what faith you
Offline
You can't prove there isn't a God. You believe it - I believe you are sincere - but that's your faith. You can't prove it.
I believe there is a God. I believe He designed, made the world and everything in it. I believe the sun, moon, stars, and penguins show great design - just to name a couple.
I think you guys have more faith than I do when it comes to believing preposterous stuff. My hat's off to your great faith - it's just illogical faith to me.
Man could not even make one acorn or one bee - this is evident to you guys. You can't explain magnetism or gravity - yet you think there was no designer? Great faith I say.
Offline But you dont know Mephi in person. Has he indicated that he blocks all these things. He has indicated that he believes completely in ID . But not enough that he blocks everybody's education in Biology class. So that is enough to affect you and take a passionate ,faithful stand against him , so much that you and some others resort at various times to verbal violence and insults. The insults poured on to him and the attributes given to him by you and some others (collective frenzy), everything is indicative of a deep faith , a wounded faith.
This is a fallacy of equivocation. Firstly, the reason we are very angry with Meth is not because of wounded faith as you postulate, but rather, as you see, he has absolutely no clue whatsoever how to debate. A genuine debate goes like this
A: Claim
B: Counterclaim
A: Rebuttal
B: Rebuttal to Counterclaim
A: Rebuttal to the Rebuttal of the Counteral
This is how a debate with meth goes:
A: Claim
B: Rebuttal
A: Repeat Claim
B: Repeat Rebuttal
A: Repeat Claim
B: Repeat Rebuttal
ad infinitum.
The insults come because of his ad nauseam fallacies, which are considered the lowest of the low in professional debating, except, of course, for ad baculum fallacies.
The claim of "atheism requiring faith", "design being true", "God as a necessary predicate" were all refuted by me. If the debate is to continue in any measurable way, then Meth must counterrufute me...that is how debate works. Thus far he has not done this. Actually, he has refused to do this. That is why he is being insulted, so please do not come and make assertions which are purely rhetorical in nature, sans substance or argumentative form.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Offline But you dont know Mephi in person. Has he indicated that he blocks all these things.
Nor doe he/she know me, but that didn't stop him/her from making false and unknowable claims about my life ... Do you not see the irony in this? We are simply responding to his/her claims, which are without merit ...
I'm off myspace.com so you can only find me here: http://geoffreymgolia.blogspot.com
Offline But you dont know Mephi in person. Has he indicated that he blocks all these things.
Nor doe he/she know me, but that didn't stop him/her from making false and unknowable claims about my life ... Do you not see the irony in this? We are simply responding to his/her claims, which are without merit ...
I'm off myspace.com so you can only find me here: http://geoffreymgolia.blogspot.com
I'm getting really tired of your incessant ramblings and assertions. We have fucking explained things to you. We have shown you why we can't beleive in nothing, thats preposterous. Now get off your damn self-rightius holier then thou horse. I am also really fuckign tired of your fucking incessant projections. Your last post was almost a complete fucking projection. Read what deludedgod gave you, actually fucking read it, ask questions about what you don't understand instead of asserting that he didn't explain a fucking thing. Listen to what people are saying, instead of sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming jesus jesus jesus when ever your preconceptions of atheists are proven wrong. now get over your fucking self and actually fucking discuss.
Ok i'm sorry for all the cussing everyone, i am just fucking tired of his incessant projections.
I think I share this with all of you: I, like you want to invest my life in buying the best pearl regardless of cost. When I studied (on my own) about Jesus - I found the best pearl. I believe in Jesus and what He did - not only when He was lifted up, but when he came down low, approachable, humble, washed the disciple's feet, touched lepers, treated down and out women with respect. Jesus has the very imprint of the God of the Bible. Therefore I choose the God of the Bible.
I now have a living relationship with Him (He's alive - all power in Heaven and earth have been given to Him).
Mephibosheth (decision is refreshing)
Now you're changing the subject. That had nothing to do with jcgadfly's question, let alone the original accusation: a tu quoque projection of "faith" onto atheism. Until you start presenting something of substance, you're not even going to register.
magilum,
The only way I am changing the subject from your view is answering the question directly.
I answered JCgadfly's question as to how I found the God of the Bible - which was through faith in Jesus. When I found the God of the Bible through Jesus I found the God who designed the universe.
I didn't find what God is like through the design, only that God IS. I found out what God is like through Jesus - who perfectly represented Him - like a bridge from this world to the next. Over troubled water.
Mephibosheth (I'm serious)
That's not an answer, that's tautology. You believe because you believe; you found the answer by withdrawing the question.
Deludedgod,
I read your ad ignoratum (must be Latin) treatise.
I admit a lot of it went over my head and I'm evidently too ignorant to understand most of your reasoning capabilities.
That does not have any application to my faith in God and Jesus.
I guess you are convicted, convinced of your lukewarm atheism (neither hot nor cold - your description). I can live with you having your position for yourself.
Now, would you want to read Ecclesiastes and get a feel for the life experiment of the search for what is best for man to put his whole heart and soul into - searched by the wisest man (other than Jesus) who ever lived (we're not saying Solomon applied it, just had it)?
Mephibosheth (headache, but everything else ok)
I decided to take your offer up and write a much simpler account of evolution without technical language. It answers your question on why biological engines need no design. I am already complete. It took me barely one hour. Here, I shall show you: http://www.rationalresponders.com/appears_designed_is_a_contradiction_in_terms_the_fundamentals_of_biological_evolution
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Deludedgod,
Here are a couple of excerps from that:
"A ketone is very simple. It is a carbon with a couble covalent bond to an oxygen. Because a carbon has a valency of four, there are two open spaces in this molecule for bonding, which is how it attaches to the ring of the sugar. An aldehyde is more or less the same, except it has a hydrogen attached to it, leaving only one free space. The sugar in DNA has an aldehyde.
(I had always wondered about that)
There are many, many bases in nature, almost 100, but DNA uses only four. And within those four are two quite different classes of bases. The purines are heterocyclic, meaning that they are actually composed of two rings, not one. Many notable molecules are purines (like caffeine) and their importance extends beyond their part in DNA
(Now you're talking!! I'm glad you included this coffee break)
Here is an excerp from what I believe was written by God and applies to life:
"I the Teacher, was king over Israel in Jerusalem. I devoted myself to study and to explore by wisdom all that is done under heaven. What a heavy burden God has laid on men! I have seen all the things that are done under the sun; all of them are meaningless, a chasing after the wind.
What is twisted cannot be straightened;
what is lacking cannot be counted.
I thought to myself, "Look, I have grown and increased in wisdom more than anyone who has ruled over Jerusalem before me; I have experienced much of wisdom and knowledge." Then I applied myself to the understanding of wisdom, and also of madness and folly, but I learned that this, too, is a chasing after the wind.
For with much wisdom comes much sorrow; the more knowledge, the more grief.
I thought in my heart, "Come now, I will test you with pleasure to find out what is good." But that also proved to be meaningless. "Laughter," I said, "is foolish. And what does pleasure accomplish?" I tried cheering myself with wine, and ebracing folly-my mind still guiding me with wisdom. I wanted to see what was worthwhile for men to do under heaven during the few days of their lives.
I undertook great projects: I built houses for myself and planted vineyards. I made gardens and parks and planted all kinds of fruit trees in them. I amassed silver and gold for myself, and the treasure of kings and provinces. I acquired men and women singers, and a harem as well- the delights of the heart of man. I became greater by far than anyone in Jerusalem before me. In all this my wisdom stayed with me.
I denied myself nothing my eyes desired; I refused my heart no pleasure. My heart took delight in all my work, and this was the reward for all my labor.
Yet when I surveyed all that my hands had done and what I had toiled to achieve, everything was meaningless, a chasing after the wind; nothing was gained under the sun.
Mephibosheth (just enjoyed two cups of hetrocyclic two ring purine)
AA ketone is very simple. It is a carbon with a double covalent bond to an oxygen. Because a carbon has a valency of four, there are two open spaces in this molecule for bonding, which is how it attaches to the ring of the sugar. An aldehyde is more or less the same, except it has a hydrogen attached to it, leaving only one free space. The sugar in DNA has an aldehyde.
ketone is very simple. It is a carbon with a double covalent bond to an oxygen. Because a carbon has a valency of four, there are two open spaces in this molecule for bonding, which is how it attaches to the ring of the sugar. An aldehyde is more or less the same, except it has a hydrogen attached to it, leaving only one free space. The sugar in DNA has an aldehyde.
Your point being what? I included some of the most rudimentary biochemistry regarding DNA because it is necessary to give a complete and succint explanation of evolutionary mechanisms. This is a very simple topic to explain, but it does require just an inkling of understanding how DNA works and forms.
Anyway, the biochemistry was just a small part of the actual article. Most of it dealt in pop dynamics and speciation.
If you do not like the descriptions, why not pictures?:
Aldehyde:
Ketone:
Phosphate:
And, since you brought it up....
Caffeine:
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Deludedgod,
You know I'm starting to like you. To me you have turned over mountains and gone into the bowels of the earth and uncovered cobwebs of designs not seen by ordinary men.
You have turned darkness into light far away from man, and searched alone, swinging to and fro - for earth secrets.
Your designs in your quest to empty God of His glory just magnify it in greater detail!
My point is, sure, you find God with your microscope and petre dish, DNA and the cafeine connection, but you find God revealed worlds more clearly in Jesus. Jesus is what you're really looking for. Jesus is where satisfaction is really at.
The Spirit of Jesus is all through the Bible, even in the excerp I typed for you which would pick you up in the process of your search. If you would put your intellect to work understanding God through the Word of God and Jesus (the Word made flesh, the Living Word) - you would get the picture (and it wouldn't look like the periodic chart).
Mephibosheth (rational, responsive and found)
Keep deluding yourself.
MattShizzle,
I admit I have neglected you.
The picture I have posted I think is interesting because I was showing interest in building things at a young age, and it turns out due to the bipolar challenge after becoming a Christian I ended up leaving school and finding my trade, wife, and life.
I guess if I misrepresented your beliefs - whether you believe in "nothing" or "something nothing" or "nothing something" - I don't really know since about all I've seen you bring to this discussion is the above.
Perhaps I haven't appreciated you for what you are. What are you?
I'm sure I have been worse than any name you have tagged me with, but fortunately for me I have had all of my sins washed away in the blood of The Perfect Lamb of God - so now I'm a saint (according to my faith and God and His instruction booklet). And I have the tee shirt.
I guess I have overlooked your depth and lack of guile - how you are surely not "deluding yourself" and have now come to a high level in your quality of belief in (your name for it here) such that you are able to be at peace with the world around you and, bearing said fruits, treat everyone you encounter with respect - like you would want to be treated.
I'm glad you have found what works for you, satisfies you, makes you whole, and illuminates you -such that you look kindly down from above on the hoy paloay with an sympathetic and understanding view.
I hope things go well with you in your belief in -whatever, sorry again - and it continues to lift you up to greater and greater manifestations of indications that you have found it - whatever "it" is or "is not", wherever "it" exists - if it exists - for whatever reason as you surely well know and understand.
yours,
saint Mephibosheth ----(hoping for your continued evolution of reason and quality of life)
I simply believe in the natural world. I disbelieve in anything supernatural. I believe what is moral is that which is helpful to my fellow humans and what is immoral is that which harms them. I don't believe in spirits, ghost or gods.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
Meph, you're just a dishonest, incoherent turd floating in my drink (to paraphrase Bill Hicks). To recap this thread, you made an accusation you failed to back up. You claimed that it takes faith not to believe in something. The lack of evidence isn't enough to make non-belief fair to you, you want some assortment of facts that totally exclude the existence of something that seems defined around the idea of being untestable. You could define any invisible, undetectable thing, and defend it in the same way -- and people do, which is why we have so many dumbass religions in the first place. It's time to put the childish things away, Meph.
Pointing out a lack of evidence for God's non-existence is kind of like saying you believe in Santa Clause because he's never knocked on your front door to tell you he doesn't exist.
We watch "Way of the Master" so you don't have to.
Visit us on MySpace!
I hate the term "design". Design implies there was conscious intention to the process of biogenesis. While indeed the process of evolutionary mechanisms are intricate and highly complex, I view the arisal of life and of consciousness as simply a mathematical inevability of the existence of terrestrial planets, not that they were willed into being, but rather are mathematically guaranteed. Indeed, what strikes me as odd as to why people cannot understand the principles of Darwinian evolution is that the mathematics behind it, of natural selection and phylogenesis, are so simple a child could grasp them
It is what I get paid to do.
My interest in "emptying God of his glory" is nonexistent. Rather, I merely wish to defend what the facts support. The facts support evolution, not design. Whether or not "God exists" is an irrelevant question in a biology debate. Indeed, there is no reason to suppose that just because the mechanisms of Darwinian evolution are most certainly an accurate description of how life came to be, it does not logically follow "God does not exist". This is a non sequitur. Rather, it merely refutes an a posteriori argument for God, that from Design. It renders the God entity an unnecessary agent in the creation of life, but I came to the conclusion of God not existing through other means. I defend evolution not for the purpose of mocking a nonexistent God, but rather a defence of scientific fact.
Unless you are talking about Spinoza's Pantheism, I do not "find God" when I am at work, if that is what you mean. And by the way, I don't use microscopes and petri dishes very often. That is bacteriology. I use gene microarrays, protein sequencers, electrophospherelisis and electron microscopy.
I do not understand how you could possibly have misconstrued my statements as "finding God".
What I do find is the intricate beauty of nature, but I, unlike you, keep a cool head over this and do not attribute this beauty to magical thinking. Rather to mathematical law and natural principles. Indeed, Feynmann once said:
To those who do not understand mathematics, it is difficult to convey a sense of the beauty, the deepest beaty of nature, if you wish to understand the universe, you must know the language she speaks -Richard Fenymann
So I, unlike you, you see, do not discover any truth whatsoever in an ancient compilation of fairy tales written by men who concurred in the most amusing falsehoods about what they thought was reality, but rather in the law of science and mathematics.
My apologies, but you must understand that my training is in the scientific method, and this has drilled into to me to such an extent that I must hence present you the following questions before I can accept your claim:
Is it testable?
Falsifiable?
Valid Hypothesis?
Quantifiable?
Experimentation and peer review?
Workable?
Cohesive?
Evidence?
Again, you must understand that before I accept such a fantastical claim about the nature of the universe, I must be presented with an equally extraordinary amount of evidence. That is my principle. I am a scientist. I work with what can amount to the criterion I lsited above. Any other empirical claim is gibberish to me.
Being that you are so blatantly proselytizing now, I may as well point out that mere assertion is the bane of any debate with me, for I shall simply point out that without veracity, the claim has no measure of rationality.
I can tell you that to me, as a scientist, understand the universe and the truths contained within is a process of validation by which we glean laws and truths and relationships describable and quantifiable through mathematics. However, the tale which you present me is a fantastical tale of magic, supernatural, and confusing metaphysics. Indeed, anyone with my training would simply dismiss it out of hand. Most scientists I know would be horrified at the prospect.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
"saint Mephibosheth ----(hoping for your continued evolution of reason and quality of life)"
"I'm not the guy you signed this for but...
Saint Mephibosheth? Arrogant much?
Anyway, thanks for the blanket hope for the continued evolution of reason and the quality of life. I am at a loss, however, to see how reason can evolve once it is abandoned in favor of faith.
"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'm sorry if this has been covered but ... just to jump in here ... Mephibosheth, do you consider the fact that you do not believe in Zues, Krishna, the Great Juju, Anubis, Al-Lat and other gods faith too? In otherwords, do you have faith in your disbelief in Thor?
I mean, do you see your own bias by creating a false duality or binary between 'belief in Yahweh' vs. 'not believing in Yahweh' while simultaneously ignoring the facts that (1) it is unreasonable to believe in a claim for which no evidence is presented and (2) in a rather disingenuous way suggesting that only the god of the King James Version can be disbelieved ...
I'm off myspace.com so you can only find me here: http://geoffreymgolia.blogspot.com
Why are you guys still talking to mephidiot???
Time to ignore him until he starts using that peanut he calls a brain.
Dont bother Mephidiot, I wont be returning to this thread.
We must favor verifiable evidence over private feeling. Otherwise we leave ourselves vulnerable to those who would obscure the truth.
~ Richard Dawkins
Well, I was interested in his answer on this point ... I'm ignorant to how one could, without the slightest tinge of irony, claim that lack of belief in something unproven is faith and not realize that he or she must, by that logic, have an infinite amount of faiths simultaneously - i.e. faith in the nonexistence of:
I'm off myspace.com so you can only find me here: http://geoffreymgolia.blogspot.com
Because I like to read it when someone pompously trumpets their lack of a brain?
"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 can believe what you're drinking but you didn't get it from me or what I believe. You need to change wells man.
jcgadfly,
It's not bragging if you can do it. I can't. Jesus has done it for us. All Christians are saints according to True Authority.
Do you think your reason will keep you company forever? The unseen things are the eternal things.
Mephibosheth (I have faith - but not faith in faith. I have faith in God in Christ)
Conn in Brooklyn,
The evidence for me comes from looking at, listening to, and experiencing Christ.
Everything He did and said was eternally powerful and perfect. If you examine the Lamb of God, you will find no flaw in the Sacrifice of God. Jesus did it all perfectly.
Others have had their eyes opened to Christ before me and gladly died for Him, singing in the fire.
But I am experiencing it too, salvation in Christ, and fellowship with Christ, the Incarnate Word who came to destroy death and rescue all those who for all their lives have been held in bondage to the fear of death. I have been baptized into His death and am being saved by the same Power that raised Him from the dead.
He is the very stamp of the God of Abraham, the God who created the world and everything in it.
But, He also was willing to sacrifice His Son to save us while we were still enemies.
These are some of the reasons why Yaweh is God - there is no other. I'm fully assurred of it.
Mephibosheth
Not a fan of Bill Hicks, I see. Sorry, I'm fresh out of Garrison Keillor jokes, but I guess adding humor to this thread would be a bit redundant anyway.
Meph, did you want to expand on why it takes faith not to believe in "Yahweh," but why it isn't a problem for non-believers in Ba'al, Poseidon, or Brahma? you were saying something about how man failing at making an acorn proves the bible is accurate.
Not really. The God of Abraham was more patriarchal and all powerful whereas Jesus was more of an effeminate hippie, a performer of small miracles, and a giver of good speeches. Moreover, Abraham's god never made promises about transcending this world and entering into the next (though a few OT figures did do this for unclear reasons). Instead, Abraham's god promised earthly rewards: good yields from crops, victory in war, many children. For punishments he also did worldy things: bad crop yields, being conquered, children being killed by animals, etc. He also used to appear to people and speak to them directly. Once J.C. showed up, the OT god took a backseat and became more obscure.
Very unlikely. The scientific evidence is extremely corrosive to the Biblical creation account.
See all refutations of creationism, which I'm sure have appeared in this thread before.
When it comes to various things within the world, though, we have an even clearer understanding of most of those, and they definitely don't involve a god.
You mean he was willing to sacrifice himself to himself so that he could persuade himself to dissolve some kind of barrier that he himself created so that he could forgive us for being the way he himself created us.
There are theologians who would say that being certain of your belief indicates that you have no faith, since true faith is always characterized by a certain level of doubt. To claim certainty means that you have belief in belief, not true faith.
I, on the other hand, would just chalk this up to confirmation bias.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.
Oh good! My reason is safe forever because I can't see it. Or are you saying you physically see your thoughts before your eyes?
If all christians are saints then I don't want in that group - too many scumballs claiming the title. Don't go "no true Scotsman" on me here either. They followed the same rules you did to get there.
On your sig - So you have faith in God in God? Isn't that redundant? Or is Christ not God to you though your Bible claims otherwise?
"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
Regardless, we don't believe in god because YOU can't prove it exists. Do you understand? No reason to believe, so we don't believe.
Look at my blog! It's awesome!
I'm also on this Twitter thing
MattShizzle,
You are denying the most important part of yourself - your spirit, your inner man. Just because you believe you don't have a spirit doesn't mean it isn't there. Just because you don't feed it - or allow it to be fed - doesn't mean it isn't hungry; in fact, it gets hungrier and hungrier until you are glad to eat and drink from the devil's dumpster.
You won't be complete until your eyes are open to this part of yourself.
Mephibosheth (sharing The Light)
So, instead of doing something useful and beneficial to your physical and mental well-being (and possibly the physical and mental well-being of others), you are going to feed your "inner man" platitudes and woo-woo so you can feel better than those around you. Worse still, you're going to offer others those platitudes and that woo-woo and make believe you're actually helping.
Gotta love Pauline Christianity.
"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
Since you didn't bother addressing my point, I'll take that as you ceding the point ...
And by the way, salvation through Christ Jesus as taught by Christ in the Gospels was not universal ... as in, it was not open to Gentiles, Romans, etc. Jesus' message was to the Jews of his time - this salvation only becomes universalized by Paul of Tarsus. John Hartung of Harvard (and Brooklyn College - big ups) presents a very persuasive essay on this topic, which I think you should look at.
Here's the link: http://strugglesforexistence.com/pdf/LTN.pdf
(The abstract is as follows: "The world's major religions espouse a moral code that includes injunctions against murder, theft, and lying — or so conventional 19th- and 20th-century Western wisdom would have it. Evidence put forth here argues that this convention is a conceit which does not apply to the West's own religious foundations. In particular, rules against murder, theft, and lying codified by the Ten Commandments were intended to apply only within a cooperating group for the purpose of enabling that group to compete successfully against other groups. In addition, this in-group morality has functioned, both historically and by express intent, to create adverse circumstances between groups by actively promoting murder, theft, and lying as tools of competition. Contemporary efforts to present Judeo-Christian in-group morality as universal morality defy the plain meaning of the texts upon which Judaism and Christianity are based. Accordingly, that effort is ultimately hopeless ... The original covenant was an exclusive contract. Although he occasionally threatened to destroy them for insufficient fealty, the god of the Israelites never wavered in his insistence that they were his chosen people. The new covenant was for Jews who would follow the messiah and recreate the empire of the original chosen people. Jesus would have turned over in his grave if he had known that Paul would be taking his plan to the pigs."
I'm off myspace.com so you can only find me here: http://geoffreymgolia.blogspot.com
Conn,
I do believe false gods exist. The Bible talks about them too - there are probably as many as frogs. Elijah had the contest with 400 prophets of baal, with them doing what their god inspires - cutting themselves, making all kinds of noise - but, like you no fire.
Concerning Jesus and the Gentiles, remember how mad Jesus made the Jews on this point by bringing up the widow Elijah was sent to that wasn't an Israelite and the healing of Nahaman the leper Gentile.
As to the blogger that said Jesus was an effiminite hippie - watching a movie won't cut it as far as knowing Jesus.
You guys appear to me to need to rehearse your argument "there is no God" again and again, trying to scare away your woo woo, because down deep you aren't fully assured and established that you are right - and you aren't right. God is.
But aside from that, look at the manifestation of your faith as far as happiness. Do these arrows and firebrands you throw show your satisfaction and happiness in your faith? No. Consider asking God and Jesus to remove the one pushing you around. It's not a "bloodless coup" by the way, but only His Blood and Power can do it.
I went to the magnitism site and magnitism is only observed not understood. It's used, described, calculated, applied - but many things about it are not understood. You don't define a word with the word.
This is a parable for your forum here. You observe a lot of great things. You misapply them. You garble them. But you don't understand - but further, you won't honestly admit to yourselves you don't understand them. This applies to God and Jesus and the gospel. This applies to your faith that there is no God. This applies to the secret of life in the acorn. This applies to any of the foolish things of God which are wiser than any of us. Yet, when the devil rattles your chains you think it is music.
Mephibosheth (the premise stands and you guys know it)
I hope you realize now that this is real. You are now, in essence, engaged in a real debate, one where you must follow established rules of discussion otherwise you are simply branded as a pain in the ass. So, if people refer you to their own research, you must read it. If people refute your claims, you must acknowledge that refutation. You cannot continue to make the claim until the refutation of the claim has been acknowledged and counter-refuted. That is how debate works, a principle you seem utterly unable to grasp.
Well, I studied physics (it is very useful, believe me), and am versed in Quantum Chromodynamics, so perhaps this may suit you better:
Magnetism is caused thusly: particle charge is dictated by one of the four fundamental forces in the universe, which is the electromagnetic force, an extremely strong force generated at the subatomic level. Weinberg and Salam showed that it could be unified to the weak nuclear force. It is caused by a particle exchange between the three leptons, which are electrons, photons and nuetrinos (ghost-like particles which can pass through trillions of miles of solid lead without interaction), photons are wavelike bundles which generate light by an electric field oscillating at a transverse to a magnetic field 50/s. Electrical fields are generated by the interchangal of large particles called W and Z bosons between neutrinos and electrons, and the field generated is necessary for the formation of the photon.
This is all standard model quantum physics. In relevance to the Big Bang, the four forces that unify the universe were once unified into a mysterious singularity called a symmetry.
A symmetry in physics equations is generated by the ability to interchange expressions in an equation. Thanks to Weinberg and Salam, we can interchange all three leptons in an electric field, which gives it SU(3) symmetry. The ruling of the universe is dictated by SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1) symmetry, regarding the simplest particles that make up the universe. In the singularity during the Planck era of the universe (10^-43 seconds), the collapse of the false vacuum led to the breaking of the symmetry from SU(5) to what we see today. Symmetry breaking is not properly understood, and very difficult to solve. We think it was a "virtual quantum event" that caused it via tunnelling (this violates a lot of classical Newtonian laws, but the Heisenberg Uncertainity allows it, since it is extremely small and only occurs for about 10^-45 seconds. This caused the false vacuum fluctation, and the symmetry broke. Gravity was the first force to disengage, giving a SU(4) x U(1) symmetry. The breaking off of the other three, including electromagnetism, generated the asymmetry we see today, which explains why the electron has a negative charge (the electromagnetic force).
Ah! Now I remember why I was so angry with you. Remember this?
The Argument From Ignorance and its uses and abuses
And perchance do you recall how long it took me to crush design?
“Appears Designed Is A Contradiction in Terms”: The Fundamentals of Biological Evolution
The Notion of Scientific or Indeed any Empirical Proof of God is Absurd
You see, if you read this article by todangst:
What are Epistemic Rights? A Basic Primer in Critical Thinking
You will understand the basis of empirical rights and epistemology. You have made a positive premise, but there is no evidence for it. This is the burden of proof in epistemology which you seem so refusing to understand. And by the way, I am merely testing my arguments Against the Existence of God in battle, just as a theist might test his Arguments For the Existence of God.
So, let review:
You have made one Argument for the Existence of God: Design. I owned it. And it took me the better part of an hour. Behind that I have university level papers which I put on this site. Behind that I have literally millions of scientific journals and papers testifying to the natural formation of biological life.
Now, I have made many, many Arguments Against the Existence of God, none of which you have even read, so you must stop making this claim:
I have made:
-The Argument from Ontological Invalidity
-The Argument from the Invalidity of Negative Theology
-The Argument From Category Error
-The Argument from the ontological invalidty of an infinite God
-The Argument from the ontological contradictions found in the attributes of God
-The Argument from the ontological and syntactical broken nature of “supernatural”
Care to respond?
Ah! Typical Christian response. “You are being influenced by the Devil”. Pathetic.
Errr..no. Todangst and I took a lot of time to formally prove that “God exists” is both an invalid premise for any logical statement (it is ontologically and semantically invalid), and an invalid conclusion which cannot be derived from any a posteriori OR a priori argument. This is what he wrote:
"God" is an incoherent term
'Supernatural' (and 'immaterial'
are broken concepts
And this what I wrote:
On the Problem of Interaction and the Concluding Piece of the Series: The Absurdity of an Immaterial Mind
A Clarification Regarding My Position Relative to theological noncognitivism
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Meph,
I'm glad you acknowledge false gods. I just add one more god (yours) as false because there is exactly as much evidence for his existence as there is for the ones you accept as false.
I also see that you don't read your Bible that closely. This was not a Jew v. Gentile scene. The people were angry because Jesus claimed Messiahship and wasn't going to put on his miracle show in the hometown. At least, that's what I get from my reading.
When I look closely, I realize that the writer simply put that scene in to provide a conflict to move the plot along.
As far as "knowing Jesus", the point of your original premise is that accepting Jesus is not a question of knowledge but of faith - you can't know, remember?
I'm not going to discuss the argument you claim we "rehearse" becaus you haven't gotten that right yet. You keep substituting that damned strawman.
I really get a kick out of how you come here to post attacks and then accuse people of throwing firebrands when what few areguments you've made have been annihilated. Personally, nothing makes me happier than a good argument (not fight). Please bring a good argument so I can be happy.
Your parable is more applicable to you. You are the one who won't honestly admit your lack of understanding - this is why you use God to bridge your gaps.
"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
Now this is a very old trick - when one has nothing to say to actually justify their beliefs, they attack their "opponent" as unhappy ... & How dare you? You don't know me, you don't know the wonderful, fulfilling relationships I have in my life, the work I do, the passion I have for my partner, my family, my country. You don't know my routine ...
What did I do last night? Who did I talk to on the train this morning? What did I say to my partner in bed this morning? What color are my sister's eyes? What's my mother's name? What's my father's favorite wine? Answer these. Seriously, I'd like to know. Answer these before you dare suggest that you know anything about me ... and turn that mirror around at yourself: What does it say about you? - Do these arrows and firebrands you throw show your satisfaction and happiness in your faith? Absolutely not, apparently - I've been told "misery loves company", but I'm better than you - I'd never suggest I know how happy or fulfilled a stranger is.
There is no evidence for a god - the concept of god is improbable almost to the point of impossible, because any intelligent being capable of creating anything, only comes about through a process of gradual evolution - if you think the universe, abiogenesis, evolution through natural selection is improbable, and somehow think a god is reasonable, you mental faculties have been blinded by dogmatic religion.
I'm off myspace.com so you can only find me here: http://geoffreymgolia.blogspot.com
You know what Meph does? He repeats his arguments. He repeats them: his arguments. And when he's stuck he goes back. Back to the beginning of what he was saying. And he repeats it.
It's unbelievable, honestly ... every conversation I have with a "person of faith" ends up with this person telling me how unhappy and unfulfilled my life must be ... it's a funny sort of projection, I think ... I'm just offended by the notion that someone would presume to know something they have no evidence for ... fuck, that god-belief in a nut-shell isn't it?
Like last night, I had a lovely dinner with my partner, she's the one smiling and laughing in my picture with the champagne glass - anyway, we ate burgers and watched the red sox and then we went home and cuddled on the couch - probably the best thing I've done in the last week. this weekend we're spending time with our families, and will probably go for a hike ... these are deep and wonderful experiences and I'm happy to have them ...
I'm off myspace.com so you can only find me here: http://geoffreymgolia.blogspot.com
Mephi
May God bless us both. You have said something profound here. A belief (of a lack of existence of god) which doesnt affect the atheists or their daily lives. Then why do they believe that ?
Very interesting !!!
I am reading the thread and I hope to join in later , (provided the threats for cutting down info flow and communication is not implemented)
I am looking for Atheists to increase my belief in God
Because the relevance of a belief to daily life is in no way an indicator of the truth value of the belief. It is an ignoratio elenchi fallacy- one of the irrelevant conclusion fallacies. For example, I believe that Homeopathy is utter nonsense, Deepak Chopra is ridiculous, New Ageism is an insult to science and none of these things affect my daily life very much, but when I sit down and do some philosophizing, that is when it begins to affect me. It is an immaterial point. One does not believe something because of the effect something may have on their daily lives. Do you know what this is called? An ad consequetiam- Wishful thinking.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Mephi
The Designed one knows not that he has been designed. Few of us like maybe you and me realize this, the rest on the other side of the divide dont.
The semiconductor and the chip in the laptop thinks it is the greatest on earth and can do millions of proceesing on its own, and discounts any thought of being part of a laptop. Humans just go one step further and viciously pounce, fret and argue.
I am looking for Atheists to increase my belief in God
In no part of that could I detect anything that remotely resembled any form of argument except ad nauseam, which is fallacious.
Unless this is merely analogy, I presume you know that microchips are not sentient beings?
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
DG
You are having some contradictions. You don't believe in god , so then you should probably leave those who believe in it.
But a good part of your time goes in exactly that trying to prove to Theists that god doesnt exists. Your actions is pointing to a deep conviction of action. If this is not faith what is this.
Normal Christians dont proselytize, however the hugely faithful ones, the passionate types go all out to do that. Mephi probably saw such tendencies in here with the people. It is taking passionate stands and all out efforts. If this is not faith , then what is it.
I am looking for Atheists to increase my belief in God
Maybe the laptop example is apt for you and Meph. Computers don't actually think at all.
What is? An unconditional belief is the definition of religious faith. You're right, typical religious believers don't affect atheists. Oh, except for standing by as those who speak for their demographic are actively blocking medical research, science education, sex education, social progress, civil rights. Oh, and legitimizing the positions of radical fundamentalists (including terrorists, and our idiotic Republic party).
But, beyond that, you're totally right. And all you have to do to see your rightness is alter the definitions of a few words and bury your head three feet up your bunghole.
Magilum
Quote - Maybe the laptop example is apt for you and Meph. Computers don't actually think at all
Quote - But, beyond that, you're totally right. And all you have to do to see your rightness is alter the definitions of a few words and bury your head three feet up your bunghole
Hmm Verbal violence- Suggest we should avoid this, your personality will improve. (Hint - This suggestion has nothing to do with faith, it is practical, proven umpteen times, as per liking)
Quote - Oh, except for standing by as those who speak for their demographic are actively blocking medical research, science education, sex education, social progress, civil rights.
But you dont know Mephi in person. Has he indicated that he blocks all these things. He has indicated that he believes completely in ID . But not enough that he blocks everybody's education in Biology class. So that is enough to affect you and take a passionate ,faithful stand against him , so much that you and some others resort at various times to verbal violence and insults. The insults poured on to him and the attributes given to him by you and some others (collective frenzy), everything is indicative of a deep faith , a wounded faith.
So please admit you are passionately faithful, your ego is hurt because there are theists. You dont like all of their guts . All indicative of a strong faith which seeks to put up strong defences . The unconditional belief here being that all theists need to vacate space , in larger good of society . (If you dispute this, lets have a post (minimum one, that is all) from all the atheists on the good done by Republicans and Churchpeople
Be inclusive dear Sir, be universal in outlook. See first good in others before pointing out. Mephi didnt come here with a grenade blasting one and all. His contention is that your behaviour is indicative of faith or faithliness, that is all. (I should be fair and point out one instance of verbal violence on part of Mephi also, against Pariahjane's glasses, what struck me immly)
I am looking for Atheists to increase my belief in God
Oh please - this is obfuscation parading around of profundity ... We seek to challenge believers because we care passionately about what is true. Forget atheism for a moment - it is merely an incidental. I just demand the same amount of evidence for the existence of the supernatural that I (or you) would demand from any other type of claim. I tell you your wife is cheating on you, you demand proof. You tell me that a highly improbable, supernatural intelligence designed the world and all its biodiversity and present no good evidence - this is reason (and morality) blinded by your dogma.
Also, definitions are important - faith is simply belief without evidence. You are conflating faith and belief - the things we understand that move us towards action. You think that since we are so pasisonate about challenging believers that we must have faith because you do not understand what the definition of faith is, nor do you have a sophisticated understanding of how belief informs action. Now, I can only believe what I have evidence for ... we have evidence for an ancient universe, an ancient earth, the evolution of the biodiversity on this earth through common descent (by way of natural selection) ... we do not have sufficient evidence on whether there exists a god or gods - just as I have no evidence that Uma Thurman wants to have sex with me, or that your wife is cheating on you ... It would be ridiculous for me to beleve that, or suggest the later with no evidence.
Moving on, people of faith have, in my country (The United States), been supoorting an agenda that is both radically dangerous and contrary to the founding principles of the Republic, and I am called to act because of the encroachments people of faith make in the public and private sphere. This is based on belief that is supported by mountains of evidence , not a faith, which priveleges the ridiculous over the reaosnable. There is nothing profound about what "Mephi" said - nor has he addressed his offensive and telling portrayal of my lifestyle.
it is merely a lack of belief in a god - a negative belief. I am also an afairiest - I don't believe in fairies. But this is incidental because at my core, I am simply someone who needs proper evidence to believe in the veracity or truth of a claim. You say there is a god, I demand proof - the teleological argument is fallacious and not valid and design analogies fail because computers, Boeing 747s, etc. do not reproduce, there is no genetic informatin, etc.
Then you demand by fiat that it is, it is, it is & I'm just an unhappy person - "woe to the main who tries to destroy anothers faith" - and that this knowledge only comes with your special power
I'm off myspace.com so you can only find me here: http://geoffreymgolia.blogspot.com
[Irrelevant gibberish snipped.]
Don't change the subject, prick; I'm referring to the same complacent mainstream you referred to.
If he wants to promote it, he's contributing to our abysmal science education.
Conflating passion and faith is dishonest and totally wrong.
[Blah blah blah, ad nauseam shit snipped.]
I'll answer that when my tears of laughter have dried. The irony of that statement, in the context of religious dogma is precious. Religious people have fought every scientific and medical advance that threatened their archaic world view, every social progression that contradicted some selected piece of scripture, and now that the average person's mind is so ravaged by magical thinking, they have no idea what makes one notion more valid than the next. This quasi-enlightened world view suggests that the most advanced way of thinking is that "everyone has an opinion." That, my friend, is the battle cry of the loser. It's only someone who knows their position is weak that has to try to pretend no qualitative appraisal can be made based on evidence or logical reasoning. In fact, your whole concept of faith -- the real concept, not the redefinition you're proffering -- excludes either of those two things.
He was wrong. He failed to support his claim, and was refuted when he demanded negative proof of his deity. He proceeded to mindless proselytizing when he ran out of ideas (which was early). You're wrong, and trying to redefine words to support your wrongness. It doesn't require anything special for someone not to imagine a prospect, let alone affirm it. A non-believer, unlike a believer, has what he expects in evidence from religious claimants: none.
[More of the same, snipped.]