I'm bored too!!!! I didn't say I was that apologist. I can debate but its seems pointless when atheists like Pick apart a post, Then with ignore this point and look at this less signifigant point. But my post is to challenge loud mouths, Brian and Rook, to debate someone they don't know they can beat before hand. I know all about Brian freaking out over Kirks notes before the debate even started. Plus debate someone with a background in theology AND science. believe it or not they do exist 

no they never succed because when faced with defeat, Brian and his goons back down and kick theists off their site

Theists prove God all the time! It depends on what proof you choose....A retarded monkey (no offense, Brian) can prove God. Here is the problem. Are you ready? I can't PROVE God on YOUR terms but you can't DISPROVE God on MY terms. This is why this subject will never be won or lost. But theists tend to make believing more rational, than scienctists make certain elements of science sound (i.e. Abiogenesis or the ability of NS to be creative.....ect......)

hmmmmm, like I said there is proof. God is "I am".........look around an open your eyes. I won't bore you with futher details of sites and scientists I could refer you too (not GIsh or hovind either). But you already have a bias. I've considered atheism a long time ago, but I found it lacking in substance.

Oh, Kelly doesnt live herself by her convictions? Well good for her, your own personal lord and savior would be proud of her. Remember how youre supposed to enter the kingdom of god with the eyes of a child? A child has no convictions - her dismissal of convictions is her greatest asset, she is more of a true christian by living with an open mind and going against the grain of conformity to maintain her independence - leading a more real example of christ, then you are in my mind, even just based on your wild and very rude personal attack you made towards her. It takes a kind of person to debunk another persons argument by attacking their personal character - it takes somebody without character to do that kind of thing. Though she's in oppositional defiance to your pathetically, tragically desperate dogma, shes much more of a seed of truth, in the eyes of god and the eyes of christ. Of course she's not perfect she's still young, you cant expect ivy league discourse here, but she's shown more of a christ-like example then I think a tool like you even has the capacity for. You remember one profound thing about Christ? He stood up for what he believed even though it went against popular thought - youre just mindlessly adhering to popular thought to make it easier on your own life, at least she has found a deeper meaning to life then it seems your dumb ass has.

If youre going to come in here and make some really stupid and hurtful remarks towards others you had better come in with some realistic substantiations, you came with nothing but shallow rhetoric and you carried it like it was the weight of a thousand worlds. Its not, its your pathetic desperation to be loved, accepted, and so you can tragically cling to your human identity in the after life, because you cannot shed your ego here on earth.

Convictions are your downfall little man, convictions are the forbidden fruit in the garden of eden, you are only expelled from the garden if you are effected by its poison, convictions are the hob-goblins of little minds.

If youre really interested in your own faith and your own convictions of the bible. Why dont you explore an interesting and deeply connected parralel that hasnt been assessed or addressed by the christian church - the parallel of the Kingdom of God, and the Garden of Eden. Disregard it as superficial bs right now, but if you do some honest research and you will see the reality of that conjecture.

And your desperate attachment to demanding some credentials is again against the teachings of your lord - your lord teaches you not to act towards people with your own preconceptions.  If you equate a persons intelligence to their academic merit - you are acting out of prejudice, these are not the deeper teachings of 'the eyes of a child'.  You obviously havent done a whole lot of research into the biblical concept of the eyes of a child, otherwise youd be in much better practice of it. 

Try me little man.

Search for "St. Michael" in the forum threads to see how "handily" a  catholic apologist  performed.  "I tend to believe..." -- you even use his same syntax.

 

 

do as we say, not as we do eh??????/

 

whatever takes the pressure off....

You don't need to post the same thing in two different threads.

 

[This is an automated response from the Sapient-bot.]

Just because Kelly's isn't a great public performer (yet?) (I admit that she doesn't look natural when she's having a speech), it doesn't mean she doesn't mean what she says! Are you a body-language expert or something like that, Lux? If not, I'm not sure you're qualified for making such claims.

But anyway, practice makes perfect... in highschool a friend had distinctive and funny speech-language disorders, after few years of practice she ended up working as a talk radio host.

I will, if no one else wants to volunteer, based on your posts thus far.

Listen, Lux, if you have something to contribute to the discussion, please do so. But if all you have are personal attacks, which, so far, are all you have offered, not just against atheists, but against theists who don't share your particular attitude, just don't bother.

Being close to god isnt about making some superficial boasting claim of him, its in acting in accordance to your very own holy spirit.  I think that a person must really suppress their own holy spirit NOT to be deeply disturbed by the modern Christian Church, you have expressed a collaboration with them, and thus, you have made them your own personal reference point.  Do you see what they are doing right now, mind-fucking our youth with promises of an eternal after-life of shameless rewards or punishments?  If you asked your own personal holy spirit - you too would be troubled by this condition, and by the societal conditionings OF this problem - which includes teh RRS themselves, they are the other side of that token - as the modern christians have made the belief in them, they have taken a position of superiority against their fellow man and condemned them, you know what jesus says about condemning.  Furthermore - I know that a person who is in accordance with 'gods will' as you so shallowly call it, would not even begin to try and hurt a person by attacking their sexual character as you just did with kelly, I know it takes a certain kind of deviant to do something as self-destructive as that and it takes a person who is not in tune with the holy spirit.

The problem that exists within the confines of this forum, has its rootings in the direct application of the book of revelations in the modern church.  We need to open up the canon for the new testament, remove the book of revelations, and let people still write out of inspiration of god.  You do know how absurd it is that they closed the canon - you do know just what kind of self centered message  that conveys.  Most of the religions in the eastern world have an open canon as well.

So tell me - do you take revelations seriously?  Do you actually believe that god is capable of condemning his own creation?  Do you honestly think that there is something as absurd as an eternal worldly identity manufactured in the fantastic lands of heaven and hell?

And also - have you made the observation of the parallel between the Garden of Eden and the Kingdom of God?

Im in no boat, by the way - I agree with you on many things, and I agree with them on many things, I do not take sides.  You only assumed I am in a boat with them because I took a stance against what you said in the context of this particular discussion. 

Wow.

 In all my years as an atheist and travelling the atheist related boards I don't think I've ever seen that before. One theist totally shutting down another. I'm going to have to bookmark this thread ... cuz dayumn. 

Sorry to derail, but so far as I could tell this thread didn't have a point to begin with  

 

 

uh, just for the record. WTF are you talking about? Kelly's sexuality???? I mentioned this when? When did I mention heaven or hell or free will? I really think you read about 1/2 of my post, because you're pulling stuff out of left field.

 

do I believe in heaven, yes. Do I believe in Hell? depends on your definition of hell. I believe in rewards and punishment, don't you? Why must things be more complicated than they really are..LMAO

 

As for the rest of it, there is a lack of coherency. You made no sense what-so-ever. but hey thats just me, but as I pointed out, I agree with the last paragrapgh

You called Kelly's sexuality into question by implying that shes doing this for her sexual attachment to her boyfriend, and that she has no deep thought or meaning to her expressions, just a senseless desperation to cling to and please her boyfriend. Re-read what you said, and tell me you said otherwise.

What is your concept of punishment? I think that you are not punished for your sin, but by it. To imply that god has an ultimatum outside of your own sense of being is absurd. I think all people atone for their sins constantly - everyone in constant forgiveness, some people simply cling to their sins and remain in punishment by continuing to be their own undoing. Once we release ourselves from our sins, and forgive ourselves of our own sins, we can see beyond the sins in others and see the truly good nature that exists in them.

We all come from god - and as we act, we are expressions of god, some of us express ourselves sinfully, and though it hurts us, this too is an expression of god, all actions seek to create balance, but so many people look for heirarchy and superiority and inferiority that they remain confused about the real meaning of equality and balance. We act outwardly sinful, because we act inwardly sinful. once we stop being inwardly sinful, we can stop acting it outwardly. If you want to be a light unto the world, first, you must be a light unto yourself.

Realize the immediate reciprocating action unto your own holy spirit is that which arises out of all of your actions. This is the balance of god, this is the "god" that has been with you the entire time, this is the god of deep understanding and love - the realization of this is what guides us to god, and lets us see the light of god. the word "god" must stop being such a small concept within our culture if we are to embrace his being through our own holy spirit. As soon as you call the bible "gods perfect word", you limit god, if god can have a "perfect word" then all words are perfect in the context of the expressions of them.

 Youve dismissed your own judgment when you passed all your sense of reason over to a higher authority, being the bible.  If you regard christ as the one and only, if you regard the abrahamic bible as the one and only, as the only "gods perfect word", then certainly I have not said anything out of the context of its proper applications. 

perhaps, though, you think christ was a mortal man just like all of us, and perhaps you simply think he was a great teacher, and perhaps you took from the bible your own senses and not that which is demanded by the modern church, perhaps.  But your attitude was that of a one-sided argument, you took the position AGAINST them, FOR your Christianity.  PErhaps I was wrong in making this assumption, tell me if i was - otherwise, perhaps I can hear you say that the bible is not "Gods perfect word" 

I think what you are referring to is the extremely sexist attitude of the original post, right? I agree that there were very strong sexist undertones to the original post, and I noticed this too, but there was so much else wrong with it that I didn't mention it. I'm glad someone did.

You're misquoting of CS Lewis only futher add on to my opinion that you're not in fact a theist, or you're a deist. The three major religions of the world all agree on the promise of an afterlife. I wonder which religion you subscribe to. The bible strictly proclaims the rewards of heaven. You are pulling quotes out of context from "Mere Christianity" by CS Lewis. You sir, are dishonest and a despicable representation of a thiest. CS Lewis was a very devout Christian with a very profound view of his religion. The gift of life is eternal and doesn't end with our death here on earth.  You seem to have a very dismal approach to apologetics and your understanding of Christianity is very limited and backwards. If it wasn't for the poetic way in which you write, you'd be writing absolutely NOTHING. As far as your little question about Jesus' body and ressurection being true and how it would effect my Christian worldview, I'd say it really doesn't. I hold these things to be true. I find some truth in every religion. There is a parallel between many religions that offer insight into the nature of God. I believe that Jesus was who he said he was. I believe that Muhammad was who he said he was. I believe that Moses recieved divine messages from God. So what makes my worldview complete is the acceptance of all God's people not just the Christians.  

hmmm, its the old we are born atheist arguement.

are we born with knowledge of any kind?

are we born with a favorite color?

are we born with any opions about the world?

 

This is a lame arguement. The rest of your post is hardly worth a response, but if you, Kelly, or Brian want to debate the existance of God, I'm more than happy to do so. I've already made several posts that have been ignored or I've gotten "Just because science hasn't proved EVERYTHING doesn't mean God exists"......please.......spare me from the same old atheist rhetoric

 

First of all - I really dont care what you label me with, I dont label myself - that "theist" label under my name is not who I am. Furthermore - I subscribe to all world religions, because when you pursue them without looking to KNOW but PERCEIVE you will see that they are all one in the same. And to believe that the central idea around other religions is the promised after-life is an incredibly short-sighted remark. You called me dishonest? Your whole response is not intellectual honesty, its self-deceptive, you have not heard a word i said, and are not speaking with the clarity of the pure mindfulness, your words are nothing short of a self-defense mechanism.

but really - beyond all things, what difference is it if im a theist an atheist or a deist or what, does it really make a difference? Do you really judge a person by their labels, rather then the fruits of their labor as your savior says you should? You should not be so quick to thoughtlessly throw around labels.

Also - I think I did a good job representing CS Lewis' quote, but here, I'll make it verbatim. Actually, what he really said was more condescending and explicit

"A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic, on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg, or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice, either this man was, and is, the Son of God; or else a madman or something worse."

Oh, that is his quote, verbatim. Did I make it easier for you to read yet?

I will express an agreement with you though - it is a ridiculous argument to contend that "you were born an atheist".  I agree, thats a pretty presupposed but completely unreasonable conjecture to make, definitely not expressed by an open mind.  You are not born believing anything, in god or in no god, you are born breathing, and wondering, and exploring.  To say that you are conditioned out of being atheist is silly, rather, you are only conditioned into beliefs, all beliefs, period.

what an incredibly shallow response.  The proof is in what pudding?  The pudding of jesus christs shit, that you turd nuggets area so willingly being mind-fucked into eating?  You call me dishonest - but you havent inquired my conjecture with an expressed honesty, youre a religious hypocrite when you seperate yourself from anybody else.  Jesus did not want worship, he did not demand he was any better then anybody else, he only spoke of a very pure conscious clarity that WE ALL can reach in our own times.  But so long as you feed only on the excrement of christs teachings, rather then the meat and bones, you will remain in your own darkness, deluded from all outside inference. 

YOU sir are the one who is being dishonest.  This is certainly made self-evident by this thread and this argument alone.

 

By the way, I say Jesus was a great teacher and nothing more, because as soon as I say he is something more, everybody else is something less, and I condemn everybody else, including myself.  So, that argument was made towards me.  Jesus is no more the son of god the Brian Sapient himself, Jesus Christ just went through the disillusion of the self and was able to see beyond himself, through himself, and speak of pure consciousness, which is the pureness of god. 

Its more like a fact.

You're getting warm. We are born with some knowledge but none of it is religious--and certainly not Christian. We know this because religion is learned through social experience.

No

Not that are learned.

Hahaha....the only thing lame is your substance- free response that is nothing more than an evasion demonstrated by your dismissive content.

The rest of my post exposes your transparent attempt at patronization. I can understand why you wouldn't want to respond.

I'm sure you have. I'm also sure they are just as vacuous as this one.

 

Lux - I do agree with you on one thing. They can be reconciled with god, as can you. Though you are undoubtedly aware of his presence, you can actually touch his presence, it exists within you. Through deep introspection, you shall find, but deep introspection requires strength of mind and strength of heart, most importantly, strength of spirit. As I have said before - he will be found by all, he is the judgment day of Jesus' parables. It is when all things become apperant to you. Though it cannot have any name, because of his infinite transcendence, it is often reffered to as "god", but he has carried many labels, truth, transcendental, infinite, the holy spirit, objectivity, consciousness, conscience. Those all do not speak of him within the confines of the words, they point to him with the expressions of those words.

Religious dogma and ultimatums are spiritually immature productions of religious doctrine - the most important aspect of religious doctrine is to give the reader authority over their own life, not to demand its own authority over them. Often times, in religion when people act with authority, it is because that is the only way the young minds will hear them, but the final job of the teacher is to free the student of the teacher - every time you say "through jesus christ", or "in name of jesus christ", you have not freed and cannot possibly be free of him as a teacher, he remains authoritative over your own will, and you create your own inner conflicts by creating such a schizophrenic perception of reality. I do commend you for finding god through Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ is a great channel of god, a wonderful teacher, pure hearted and pure minded, now can you see into it so you can find god through your self, without the attachment to Jesus Christ?

then perhaps you can remove those filtered glasses of your own ego youve been wearing, and see that the God Jesus spoke of, is the same "God" Immanuel Kant speaks of, Krishna, Buddha, Gandhi, Osho, and Nanak speak of. Indeed, he has inspired so many hundreds of thousands of writings through so many people, but you can only see it in your own small concept of him. He is ever present in all things - you can see the rise and fall of him in all things, you can see him in the depths of reason that exist within all conscious action and all human efforts. Sometimes, however, you will see him disturbingly spoke of, through some very deeply dark people, I think there hasnt been a more disgusting writing of him then the Book of Revelations, you can see that the book of revelations was not inspired by god, because god cannot be expressed of such a nature, and cannot be limited by such feeble concepts, rather, it was inspired by the ego of John the exile, his own apperant struggles within his own dark mind, he did not reach the true depths of the transcendental or he would have been touched by gods infinite love - god cannot express hate, it is absurd, hate is a willful act that only comes rise from a persons ego. It is love, transformed by attachment and clinging into something very egocentric and self-centered. By reading the book of revelations, I have not learned about god, I have learned about how John the Exile experienced god.

I dont think, however, you could even have the capacity within you to get that right now, I think you are too spiritually undeveloped to handle grappling that concept quite yet. Perhaps I have misjudged you, perhaps you can understand it and express it with more clarity then I have, so try me.

the pursuit of the perfection of wisdom - a buddhist practice, had the canon remained open in the new testament, it is quite possible somebody could have actually helped express the deeper levels of truth behind Jesus' parables of "The eyes of children".  It contains within that parable alone, an intensely deep and transformational practice, there is so much more we can learn from just assessing Jesus' parables, there is so much that can be written to help bring more people to god, but the canon is closed, and the book of revelations closed it, and as such, destroyed the entire concept of god.  The canon and much of what was written by many of the early christian adopters and put into the canon were not very comprehensive, nor were they very well spoken of.  The synoptic and Gnostic gospels are really the centerpieces of Christ, but people put too much emphassis on the more immature writings, like the Gospel of John or Proverbs, or Corinthians.

But for anybody to give any credence to the book of revelations, is to be consumed by the very darkness that john the exile was, and I see his darkness in so many of his followers, and it is terribly disturbing, and when I see someone who actually believes it, my heart cries out for the pain that person is living, inwardly. 

Uh huh. So you believe that the absense of such knowledge IS proof in the existance of god? I'm beginning to see why you're so frustrated.

[edited for clarification]

I realized that I did not point out exactly why that argument is silly. As I'm sure has been pointed out many times, the absense of knowledge on a topic is merely proof that there is absense of knowledge. To say that absense of knowledge proves some other point is called a plea to ignorance. Basically this means that if we cannot prove precisely and with zero margin of error how the univers began, this is not proof of the existance of god.

Absense of knowledge of one thing in no way proves the existance of another. It is merely the absense of knowledge.  

That's pretty cool, I've never actually seen a real breakdown of the rational behind creationism. 

Here is where I think the two ideas split apart. [Please keep in mind that I am not a scientist so I'll just go on what I understand]. Science uses what it can observe and test (aparently the same way creationists do). When there is a "gap" the problem is that creationists fill it with the supernatural. The idea of the supernatural has never been proven in any form. 

This is where I believe we have our disagreement.

Scientists, based on what they can observe, claim evolution is a perfectly reliable (and provable if I'm not mistaken) theory.

Creationists, based on what they believe, claim that only a supernatural being could have been responsible for life in its current form.

One of these is much more reasonable than the other.  

Ken Miller decimates this crap. I recommend checking Google video for it, as he has a 2-hour long video going through Behe's specific points. Also read about:

Blood Clotting

The flagellum

The simple fact is that nothing in biology has ever been found to be irreducibly complex, and everything that Michael Behe has suggested is, has turned out to have a very reasonable evolutionary explanation. The ID 'hypothesis' fails, but some people such as yourself (and Behe) continue to push it regardless, which is the opposite of science. Furthermore, since it appeals to the supernatural, ID can't be science fundamentally.