier I cited scripture about how God formed each of us in the womb. Why would science need to advance at all when God, our creator has already created the perfect human incubator?
That's what makes abortion so twisted and evil. The baby is safe and incubating in the womb. But the law is worrying about whether medical advancements have occurred to make that fetus viable outside of the womb? That's not the proper perspective. The child is viable in the womb. That video I showed you (if you dared to even watch) shows that the smallest of babies can survive for some time outside the womb. On its own for long? No. But that baby in the video was hanging on for dear life dying in that doctors hand.
But that is why there is a womb which God created to protect the child. From barbaric acts like that.
Yes, perhaps humans will one day create artificial amniotic sacs to mimic the human sac so that women will then be able to just remove all their children get tummy tucks and go through a drive through 9 months later to pick up their babies. But the dissent in Casey was correct. The issue is simple: whether this is a right women should have.
I submit it isn't.
Galena
.
*Free speech opinion w/ pseudonym internet moniker w/o malice for debate and discussionš
Why would science need to advance at all when God, our creator has already created the perfect human incubator?
But once again you are wrong as obviously the doctors in this article were able to extend viability 1 week to 21 weeks.
You miss the entire point and miss the forest through the trees on this topic. Earlier I cited scripture about how God formed each of us in the womb. Why would science need to advance at all when God, our creator has already created the perfect human incubator?
That's what makes abortion so twisted and evil. The baby is safe and incubating in the womb.
But the law is worrying about whether medical advancements have occurred to make that fetus viable outside of the womb?
The issue is simple: whether this is a right women should have.
Before I was formed in the womb, God knew me (Jeremiah 1:5). He created my inmost being; he knit me together in my mother's womb (Psalm 139:13). From my birth, while I was still in the womb, I cast myself into God's loving hands
That depends on the Christian but for me personally, I take Jeremiah 1:5 and apply it to everyone. Meaning, our souls were perhaps existent before a physical existence. I don't believe in a physical existence until conception, meaning sperm meets egg. Neither alone is a human life in my opinion.
I'm not as concerned with how the spiritual 'mechanics' of that works, though I have thought about them.
The problem is literacy in moral and ethical philosophy.
No, it's not.
Our entire conversation has been centered on physical existence (not ideological), which is based on biology, not ethics.
As an example, just because it may be my ideology that I can choose to be whatever I want and I choose an apple, does that make me a physical apple? This goes for society as well as the individual.
So, outside of ethics, when does a human being begin to exist?
The problem is that you very obviously aren't very well versed in philosophy
Any answer you offer is going to be determined by a complex web of social and political factors about which reasonable people can differ. Biology has very little to do with it.
You think this is a scientific issue because you fundamentally don't understand it.
Well...he doesn't incorporate all the foul language you do. . .[quote]
Please document the foul language I've used here. Good luck with that, liar.
[quote]"Political factors"? Really?
Says the "intellectual" who has a cartoon character in his avatar.
Would you like to walk that insult back?
Oh? Is this not childish language then?
those teenie weenie preemie precious little ones lives out of the womb ... torn that little sweet pea to shreds in the protection of her mamas womb.
With your witch burning comment
Let's hope that you are pro life
The problem is that you very obviously aren't very well versed in philosophy, so you have no idea that you are actually in a purely philosophical conversation. You are imagining that you are talking about biology. You aren't.Ā
Actually, the problem is that you can't distinguish between a human being (homo sapien) and the invented concept of 'personhood'.
My question has nothing to do with philosophy, yet you keep dragging it in.
Human beings are uniquely different than other species, in that we have our own place in Taxonomic classification.
The problem is that you are philosophically illiterate and have no comprehension that the morality around the issue of abortion does indeed depend on the concept of personhood.
Every animal has a place in taxonomic classification.
[deleted]
How do you know? I've not brought morality, abortion or personhood into this discussion at all. That's you doing that.
At what point could a scientist classify human offspring into the Taxonomic chart?
Or are you just completely incapable of distinguishing science from philosophy?
Excuse me, sparky, but you barged into a discussion that was about the morality of abortion. Thatās the context, and it makes your āscientificā queries completely off topic.
I donāt care. That has nothing to do with what I am here to discuss.
He's unemployed, and still struggling through a philosophy undergraduate program at the University of Minnesota at Minneapolis.
And he calls you "sparky" and then types, "your people skills need some work.".
Apparently these boards are the only occupation Brian can find.
Just because I started a new conversation with you by asking a scientific question does not, by default, include me into your discussion with others. That's not logical at all.
Now if you would've just told me you weren't interested in answering my question from the start, this would've saved us both a lot of time.
But this admission completely undermines your previous insistence that I'm 'philosophically illiterate'.
[deleted]
I do consider them babies. And human life. So does God.
Psalm 149This passage shows God puts us in the Book of Life while in the womb and while making us in secret. He knows us as his children in the womb and knows all our parts.
13 For You formed my inward parts;
You covered me in my motherās womb.
14 I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
Marvelous are Your works,
And that my soul knows very well.
15 My frame was not hidden from You,
When I was made in secret,
And skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
16 Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed.
And in Your book they all were written,
The days fashioned for me,
When as yet there were none of them.
17 How precious also are Your thoughts to me, O God!
How great is the sum of them!
I do consider them babies. And human life.
It's not fetal tissue. It's a baby. What is wrong with having a funeral and honoring the life of a teenie weenie that did not make it? Seriously, there is a big shift going on here. The atheists don't seem to care anymore if everyone sees them as cruel. Atheists claim to be so filled with humanity. I don't see it. But before they protested. Now, the atheists here just seem to be okay with letting their cruel intentions and minds be known. What is up with that?
Galena
*Free speech opinion w/ pseudonym internet moniker w/o malice for debate and discussionš
It's not fetal tissue. It's a baby.
What is wrong with having a funeral and honoring the life of a teenie weenie that did not make it?
If Faust was strictly referring to an unfertilized egg, then I would tend to agree with him.
But what many atheists clearly don't realize within the context of this subject is that many fundamentalists believe that the human soul is created the second the sperm merges with the egg. Which is fine. People are entitled to their beliefs.
But if someone were to ask me to present evidence that fundamentalists are wrong - I would have no evidence to offer. They could very well be correct.
Just like I can't prove that God exists, since he doesn't appear on command.
Faust is once again serving another helping of 'my beliefs are superior to your beliefs' with nothing to substantiate his claims.
Foul language and insults in three, two, one....
But what many atheists clearly don't realize within the context of this subject is that many fundamentalists believe that the human soul is created the second the sperm merges with the egg.
Which is fine. People are entitled to their beliefs.
But if someone were to ask me to present evidence that fundamentalists are wrong - I would have no evidence to offer. They could very well be correct.
Faust is once again serving another helping of 'my beliefs are superior to your beliefs' with nothing to substantiate his claims.
You couldn't produce documentation that atheists "clearly don't realize" this if your pathetic life depended on it.
Not if their beliefs fundamentally interfere with the lives of other human beings, moron.
The burden of proof is upon them to demonstrate that their beliefs are true. They can't. Case closed.
Please cite exactly one claim I've put forward which lacks evidence.
You give those folks a free pass.
you are about as interested in objective reality as Donald Trump. Certainly, your standards are no better.
The majority in America are apprehensive to support abortion
Pew research
Pew research shows 57% of US citizens support abortion in all or most incidents. 39% oppose it in most or all cases. Even a break down of religion showed white evangelical protestants to be the only group to have over 50% opposing.
29% under any circumstances.
I'm always amazed at what you consider to be honest polling.
Alleged killing babies would be an interference in other people's lives.
What burden.
The assertion that God doesn't exist.
Fetal tissue isn't a baby, idiot.
The burden is to prove that people have souls. You don't even know what you are arguing for moment to moment, so you?
manure for brains
The standard atheist position is that since that lack of evidence and basic incoherence in the very concept simply makes the existence of a god staggeringly unlikely.
Unfertilized, and I would agree, fool. Fertilized, and it's a controversy, unethical and illegal. I wouldn't put anything past you when it comes to handling the unborn.
Show the irrefutable evidence that souls don't exist.
The scientific community has stayed clear of that challenge, so you're on your own.
That isn't how things work
The burden is upon those of you
In fact, the scientific community has addressed this issue, and the conclusion of an overwhelming majority of scientists and philosophers is that souls don't exist
The issue isn't even controversial anymore, and hasn't been for decades.
[deleted]
No, there is no burden upon people of faith.
This is Faustus5 personal information and identity:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/brian-peterson-12951a70
Minneapolis, MinnesotaThis means the loser is in his late 40s/early 50s and spends his whole day posting trash in this board. If you need to find any extra information you can start at:
Printing
Education
University of Minnesota-Twin Cities
University of Minnesota-Twin Cities
Bachelor's degree, Philosophy
1986 ā 1991
650 Third Ave South, Minneapolis, MN 55402or ask at the Cenveo office in Minnesota.
And you're posting this ... why? It looks like someone is taking the internet too seriously.
shareThis is Faustus5 personal information and identity:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/brian-peterson-12951a70
Minneapolis, MinnesotaThis means the loser is in his late 40s/early 50s and spends his whole day posting trash in this board. If you need to find any extra information you can start at:
Printing
Education
University of Minnesota-Twin Cities
University of Minnesota-Twin Cities
Bachelor's degree, Philosophy
1986 ā 1991
650 Third Ave South, Minneapolis, MN 55402or ask at the Cenveo office in Minnesota.
the loser
And you're posting this ... why? It looks like someone is taking the internet too seriously.
LinkedIn profiles provide this, but I don't see anything in his IMDb profile that would direct you to his LinkedIn profile. (It looks like the BeliefNet profile with the same user name provided the link.) Most of us have an expectation of some degree of anonymity here, and that someone won't go sleuthing around and publish our personal information here. (Without too much trouble I found an email address for this person, but it would certainly be well out of bounds to post it here.)
sharesupposedly giving out someone else's personal information and identity.
Dear The Point
Sorry for writing again, but once more kurt has completely missed you. I'm starting to question whether he does it on purpose or simply doesn't understand what's going on? I think I'm going to plump for option two there. Please forgive him, he knows not what he does. And I'm super cereal about that.
Yours sincerely
Still shocked by his ineptitude.
I suggest you read what TopFrog has posted.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4824308/board/thread/265238474?p=4&d=265936598#265936598
But once again, kurt rushes to the defence of a troll.
it is interesting.
No, there is no burden upon people of faith. This is just more of your arrogance.
Two different polls have stated that a very large percentage of scientists believe in a God and afterlife. So now you're caught telling lies again.
What an ignorant comment.
If you want to see bottomless arrogance, take a look in a mirror.
Religious belief does not get a pass to be free from the standards of evidence we apply to everything else in life.
Talk about telling lies; you reference polls and then donāt cite them. Given what an intellectual lightweight you are, this makes me doubt they even exist.
Show your evidence that God doesn't exist, or walk back your bold claim that God doesn't exist.
Even though I'm not a huge fan of Pew Polls. . .
. . .they did conduct a poll a few years ago stating that a very significant percentage of scientists attend places of worship and believe in a god or creator.
By the way Faustus, no university, university department, or sensible scientist has announced that there is no God.
And the burden of proof, as I explained earlier, is always on the person who says āX existsā for any and all Xās.
Thatās how reason and science work
Translation: youāll cite them only when they tell you what you already believe. When they donāt, they are flawed and useless. Got it.
No one would be that stupidānot because they are desperate for money, but because that isnāt the position of most atheists. The standard atheist attitude towards the existence of god is that a) there is no evidence for any god and b) the concept is so incoherent and silly as to be unworthy of serious consideration. So we see the existence of God as so absurdly unlikely that it is effectively, though not literally, at near zero probability.
Only according to militant atheists who don't make rules.
The rational wing of the scientific community stays out of the religion issue, because that's not their field
Actually the atheists on this board are aware of the Pew Poll which asked:
burden of proof lies with the person making the claim, whether we're talking about God, Bigfoot,
Because 'God' is an unscientific claim - it's unfalsifiable
You dismissed Pew Research as biased
You just made a claim. Back it up or walk it back.
Prove it or I'm unimpressed.
I found another poll that was far more accurate where they actually sat down and talked to scientists for poll interviews. But the Pew poll also supporting my premise.
It's an issue of logic
Let's say my car is stolen by an individual. One neighbour tells me Bob stole it, the other says it was Bill. I have no reason to believe either would lie. Who do I believe?
God claims do none of this.
'Oh it says in his image, but what it means is God put evolution in motion'. So rather than being falsifiable the goalposts move to try to keep the original claim relevant.
So rather than being falsifiable the goalposts move to try to keep the original claim relevant.
while simultaneously asking someone to back up their claims.
But Pew Research only shows 33% of scientists believe in God. You'd know that if you weren't reading Huffington Post and went directly to their research.
Only according to militant atheists who don't make rules.
The rational wing of the scientific community stays out of the religion issue, because that's not their field. Why is that so difficult for you to comprehend?
Actually the atheists on this board are aware of the Pew Poll which asked. . . .
Again....most intelligent scientists simply stay out of the religion issue, because they have nothing to gain by doing the same thing you've been doing on this board.
It's an issue of you making assumptions
I know you, so believing you is ruled out, since you're a dishonest troll.
You still haven't proved that God doesn't exist.
God does not speak to jackass atheists
you have no idea if mistakes were made when the Bible was written... This is why the Bible is INTENTIONALLY incomplete.
So if i don't agree with you, I'm guilty of committing sins against science? lol I didn't realize you were finished writing 'Everything you need to know about science.' lol
Deviates: - "YOUR GOD DOESN'T EXIST BECAUSE HE WON'T APPEAR BEFORE ME ON COMMAND, THEREFORE THE 'LOGIC ASSUMPTION' SHOULD BE THAT HE DOESN'T EXIST!"
I'll try it again...the Pew poll, [even though I think it's not totally accurate], does show that A NOTEWORTHY PERCENTAGE OF SCIENTISTS BELIEVE IN GOD AND OR THE AFTERLIFE'. Another noteworthy percentage didn't know one way or the other.
Another poll I looked at indicated that even more scientists believe in God and or an afterlife. Great.
I said Pew isn't my favorite polling resource. So what. Pew did prove that dip sticks who actually believe that ALL SCIENTISTS CONSIDER RELIGION TO BE FAKE, are militant atheist wankers who don't know what they're talking about. Because 33% is a lot more than 0%, and 51% is a lot more than 33%. Bite me.
But you don't believe there's any evidence that God exists at all, so wtf difference does any of this have to do with you in the first place????
what the burden of proof is, which strangely you seem to only understand when it suits your argument.
You've made the God claim - back it up.
I've never said nor argued that.
But 59 is bigger than all three of those numbers, and that's the percentage of scientists who said they don't believe in God in the Pew research.
Not that there's no evidence, but that the evidence isn't sufficient to suggest such an entity exists.
You have the burden of proof, or simply type that you don't know if God exists and leave.
Pretty easy to see that your ancestors fell out of trees.
My claim will be backed up when you're fried in hell.
Liar
Percentage of sniveling atheists who'll be begging for forgiveness on their death beds.
Pathetic lot.
Then why are you on another GND board ranting?
Your attempts to police the board aside
So you have no evidence,
you're starting to believe your own B.S.
I'll take that as the second concession made in your post that you wrong.
if atheists disagreeing with you upsets you so much why are you still here?
Cosmo said that typing "b.s." makes you a potty mouth
Still of the belief that 'bullshĆt' isn't a swear word kurt?
Answer the question kurt. Are you still of the belief that bullshĆt is not a swear word?
And no, because deviates hasn't been criticising others for using profanities whilst being completely unaware of their own constant use of foul language.
Deviates types b.s. as an expression.
Go hound him about it hypocrite.
You have no evidence deviates. busted again.
Cosmo said that typing "b.s." makes you a potty mouth deviates.
No one is stopping you from professing your atheism right in front of God's face.
yeah I'm really upset
I have no evidence for God, correct. Do you?
And you think I care because...
Other than the possibility he doesn't exist, you mean.
Good to see you're becoming more honest with yourself.
Learn how to read properly, you dopey fĆ¹ckwit.
shareThen your proper response should've been, you simply don't know. Unless you have proof God doesn't exist? Because then you'd be making a bold and unfounded claim again.
...you keep coming back for more. Normal people would have moved on in 2014.
Then why would you spend years on these boards if God doesn't exist?
Tragic to see you lie in every post.
One of the commandments is to not murder.
You never answered the question about whether it's okay to think it is evil to hate the act of killing unborn babies
Many Christians are full of hate
the Bible references to "hate" being okay when it is hating evil. The Righteous hate evil
To say "God did it" is to say absolutely nothing of substance. It is the lazy evasion of the intellectually bankrupt.
I already quoted the Bible on the "reasons"...alpha and omega...beginning and end. An UNCREATED God... We believe in an uncreated God. There is nothing before him that could create him because what is before him and after him is simply HIM to eternity.
As I stated in the quote about Jesus, "through him all things consist..." That is, through Jesus, all things hold together. Right now he is in a state of creating. He has his finger (not a human finger...this is a metaphor for his power) on creation and the universe is
expanding.
At the end of days, he will simply take his finger off of creation and things will no longer "consist", i.e., hold together. Things will break apart. The Earth and Heaven (universe) will disappear and then as promised he will "make things new again" by creating for us a new heaven and a new earth.
But, with one difference,.... The fallout from the rebellion in heaven and the chaos of Apollyon will be gone (he will be thrown into the lake of fire with those unbelievers who follow Apollyon and reject God) so that there will be eternal peace in Jesus.
Galena
I already quoted the Bible on the "reasons"...alpha and omega...beginning and end. An UNCREATED God... We believe in an uncreated God. There is nothing before him that could create him because what is before him and after him is simply HIM to eternity.
We differ in one important respect. I have faith in God and you don't. My faith has opened my heart, soul, etc to the Holy Spirit which has given me insight into how the puzzle fits together.
Not trying to be being mean, saying you don't get it but you don't. You can't because the Holy Spirit is like a seed that grows.. You have thus far rejected the Holy Spirit (it seems although only God knows your heart and he may be working on you)
But if true that you have thus far rejected the Holy Spirit, If you ever opened your heart to it, the Holy Spirit would gradually open your eyes and allow you to see the world differently.
The Holy Spirit would guide you through the Bible and give you inherent insight to show you
how the Word makes sense in the context of the history of the world, to see where and how bible prophecy has been fulfilled, and to see how
current events all play a role and circle back to the Word.
Yes, to someone who does not have faith in God or the Holy Spirit, it may seem circular. But how can you explain information hitting your senses like lightning that seems to just give you ears to hear and eyes to see how it fits together?
It can't be measure by human instruments. And if that is the test of atheists then perhaps that is where the stalemate will have to lie.
But I hope one day the spark hits you and puts you on that wondrous journey. It is truly magnificent and brings peace to your soul that cannot be described. You just have to sit there and say a prayer asking God very simply to show you through the Holy Spirit. That's all.
Galena
We differ in one important respect. I have faith in God and you don't. My faith has opened my heart, soul, etc to the Holy Spirit which has given me insight into how the puzzle fits together.
There's no point. Why bother arguing with a closed off (in essence) wall.
No offense. It is just a Waste of time.
Galena
There's no point. Why bother arguing with a closed off (in essence) wall.
what you call 'insight' I call credulity.
Not sure how any of your post had anything to do with you backing up claims made in the Bible with quotes from the Bible.
What you call credulity, we called deviates roasting in hell.
Not sure if you'll be a sniveling atheist on your death bad begging for God's forgiveness some day
which is why I never waste my time quoting scripture to a heathen.
but thanks for the additional example of credulity.
But given how often you bring it up, you've obviously spent along time contemplating it.
it says more about those who use it than you clearly realise.
No atheists in foxholes?
Nice quick summary of some relevant research.
More atheist baloney
Poor deviates. In a few short decades/years you'll be asking God for the forgiveness of the comments you've made here.
You really do make an arse of yourself every time you disregard research with what equates to sticking your fingers in your ears.
If your God exists and is really so petty as to care about these message boards then you'll still be begging by the time I reach those pearly gates.
It's a researched fact that when the front line is bombed and shot at, they pray.
You'll be sniveling to God too when you're close to death, deviates.
No...no...no. It's the fact that you're in denial that God even exists that will get you cooked.
Not sure if you'll be a sniveling atheist on your death bad begging for God's forgiveness some day, which is why I never waste my time quoting scripture to a heathen.
I don't believe in God but if he did exist I don't think he'd appreciate such hateful and harsh words,
You seem to actually like the idea of hell and hope your "enemies" go there.
You seem to actually like the idea of hell
That says a lot about what kind of person you are.
Deviates and cosmo aren't my enemies. They're my shadows. They follow me everywhere.
Have you stopped pouring through my posting history yet?
Or maybe you're still struggling along hoping that deviates starts posting on more boards so that you can follow him around the site?
I don't recall inviting you, deviates or film to the GND 2 board, and you're not invited to the GND 3 board when that's available.
Is this the same kurt who claims never to speak on behalf of others? I think it is!
Where was I speaking for anyone else?
Yes, I'm the new admin here. Your ranting access to this site will be revoked on 2/20/17, and you will be required to get a life.
shareI didn't.
I figured all your porn visits would make me ill.
don't recall inviting you, deviates or film to the GND 2 board
you're not invited to the GND 3 board when that's available.
Quoting God and proudly stating you don't believe in him all in the same sentence. No self awareness?
Which would seem like a strange undertaking since you don't believe in God anyway. Why take offense then? If God doesn't exist in the atheist alternative universe, why worry about hell?
There isn't one quote from "GOD" or the Bible in my opening post.
The fact that you believe in a place of eternal torture and think that not believing in God is a good enough reason to send people there is extremely disturbing.
I would say that's quite an offensive thing.
And it does say a lot about you and the way you view the world if you think that's acceptable.
Doesn't matter that I don't believe in it because you do exist.
And I have to share the planet with many like you.
God's rules - not mine...
Reject God and you're on your own, demon bait.
God's rules - not mine.
How would it say anything about me when I didn't author the Bible?
Why would you quote God if you don't believe in God. Why would you even be on this board or have watched this film if you don't believe in God?
God's rules - not mine. The Bible is clear. If you deny God's existence, you don't get an invite into the kingdom of Heaven because....you don't believe it exists in the first place. Reject God and you're on your own, demon bait.
How would it say anything about me when I didn't author the Bible? You make no sense.
What?
You're motives for being here are bizarre at best.
I quote Harry Potter but i don't believe in him. You do believe in God, hence the discussion.
Yeah and Hitler
and it makes it even more disgusting that you would stand up for a God who has these rules.
Would you send someone to Hell for not believing in you? Most likely not, which makes you a better person than your bible's "God".
According to the bible you can do whatever you want but as long as you get saved you can go to heaven.
Yet you can be a kind person and not believe and you go to Hell?
Again another disgusting thing in the bible.
You know good and well that throughout history religion has been a constant detriment to society. That is a fact. It has caused countless deaths, Ignorance and blind hate etc.
Christians constantly try to shove beliefs on us through legislation. People like you try and affect the way i live based on your religion. Period.
Do you wanna investigate my post history???
Here comes the Hitler reference.
The bigoted militant atheist
think both films were intended for Christians
Oh, are you a Christian again kurt?
What I share in common with many Christians is that I basically liked the GND films.
yes, I'm allowed to talk about Christians or atheists. It's called free speech. Something the lawsuit happy U.K. lacks.
So basically your entire post is deflecting from my point that you are "appealing to authority" to hold disgusting beliefs just because it's in the scripture you believe in. Just because "God says so" people deserve Hell for something so minor as simply none belief? That's what makes your belief system disturbing and disgusting.
So would You send people to hell for simple non belief? I'm not asking about what the Bible says I'm asking if it were 100% up to you. If you answer yes that means your beliefs are extremely disturbing. If you answer no that means your own morals are better than the God you believe in..... and I have no idea why you would continue to worship such a being. Either way that means you believe in or justify some awful things.
That is an extremely wild assumption on your part
If you're referring to the Christian Bible, it's capitalized. If you're a militant atheist, you intentionally avoid capitalizing it. You're busted.
BANG! And there it is. The bigoted militant atheist credo rears its ugly head. All social ills are blamed on religion.'
You commented on Gods Not Dead
...my point that you are "appealing to authority" to hold disgusting beliefs just because it's in the scripture you believe in.
Please tell me that religion hasn't been a detriment to society throughout history with a straight face.
Do you also believe that false facts should be challenged when this whole point is based on opinion?
Lots of things bring out the hate and evil in people.
Why are you singling out religion?
Can you honestly tell me that mankind is not the root problem instead of religion, money, weapons, political power, racism, etc.?
My opinion that it's an ultimately disgusting belief system as far as hell goes? Yea that's an opinion. Or do you mean something else?
Because we are having a debate about religion lol.
And I will 100% agree with you that mankind is the root of the problem.
[deleted]
to hold disgusting beliefs
So would You send people to hell for simple non belief?
But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven, but is guilty of an eternal sin."
Would you care to refresh my memory with a link Kurt?
It depends on what you mean by Militant..
I don't hold the belief that religion should be outlawed lol.
Please tell me that religion hasn't been a detriment to society throughout history with a straight face. It's a fact. Whether you're talking about Christians, Islam or even state religion.
What beliefs do I have that are disgusting?
The Brits on these IMDb have a huge problem with this word.
That atheist are 'disgusting filthy animals'. Then there's the Anglophobia. Also the homophobia.
Have you managed to find a definition of it that doesn't completely rule any of us out as being 'militant' yet
Then start behaving like a civilized Brit, and you'll climb the evolutionary ladder. And yes I believe in evolution, unless that's disgusting. And notice that I made the distinction that you're not a civilized Brit, even though the majority of Brits are civilized. So much for the "anglophobia" hyperbole.
And I couldn't care less if you're gay, cosmo - and no I'm not interested in dating you.
And yes I believe in evolution, unless that's disgusting.
Militant atheism - is a term applied to atheism which is hostile towards religion. Militant atheists have a desire to propagate the doctrine, and differ from moderate atheists because they hold religion to be harmful.
You are hands down the single most rude individual I've encountered on the internet
insist on replying with a barrage of insults.
that completely clears that majority of us, certainly Film, deviates and myself, from being militant atheists. I assume this now means we no longer have to put with attempts at calling us that as an insult?
You're welcome.
You resemble that remark.
The post clearly defines your militant atheism as well as your Brit friends.
I can't believe that you consider yourself to be civilised.
As always, it's all about context kurt.
find examples of the three of us being 'hostile towards religion'
Read the news report I just posted about the U.K., and the feeling is mutual.
You're giving me a lecture on context when you haven't even seen this film?
The context on this board is to watch the film and comment on it. Are you really this stupid?
I've already done that on numerous occasions.
Actually kurt, the 'context' of these message boards is to contribute to any threads that one feels the need to contribute to.
Having seen this film or not has no bearing on the conversation at hand
So you went back two weeks just to show that you don't actually know what trolling is, just that you think it's anyone who holds an opposing view to your own. Not to mention that you still don't know how internet message boards works, or how different people make use of them.
shareYou didn't even see this film and admitted it. Why are you here again? Can you even think of a legit reason for being on this board? I'll wait....
Trolling: it's not a complicated concept, you English muffin.
Can you even think of a legit reason for being on this board? I'll wait....
Brian to the rescue.
ī¦ ī¦ ī¦
Brian you better get to work on your philosophy homework if you want to graduate before you reach 50.
You didn't even see this film and admitted it. Why are you here again?
Can you even think of a legit reason for being on this board? I'll wait....
Trolling: it's not a complicated concept, you English muffin.
Why are you here again?
I'm a member of IMDb. There, you can stop waiting now.
Proof, if ever it were needed, that you only see whatever you want to see, not what's actually written down. Maybe respond to the last section of the post, which explains how interesting discussions have been had, at least wherever you've not been involved. Are you prepared to finally admit that you don't actually care about discussing films, as evidence by the insane amount of OT threads you've made, and are mostly here so that you can argue with atheists?
And you still patently don't know what 'berate' means.
And you still patently don't know what 'berate' means.And you still patently don't know what 'berate' means.
admit that you don't actually care about discussing films
Every film that I've commented on was formally and thoroughly assessed by me
Lets say I accuse you of being a filthy troll and not even human. Would you invite me to your house? Doubt it.
But interesting that you first commented on this board, going back to September, and you continue your bashing to this day. Strange that you allege to even have seen this film, since most of film and TV favorites have extreme violence, like 'Saw', and other disgusting projects. And then you claim the Bible is disgusting.
Individual men and women caused those problems. Not Christianity.
You're right I wouldn't invite you to my home. But I wouldn't turn around and send someone to beat you up as an alternative. Or send you to a place of eternal torture. That's an extreme alternative.
I didn't choose to be born here on this earth.
Kurt.... dude..
But God also made it clear in the scriptures how you can get a trip to hell by turning your back on God. God's rules - not Kurt's. If it were up to me, I'd send atheists to Heaven and listen to them explain away their good fortune for being there.
he has been assuring people that good people, yes even good atheists, can still go to heaven.
Only if they denounce atheism and repent
Apparently good people of all kinds can get into that heaven which you prize so much.
Read much than fundamentalist blogs?
I already quoted the Bible on the "reasons"...alpha and omega
I had you on ignore for many many months. I took you off of ignore yesterday or the day before.
Galena
So Film says below that there's no such thing as "nothing"... But STILL won't acknowledge an uncreated creator? Uh..uh...uh....What the heck... So if there was ALWAYS something, what or who (hint: a uncreated God) created the something that was always there? Atheists have no explanation as to how there could always be something but that something didn't have a "creator"... Something had to come before the something which takes place of their nothing. But can they explain what that is without God?
The atheists don't get that Jesus is the "glue" that holds the universe together....."through him all things consist" (consist meaning "hold together")
And at the end of time, Jesus will simply "let go" and the universe will collapse according to Revelation at which point the old heaven and the old earth will cease to exist and a new heaven and a new earth will be created.
Atheists keep searching for what holds the universe together. But the answer is in Colossians 1:16. It is Jesus. He is Alpha and Omega and through him all things consist.
I appreciate your explanation Film as to your distinction. My question would be whether you have ever studied eschatology?
Or bible prophecy? I get that people have a problem with the idea of some man like figure in some other dimension controlling every aspect of life on Earth. The whole part of "in Gods image" from Genesis is still a mystery as to what that means. And when we are in the New Earth receiving our promised glorified bodies, what exactly will a glorified body be at the molecular level. Will it have flesh cells as we know it or will it be similar to our minds being able to project (through pure energy) a solid hologram image etc? Yet another mystery which we don't know on our earthly plane.
But, does it move you at all the coincidences in Bible text and world events? Or do you dismiss them? For instance, can you deny that the beginning of world history of man seems to focus on that small area of land in the Middle East which bible scholars say is the exact location of the garden of Eden where civilization began.
And, that for thousands of years, which is the time we know of the known history of man the fight has pretty much been over the little strip of land in Judea where the Jews and arabs are still fighting. It lines up with thousands of years of specific bible prophecy. For example, Isaac (root of Jews) vs. Ishmael (root of Arabs) as brothers and sons of Abraham in a perpetual rivalry and war.
That for instance Noah's ark was supposed to have landed on Mt Ararat, and when the snow melts on an area on the mountain, folks have documented being on the ark, and even the Russian Czar, etc.
Or, now, end times folks talk about the coming new centralized government with the Pope taking over and on September 27 2015 the Pope and Obama signing on to Agenda 2030?
I can't split hairs with you on every Bible prophecy. I won't. I type my posts on my phone. But the gist is my question whether you can see any pattern development at all in world historical events and prophecy of the Bible?
To believers, i.e., someone like me, I watch archeology shows and history etc and it is truly amazing how bible prophecy lines up and is lining up. I'm not saying Jesus is returning tomorrow. But, I believe the Bible is true and history lines up with prophecy. It's not coincidental. Too many things have been properly predicted and cannot just be random.
How do you explain it?
Galena
*Free speech opinion w/ pseudonym internet moniker w/o malice for debate and discussionš
My question would be whether you have ever studied eschatology?
Yet another mystery which we don't know
can you deny that the beginning of world history of man seems to focus on that small area of land in the Middle East which bible scholars say is the exact location of the garden of Eden where civilization began
And, that for thousands of years, which is the time we know of the known history of man the fight has pretty much been over the little strip of land in Judea where the Jews and arabs are still fighting. It lines up with thousands of years of specific bible prophecy
when the snow melts on an area on the mountain, folks have documented being on the ark, and even the Russian Czar, etc.
end times folks talk about the coming new centralized government with the Pope taking over and on September 27 2015 the Pope and Obama signing on to Agenda 2030?
But the gist is my question whether you can see any pattern development at all in world historical events and prophecy of the Bible?
I'm not saying Jesus is returning tomorrow
. But, I believe the Bible is true and history lines up with prophecy. It's not coincidental. Too many things have been properly predicted and cannot just be random.
How do you explain it?
[deleted]
Nice over simplification of science there buddy...
Like "god did it" is the most rational answer for life's questions....