Evolution a new revelation?
Posted on: September 11, 2012 - 10:49pm
Offline
Evolution a new revelation?
Nowadays it seems the theory of evolution is used by some atheists to give meaning to their worldview, it has to be understood that the theory of evolution does not go as far as these atheists oftentimes take it. They attempt to use it as some kind of justification for metaphysical claims such as: ‘’God is superfluous to requirement’’, ‘’the universe is meaningless and blind’’ As such, the theory of evolution does not provide rigorous basis for these claims. Yet the atheist persists, this is why Darwin’s theory is so precious to him, because he uses it to bridge some gaps in his ideology, its gives him a robust scientific basis on which to launch unjustified assumptions. Just look at all of the atheist forums, all of these have sections about evolution, sometimes large sections are devoted to this. As for myself, I take a different path. To me evolution is a mechanism created by God to which the life matter of this world is bound; it is a natural law of this world, of the same type as gravity etc. As a catholic I see no problem accepting the theory of evolution as fact, as the great John Paul II said: if the body comes from pre-existing matter the soul is of God. Just as the body matured from infant without reasoning capacity or strength so did the human race, and along with this maturity comes responsibility. Our responsibility to turn ourselves towards God and to search for him with all of our heart, only then will him who dwells within us be revealed. Know that if the universe was meaningless we should have never found out it was meaningless, just as if we were in total darkness at all times we should of never found out about light. So I invite you to reflect, where does this idea we have that the universe is meaningless come from? And where can we find ultimate meaning?
O Beauty ever ancient and so new,
Too late have I loved you!
You were within me, but I was outside to seek you. Unlovely myself, I fell heedlessly upon all those lovely things which you created.
And always You were with me, but I was not with you.
Created things kept me from you;
yet if they had not been in you they would not have been at all.
You called, you cried,you broke through my deafness.
You blazed, you gleamed, and you drove away my blindness.
You breathed your fragrance on me;
I drew in breath and now I long for you.
I have tasted, now I hunger and thirst for more.
You touched me, and now I burn with desire for your peace.
Amen
- Login to post comments
why is it always darwins evolution, evolution today is evolved over the last 150 years, from genetic information and DNA evidence to the tons of fossil finds, however it is only a tiny part of atheism, in reality you don't even have to accept it to be an atheist, you simply have to not believe in or deny the claim that god or gods exist. Which I do, after that, the reasons why vary, from lets admit the fact that there is a huge lacking amount of evidence for god, to showing the fact that many parts of the bible never happened. That and the myth that is jesus, the contradictions in the bible, to the problems with the description of god or gods that most people use to justify their beliefs in god or gods. Amoungst other things, but evolution isn't a worldview, some may try to use it, but the reality it is a fact of nature like you said.
Our existence is ultimately meaningless because it doesn't serve any need it doesn't create, it's like deliberately becoming a drug addict for the purpose of getting to satisfy your addiction.
The universe is not meaningless from the human perspective. As for ultimate meaning - what is that? You would not know you'd found ultimate meaning if you tripped over it. We lack the context to know such a thing. The idea the universe is meaningless comes from the irrational and fallacious strawman arguments theists try to pin onto atheists. That the denial any proof exists for a god means the universe 'has no meaning'. Please define meaning, please define god and please define the universe or confess you are the lord of all assertions.
In addition to mistaking assertions for facts, the human-hating bishop of hippo loathed the pursuit of objective material knowledge. "In the Confessions, the Bishop of Hippo made inquisitiveness in general the subject of a vicious polemic, thereby setting the tone for the debate over intellectual curiosity for centuries. Augustine included curiositas in his catalog of vices, identifying it as one of the three forms of lust (concupiscentia) that are the beginning of all sin (lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, and ambition of the world). The overly curious mind exhibits a “lust to find out and know,” not for any practical purpose but merely for the sake of knowing." http://williameamon.com/?p=185
To me, Augustine's words attest to his bizarre and unsupportable delusions. But the fact this repulsive religious bigot found beauty in the material world supports my argument that there is subjective meaning on Earth aplenty.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
It seems to me that atheists rarely even bring up evolution, it is just the favorite thing that ignorant theists like to attack. The only times I have really seen atheists bring up evolution or the big bang is when discussing some new scientific discovery related to the theories. Even in arguments with theists I do not think I have ever seen an atheist argue that evolution or the big bang proves there is no god. Instead, it is almost always brought up in the context of "well if there is no god how do you explain X"
Theists seem to like to attack them as if proving either theory false would somehow prove their god exists. Despite a growing amount of evidence and a more advanced understanding on how either one probably happened, theists remain hung up on Charles Darwin and a kindergarten level understanding of the theories. So sites like this one have large sections filled with detailed information in the vain hope that theists might actually care to educate themselves. That requires a theist to be intellectually honest, which you obviously are not. But when you are ready to stop lying to yourself and are interested more in facts and evidence than fairytales we will still be right here.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Damasius,
Evolution is just another facet to where is this god you speak of. Evolution is not an atheist discovery, but a human discovery.
This has been going on for the past 400 to 500 years.
The bible says the earth does not move, that the sun goes around the earth. This is in a God-breathed book so it must be right, right?.
Whoops. Along comes Copernicus, Galileo, Bruno and they say something different. The latter gets burned at the stake by those who refuse to accept the obvious. So why did God tell us through His word these such a thing. It will take 400 years before the Catholic church apologizes for that one. John Paul to Galileo.
Science continues...
God controls all things. If you get struck by lightening, God is punishing you. Along comes Ben Franklin and his lightening rod. Are we controlling God? Or is that another place God doesn't exist like we thought.
God punishes us by using diseases. Science finds out about micro-organism. Wait I thought that was controlled by God. How can we have any influence over it and cure and prevent diseases? I guess God is not their either.
God surely controls earthquakes. Science identifies plate teutonics. We know exactly where earthquakes will happen. Why isn't that more random influenced by God's personality instead?
Newton laws show that space is not absolute. The earth is not the universal rest point. God is absolute. How come space is not?
Einstein shows space/time is relative. How can that be? Wasn't god very specific in the bible. 6 days to create the universe.
Well, we know that God only created life once in 6 days. No new species should happen. Along come Darwin who wasn't the first to come up with it, but the first to really document it in great detail, life evolved. New species were "created" many times over the course of history and many different places in the world, not just the garden of eden. Why does the bible say it was only created once? What is all this about "kinds" when we see evolution crossing that supposed barrier?
Well, the bible says the universe is only 6000 years old. What's the deal? Science in many areas of study shows the universe and earth are much older than that.
So, it is not evolution. It is everything humans continue to discover. Everything in the literature of the bible is getting dismantled. They wrote God was intimately involved in everything. The bible even says God controls the rolling of each dice. The early scientist were Christian or Jews. They studied nature thinking they would find God, but each discovery pointed out "God is not here". It wasn't atheist discoveries.
But some Christians just couldn't deny this stuff anymore and had to pick up their goal post and move it out. Catholics and higher protestants have done this. Fundamentalist have not and they are only looking crazy especially when they try to become "scientists".
An atheist sees where the end game is going. After 500 years of slowly picking up the goal post and moving them out over and over, the atheist says, "There simply isn't any proof of a god and until then I see no reason to worship something that apparently has no existence or footprint"
So until you show some hard evidence I will find meaning in my life with education, my family, my friends and my hobbies. No god need apply unless he makes some kind of effort.
Religion Kills !!!
Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/
Damasius,
All you have to do now is show how atheism is a worldview (let alone my worldview).
I'm not a big fan of eating liver. Is anti-liver-ism my world view too?
As for meaning to existence, you get what you give. Since you can't define God in any meaningful way can I say that God adds no meaning to your worldview?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Why does life have to have an "ultimate" meaning ? Why is it so hard to grasp that I was born, I will die, 100 years from now no one will remember me ? So where do I find meaning ? Well, to quote Neil Armstrong : " We all have a finite number of heartbeats. I don't want to waste any of mine."
I have got one shot at life and only one, that is where I find my meanings.
I wasted my entire childhood and part of my young adulthood believing in god and I too was a good catholic.
Now, I see no evidence for belief in god.
I knew next to nothing about evolution until I started reading Dawkins and Gould. I had stopped believing in god before I knew anything about science. But, the more I read and understood about science, the more that it made sense.
I could turn this argument around and say that I find the life of theists and the worldview of theists to be a depressing existence. To live in the belief that some dictator in the sky wants you to praise it, thank it and worship it, your whole entire life for the sole purpose of living forever is depressing.
How pointless would it be to live your whole life on a whim that your going to live forever somewhere else ?
And even if my former faith were true, how could Paradise be any place of Paradise after 100 years ? 200 years ? 1,000 years ? It would be futile and it would be pointless. Who would want that ? An eternity of existence ? Whether that eternity of existence was suffering (hell) or bliss (heaven) it would be a futile place.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
re:: What possessed you to this (as a Catholic).
I have eyes and I can see the original OP included a poetic portion. But for my personal benefit, fore I am finding harder and harder to see what possessed you to come to the board in the first place. Perhaps in answering something it might be made clearer to me. Bit off topic but would you mind telling us in detail what your 'eschatological' bent is ? There is a method to the madness (so to speak). The purpose is to understand better your actual motivations and how that caused you to arrive at the board. It doesnt get any more transparent than that. Please answer these two questions, especially about your own view of the end Times.
(We've already been through what Prozac was doing in this statement)
My journey lead me to Atheism. So, I would say that Augustine and I have nothing in common.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
Well, its true evolution changes troughout the years, but some of its central and essential claims are the same. As for your claim that a massive ammount of evidence for God is lacking, I beg to differ, it depends on what kind of evidence you are looking for. I for one think that God does not make available the kind of evidence that could be sufficient to establish his existence without a shadow of a doubt, scripture is very clear on this issue. If everyone were able to see God just like that, then we would not have any choice but to believe, and God does not work like that, he wants our love and out belief yes, but he wants it from a free choice, and I strongly believe that he who seeks him will find him, just as I did. As for your second claim, '' things in the bible never happened'' it has to be know that by the catholic tradition, scriptures are not read litterally, it takes a certain ammount of tradition and also a certain amount of deep thinking. This is how the old testament is not old but made new with what is revealed trough this non litteral interpretation and a honest and serious search for the truth. Its easy to take events like the biblical flood, and gloat at them because of the absence of scientific evidence etc, but if we read them seriously their inner meaning makes itself apparent to the reader, this is exactly the job of theology, to appreciate and squeeze out this inner meaning. People who wrote the bible back then had a very different way of transmitting messages and information, one of these ways was trough mytical stories and parables. Some of the writting in the Bible is historical in nature and other aspects are doctrinal etc.
So in order for us to make a "free choice" God intentionally withholds information from the creatures he supposedly loves. Sounds like a dishonest prick.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
So in other words, that is like having three or four children, abandoning them at birth, and saying that I love those three or four children very much. But, I only will reveal myself to the ones that are honestly looking for me ? BTW, I ferverently prayed on my knees every morning, attended early morning mass everyday, had Bible readings at the family dinner table, and was a good altar boy. I spent hours in the bell tower of my church on my knees ( I would not put my knees on the comfortable places to kneel, I wanted them on the concrete floor to cause discomfort while I prayed to venerate my love of god) praying to Mary and Jesus. I walked barefoot in the snow one time and never touched any meat on Fridays during Lent, I even considered the Franciscans at one time, because I thought there could be no greater glory than poverty, chastity, and denying oneself all of life's pleasures for god. Well, no god ever revealed itself to me. It was all a lie and a deception. And the Catholic Church loved keeping the guilt about my feelings of wanting sex with women heavy on my head, guilt for a white lie, guilt over stupid things. So, please explain that one to me since you have IGNORED my previous posts. Why no miracles, stigmata and revelations for me ?
So your religion ( and my former one) has the right interpretation and correct way to read a bunch of superstitious myths and fables with perverse lessons involved in them, but all those moronic Baptists and Pentecostal assholes do not ? Granted, I have no love for those Baptists, Pentecostals, Methodists, Muslims, Buddhists or any other religion that venerates horseshit. But I always find it interesting how the religious people are good at the "No True Scotsman Fallacy."
You have heard of that Fallacy right ?
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
You need to pay more attention to your Wonder White, Harley. The lord has been sending you toasted pareidolia for decades...
Jesus: Tastes best with honey
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Ahh ! That's it. I never toast bread. That's why I never got it. Damn. Seems like if what the OP states is true and god reveals to those who seek, he should have known that I never toast bread and revealed himself on a window or something.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
Well that's the issue with belief, it requires no real evidence. It requires faith in which there is no evidence for. Second, literal or not if the events did not happen then it amounts to nothing more than myths and fiction. As such, then if you have no evidence that can be tested to be true, of verified, you have nothing more than an imaginary friend. All this deep thinking, honest search for truth is nothing more than smoke and mirrors because it fails to provide actual testable evidence. The job of theology is nothing more than to talking about myths and the meanings of the stories, it however does not make much for reality and evidence that god even exists. If god exists, then there should be evidence for god, the description for god throughout the ages has always been nothing more than myth, smoke and mirrors that gives no real evidence.
Then I challenge you, or any Christian. Anybody. Bring in the big guns. I challenge anybody who cites this book as a divine authority, to do the following. Go through the whole thing, and tell the world right now which verses are meant to be taken literally, and which are not, and the reasons why in each case. That is all. I realize this is a massive undertaking, but so many people in the world cite this book today as evidence for something, that I feel it's important. I have full confidence that were somebody to do so, one of following will happen: Either (at least) one of the verses cited as a "literal verse" will be proven to be not indeed the truth, or everything that IS left in the factual column, will be nowhere nearly enough for anybody, other than those on the verge of complete diagnosable mental insanity, to frame their entire lives around.
The bible has an absurd amount of contradictions (both intra-testamental, and inter-testamental, for lack of words that I didn't invent just now, I'm sure you know what I mean here) and an absurd amount of alleged historical accounts that have been conclusively disproved by historians and anthropologists. That's just the things we know for sure. There is an even larger percentage of content that is thrown into considerable doubt (but not disprovable today, and perhaps never due to how long ago the alleged events took place).
Also, latincanuck, respect for a fellow Canadian atheists, but I have to split this hair and mention that evolution technically does have absolutely nothing to do with atheism. While this sort of thing would normally not bother me when it's mentioned, linking the two does a whole lot to help the theists with the "atheism is a religion" claim, because then they throw Darwin in as a saint, evolution as doctrine, etc. It's true that atheists tend to accept the theory as fact, because it simply is. The only reason to deny it is massive mental disorders, or religion (although both reasons tend to boil down to an absolute inability to understand it, combined with a compulsion to believe something else that is incompatible with it).
Harley, I pretty much have gone through every single bit of mental anguish related to religion you outlined in your post. I say very similar things whenever people ask me "what's the harm?".
Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.
Re : .. teetering on the counterproductively absurd:
Damasius I know your busy but I would still like an answer on what I previously asked about (no rush).
We all in agreement then, no then I'd be wrong to say this. Ironically, You are the type of Catholic the Protestants would take issue with; when the Catholics are almost always saying "'Protestants don't believe anything'". As to your interpreting the passages. You dont seem to realize how teetering on the counterproductively absurd your statement is or to rest on this and in so leave people with 'this' in actuality. Taken to its' extreme you might as well be saying it's all one giant fable outside of a minor portion that could be considered historical. Exactly 'how' is it made new again ? Moreover, In this you are being vague, to such a degree, it flat out tops anything Saint PAUL the Apostle ever wrote about the descriptions of 'Heaven'. It is sad you'd even try this, it's that bad. Maybe in saying this, it will tease out some more information. And if 'the soul is from god' (your OP), what is the state of the 'soul'?.
Like what, for example? 99% of all creationists don't have the slightest clue what evolution actually is, so before going any deeper into the question I need to know if you're one of the ignorant ones.
Ah, good. You understand there are various types of evidence. And you grant there is no empirical evidence to corroborate a god, or lack thereof.
This is where I disagree with you. Indisputable evidence of gods existence might require us to believe he exists, but not that he is good or worthy of worship. Not to have faith in him. That choice would still be ours.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
By denying us that choice, he denies us free will.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
More evidence that you either never read the Bible or don't know how to interpret it in proper context. Chronicles 16:30 in context is a passage of thanksgiving to God for a world that He is in control and can not be overthrown. God did design an order to this universe. It's a long stretch to claim that the passage means that the earth doesn't rotate.
And good evidence is out there if you are willing to seek it. Here's just one example of a miracle healing. This guy had a massive stroke and it was healed completely within days. Story is complete with photos of scans, and the doctor's name. You can look it up, and he is a real neurologist in Ft. Worth. I find it hard to believe that a respected doctor would conspire with this patient to make up this story, but I guess that's the fiction you must spin in order to deny God's healing power:
http://www.awmi.net/extra/healing/moore
1. Actually it's evidence that he's not desperate to add context that isn't in the scripture. Given the writers' knowledge it's easier to believe that he was thanking God for ruling over a stationary, disc-shaped earth than to believe that God gave him any knowledge of planetary rotation.
2. Evidence leads to repeatable, testable results. Miracles don't. The body can do amazing, inexplicable things om its own (no god needed). And no, it doesn't surprise me in the least that a "respected doctor" who is likely a Christian would ascribe such a healing to God while throwing the work that the hospital staff (including himself) under the bus. If you have a headache, take an aspirin, pray and the headache goes away what do you give the credit to?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Still not answering those other questions I see. Are you still on vacation or something ?
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
Wow, you don't stop huh? The honest truth is I stopped posting out of frustration dealing with this website. It was taking several minutes to load a page, even got timeout Gateway errors and this was happening on different ISPs. It appears to be responding better so maybe I'll attempt longer replies.
The writers of the Bible often used metaphorical language to illustrate their points. Certainly Revelations is the greatest example of this. No one believes that the author is really taking in a literal sense about the pillars of the earth and such. When Jesus said that you are the salt of the earth. He wasn't talking about physical salt either. If you believe this then you are biblically ignorant.
Miracles exist when the evidence has shown that a completely different outcome should have happened. Your scientific evidence shows nowhere that stroke victims can suddenly be 100% cured with no problems. If the healing was solely the work of the doctor and staff, why don't we see more cases of this happening? Where's your evidence explaining that?
Again, you're adding to what isn't there. Poetry doesn't change the fact that they used words that describe the earth as flat and disc shaped. Especially when they had a word for spherical objects. The only one revealing ignorance of his holy book is you then again, that's typical. It amazes me how many Christians come to atheists to learn of their holy book - don't you read the thing yourselves?
By your definition, winning the lottery would be considered a miracle of God. Are you sure you want to go there? I never said that it was solely the work of the doctors and staff (I did say that God believers like to throw out the work they do you stawman maker you). As I said before, the human body can do some amazing things. Cancerous tumors can vanish to nothing in spontaneous remission. Not having evidence for something yet simply means that we have more work to do. It doesn't mean that we slap "Magic man done it" on the file and stop thinking.
Nut, hey, if your happy in your intellectual laziness, stay happy. The rest of us will keep moving forward.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
i bet god did this too...
www.metro.co.uk/news/730184-sacre-bleu-stroke-cured-my-sight
praise the lord he can see again.. But why did god take away his ability to speak french i wonder?My husband had a stroke in Oct 2010. The doctors said he should have been paralyzed on his right side, be unable to speak, and have memory problems. Unlike the guy in this story, he did not go to the hospital in less than 72 hours because neither of us realized my husband had had a stroke. So my husband did not get the special medications and support needed for a good prognosis like the guy in this story. And guess what - my husband is not paralyzed, he speaks just fine, and his memory has a few small holes in it, but he is capable of remembering both short term and long term.
We are both atheists and neither of us bothered to call on your imaginary friend at any time during the 4 days he was in the hospital.
Big deal.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
For all I know, your doctor could have been a quack who made a grave mis-diagnosis. At least my story presented proof that a stroke really had occured. You make it sound like it's perfectly normal for strokes and tumors to just magically disappear. Where's your scientific evidence explaining how it happens?? You'll accept any retarded explanation as long as you don't have to give an ounce of consideration that God just might be real.
And for all your arrogance, you can't prove that God is imaginary. I know it makes you feel superior to make such baseless claims. God is very real. I've seen Him speak to people, change people's lives, and miracles even more amazing than this story.
You've actually seen all this ? What does god look like ? What does he sound like ? How is he gonna change lives without interfering in our free will ?
(That is only four questions. You should be able to answer those)
Only four.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
Nope, I am having too much fun to stop. Why don't you stop ? Cause your having too much fun with all of this, just like me.
However, if you started answering those questions. Then you'd be forcing me to stop.
That would spoil all the fun.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
baseless claims...
this is a doozy...
Ad hominem and fallacious appeal to ignorance. It is not arrogant to point out that no empirical evidence exists that proves the supernatural. Nor does the inability to disprove your baseless claims about things that cannot be known give your flock of data-less hypotheses legs to stand on.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Oregon Health and Science University does NOT have quacks on board. Just saying. I would send you his fMRI (I have the CD), but you wouldn't understand it if you saw it.
My husband's stroke did not disappear. It is still there in his brain. Doesn't go away, the neurons don't regrow. And neither did they regrow for the guy in your story. He still has a dead spot or two if you did a new fMRI I would bet.
However, the neurologist told me that the brain usually does recover from a stroke, unless the patient is already more than half dead. Neurons do not regrow, but our brain can and does make new connections around the damaged area. You retrain your brain, and it obligingly sprouts new dendritic connections. And, sure, I could link various scientific papers for you, but would you read them?
Start with The Accidental Mind by David J. Linden. Page 131 has photos of a living mouse neuronal dendrite as it gains then prunes a dendritic spine. Printed with permissions from the original paper -
A. J. Holtmaat, J. T. Trachtenberg, L. Wilbrecht, G. M. Shepherd, X. Zhang, G. W. Knott, and K. Svoboda, Transient and persistent dendritic spines in the neocorte in vivo, Neuron 45:275-291 (2005).
For a first person account of a massive hemorrhagic stroke that was had by a Neuroanatamist, see http://www.drjilltaylor.com/
Her book, My Stroke of Insight, was very helpful to me after my husband's stroke. Even though hers was hemorrhagic (caused by bleeding) and my husband's was ischemic (caused by blockage).
Please do not bother to argue with me until you have read either or both books. I hate deliberate ignorance and I won't discuss any of this with you if you persist in not learning.
And for your last paragraph, I've seen people talk to themselves before. I attended church for a number of years. Talking to yourself is what you do in church. Didn't take me long to figure it out. And I grew out of needing imaginary friends before I was 10.
edit: fixed quotes
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
I LOVE your logic. "Your response pretty well destroyed my completely baseless argument that 100% of people who suffer a stroke have SIGNIFICANTLY obvious deficiencies in brain function and can not recover. I'm going to say that your doctor's perhaps a quack". So you make a baseless assumption about a doctor who is in a position to diagnose a stroke based on your refusal to accept any evidence contrary to your god, then complain at the end of the paragraph that we refuse to accept any evidence that is for one (which isn't true, we just usually find that the evidence is poor).
I can't, but I can show you that god being imaginary is most probable. It doesn't make us feel superior to make baseless claims, it makes us obviously superior that our claims do indeed have a basis, and we can support them with evidence. No he's probably not real. If you've seen him, you were probably suffering from some medical issues for which you may want to visit a quack doctor. What language did he speak, and what other amaaaaazing miracles are you going to wow us with?
Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.
If god was performing a miracle, why wouldn't he just wave his magic wand and make the brain damage disappear? Why did it take 9 days before he could be released from the hospital?
The fact is that recovery for stroke victims varies wildly. Some recover quickly, others very slowly, some die, some have significant permanent damage, most experience recovery fastest during the first 30 days, some have been known to experience sudden rapid recovery years later. There are a lot of factors and doctors cannot yet explain why some people recover much faster than others.
Pointing at something like this and screaming MIRACLE! is the same mistake as the caveman who saw rain and called it a miracle. Just because you don't understand it, does not make a miracle. No one claims that we have anywhere near a perfect understanding of the human body. Rather than declaring Alan's case a "miracle" we should be analyzing it trying to figure out why he had such an above average recovery rate so we can find ways to increase the recovery rates for others.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Still living up to my "atheists are jerks" stereotype, huh? Oh, you poor narrow minded atheists. You can only comprehend things in a physical nature. I guess you only believe in things that you can experience with the human senses huh? God changes lives when people are willing to turn away from sin. Of course, they are still free to return to that sin.
You forgot that God is all knowing. There are unknown factors and life experiences that you can not possibly know about. Perhaps God kept him in the hospital longer so word of the healing spread to a person who was lost. The story was the catalyst that led them to go to church and find salvation. I am sure Alan Moore would agree that a small inconvenience was worth a soul being saved.
God won't force himself on people, but He will open up doorways and pathways for people to find Him. Of course, atheists immediately slam those doors shut because they hold so much contempt and anger against Christianity. It is quite evident in almost every post on here.
Unless you can explain how a man can fully recover from severe brain damage 100% within days, I call it a miracle, one of many. 1/3 of this man's brain was damaged. How is it possible that for the brain to repair itself so quickly? The man didn't even go through a rehabiltation process. He even returned to work quickly.
You assume there is an scientfic explanation for everything, but there's not. That's the last straw you have to grasp.
I guess English is not your first language. The earth moves in every conceivable way, not just rotation. You are typical. You bend the natural meaning of bible text to fit modern understanding. The Christian goal posts continue to move. LOL.
I suppose you don't know what a tent is. To help you understand, it covering over flat ground. Earth sets on its foundation. LOL
FYI - trees don't sing. FYI-Bible is poetry and literature, not a science book.
Religion Kills !!!
Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/
And you forget that if god is all knowing free will is impossible.
You're not going from "A man fully recovered from a stroke" You're working from "A preacher said a man fully recovered from a stroke." . Got news for you - preachers anf faith healers will lie to you all the time if it keeps the offerings coming in. That's a lot more plausible then your claim that cj's husband's doctor must be a quack.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Oh yeah right, all knowing. So god could have saved the poor guy the pain of having a stroke in the first place, but because god wanted to satisfy his own vanity and get credit he allowed it to happen. If a person runs into a burning house and saves a child we call them a hero- if a person sets the house on fire and then runs in and saves the child we call them a lunatic. I guess god is a lunatic.
Nah, he won't force himself, he will just burn you in hell for eternity because you hurt his ego.
Once again all you illustrate is your ignorance. Sometimes people recover quickly from strokes, it is documented and scientists work to understand why some people recover quicker from others. The story you posted is simply an illustration of an outlier on the positive side (while you ignore the poor people who are outliers on the negative side, does god just hate them?)-
http://stroke.ahajournals.org/content/32/12/2867.full
Then by studying why some people recover more quickly than others, scientists develop new medications, so other people can recover quickly as well. Like Tenecteplase
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1109842
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-22/stroke-study-makes-treatment-breakthrough/3905512 (a summary in case you are too cheap to throw the medical journal a couple bucks)
This drug helps people recover from severe strokes in a matter of hours.
God- 9 days, Dr. Spratt- one hour. I guess Dr. Spratt didn't see a need to drag out the process to massage his ego and make himself look like a dramatic hero.
I do assume that and so far religion has had to concede that much of what was supposedly done by gods has a perfectly sound scientific explanation. I see no reason to assume that things that remain a mystery to us today will not eventually be understood. It is far more likely that there is a scientific explanation for everything and we are just ignorant now than there is some super magical being waving a magic wand. I am glad that people like Dr. Spratt are looking for explanations and finding solutions to our problems rather than shrugging and saying "God did it" and leaving the fate of people in the future up to pure chance. If everyone thought like you we would still have witch doctors making ritual sacrifices and a lot of people would die.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Your the one that said you had "SEEN" ( a human sense) "HIM" (gender identification) "SPEAK" (sensory perception) to "PEOPLE" (a reference to witnessing an actual event. Now, if you were meaning this in some ambiguous, metaphorical sense, you should have said so.
But at least you did not dodge the questions this time. I am very proud of you. I actually think there might be hope for you after all. Please visit often and post soon ( when your not busy and on vacation of course). BTW. Was the Tower of Babel outside of the human senses and that is why we can not prove it ? That's just ONE question.
You replied to the previous FOUR. So, this should not be too difficult.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
AHA, caught you in a lie you evil atheist. Trees do sing and I have PROOF.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-i7ieHgmSqg
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Wow so you have personally seen Mr. Moore's most recent MRI scans to conclusively say as FACT that he as a dead spot? Umm no, it's more assuming on your part to find some way to dismiss this miracle. It doesn't matter what miracle story I present or the degree of hardcore evidence. You're going to reject it immediately.
You still have ZERO proof that God is a figment of my imagination and I am really speaking to myself. Are you seriously suggesting that atheists are the only sane people out there? 95% of the US population is delusional?
Sarcasm will get you nowhere. I'm done addressing your immature vomit. Take it elsewhere.
Still living up to my "atheists are jerks" stereotype, huh ?
(No Subject)
By not finishing out what stereotype might you be living down to ?
Ah, the old sensitivity is starting to show through.
Well fuck you if you can't take a joke.
You ARE a joke.
You dodge questions and fail at debating,
Now, you can ignore me all that you want, but I am gonna be here to REMIND you every time that you dodge the bullet.
For the benefit of all reading since your to dense to get it.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
You don't address facts. Sarcasm seems to be the only thing you respond to.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
You haven't seem the MRI either (assuming for the moment that you're not him or a family member). Miracle claims are not evidence - you really should learn the difference.
I don't have proof that your God is a figment of your imagination though I do have strong circumstantial evidence. Isn't it uncanny that your God agrees with all your decisions?
Are atheists the only sane people? Probably not. But we do seem to be the ones who seek knowledge instead of being satisfied with magic claims.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
I think we're getting away from the real issue here, and that's whether or not trees can sing.
I watched a documentary film a while ago that talked about tree communication and it was really interesting, it was based on an earlier study by a linguist...most of the time nothing could be recorded on scientific instruments except a rustle of leaves and a weird groaning sound, very low pitched and spooky, but there were some really short guys that claimed they could communicate with the trees.
It wasn't ever resolved though, they lost their funding for the study when all their gold was re-directed towards the project at mount doom. I hear Peter Jackson is working on another one to finally get to the bottom of the issue.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
No, it's citing information we have on the nature of strokes, and the aftermath of them for our brains. However, we can argue about this all day, so simply answer the following. Is it wrong for us to question god's methods? Say this same person who was miraculously healed all of a sudden had a second stroke, and it was one that did not kill them, but did incapacitate them significantly. Clearly, according to you, god has demonstrated to us already that this person is worth saving. However, the second time, it didn't happen. What then? "Mysterious ways"?
We have zero proof that god is a figment of your imagination in the same way that you have zero proof that I'm not a superhero. We're not suggesting that atheists are the only sane people out there. In fact, many theists are of the more moderate variety, and while they may occasionally appeal to the sky-daddy, they wouldn't make claims like "I've heard him speak". One of the most difficult things in losing faith is that the finality of death is certainly downplayed in pretty well every religion. I know many people who are more or less in that exact position; they don't want to drop the whole thing, because they don't want to believe that when we die, that's it. I wouldn't call those people delusional, but on that particular subject they are deluded.
Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.
Your assertion has no clothes on...
Yes, this is true but it does not mean you can just make up narrative to explain what is unknown.
Assertion sans pants...
Assert, assert, assert...
Ad hominem fallacy...
No, TWDry, we don't grasp at straws. When we reach the end of our understanding we say 'I don't know'. And then we wait for more evidence.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck