Research on Belief in God

[Bustedknuckle]

How have you come to this conclusion?

I look at it like this..may be a very simple way of looking at it but...God is omnipotent, correct? All powerful. He made us in his own image, and we are rational people, correct. They why does he allow irrational things to happen?

2 year olds with cancer, Cystic Fibrosis, beating children to death before WWII.

Blah..
'God works in mysterious ways'..garbage. A close friend of mine, 3 daughters under the age of 3, died..Amy, wife, asked, 'did god murder my husband?', when some twit said, this 'god works in mysterious ways', BS.

So, either he is on vacation, doesn't really care, likes to watch things like a 2 year old die in pain.....or he isn't there.

BUT whatever gets you through the day, just stay out of my house. Zealotry in any form is still zealotry.

I'm tapping out.

 

[Echoes]

I do not let fairy tales influence my views or incite hatred and have a underlying need for dominance.

You DO believe in fairy tales. I believe facts, man.

We can all live in peace if we have a peaceful ideology. But all religion's feel that their truth is superior thus you have instant conflict that will never cease until we have a more secular world.

Look I don't like bullies like you. You evidently don't have enough culture to be able to discuss with me. You don't have the historical knowledge either. The worst thing is that you are not even reading any of my posts otherwise you'd know that ONLY the secularists/atheists think that their truth is superior, which means you. That is what history teaches us.

Wars of the Vendée: ATHEISTS
Napoleonic Wars: ATHEISTS
Conquest of the West/Amerindian Genocide: SECULARISTS
Scramble for Africa/Colonisation: SECULARISTS
Bolshevik Revolution: ATHEISTS
Cristeros War: ATHEISTS
Second World War: SECULARISTS
Maoist Revolution : ATHEISTS
Cambodgian Genocide: ATHEISTS

Is that enough or should I put some more of them in the mix?

 

[ray j willings]

You DO believe in fairy tales. I believe facts, man.




Look I don't like bullies like you. You evidently don't have enough culture to be able to discuss with me. You don't have the historical knowledge either. The worst thing is that you are not even reading any of my posts otherwise you'd know that ONLY the secularists/atheists think that their truth is superior, which means you. That is what history teaches us.

Wars of the Vendée: ATHEISTS
Napoleonic Wars: ATHEISTS
Conquest of the West/Amerindian Genocide: SECULARISTS
Scramble for Africa/Colonisation: SECULARISTS
Bolshevik Revolution: ATHEISTS
Cristeros War: ATHEISTS
Second World War: SECULARISTS
Maoist Revolution : ATHEISTS
Cambodgian Genocide: ATHEISTS

Is that enough or should I put some more of them in the mix?

Why are you getting angry? There is no factual evidence of a supernatural being who created the universe. I have yet to see a man walk on water although magician Dynamo did I have yet to see a man fly to the moon on horseback.

I have only posted my opinions. I certainly have not bullied you in any way.
I posted quotes from the old and new testament, the books that some people believe are the word of god.

Well done for posting the atheist war response. That's what history teaches YOU [not me] does it I don't have enough "culture"
That exactly proves my point. You cannot not defend or in anyway justify the barbaric posts from the old and new testaments I posted and instead try and shoot me down with a textbook religious response about atheist wars. I won't mention the religious wars or the thousands if not millions slaughtered in the name of religion because the facts will only upset you again.

I do wish you a happy and peaceful new year and has the late great atheist comedian Dave Allen would say "may your god go with you"

Peace ya all

 

[ray j willings]

How have you come to this conclusion?

With facts

 

[Echoes]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9gjpd25ZRA

 

[Jspear]

With facts

This isn't a very convincing post - Not much substance.

 

[Jspear]

I look at it like this..may be a very simple way of looking at it but...God is omnipotent, correct? All powerful. He made us in his own image, and we are rational people, correct. They why does he allow irrational things to happen?

2 year olds with cancer, Cystic Fibrosis, beating children to death before WWII.

Blah..
'God works in mysterious ways'..garbage. A close friend of mine, 3 daughters under the age of 3, died..Amy, wife, asked, 'did god murder my husband?', when some twit said, this 'god works in mysterious ways', BS.

So, either he is on vacation, doesn't really care, likes to watch things like a 2 year old die in pain.....or he isn't there.

BUT whatever gets you through the day, just stay out of my house. Zealotry in any form is still zealotry.

I'm tapping out.

The simple answer is: Cancer, death, and all the evil we see in the world is a result of sin. Man sinned and these are the consequences. There will always be pain in this world. There is the gospel which can save your soul and that is the most important aspect of this life because it is the eternal. Irrational things happen because man is often irrational.

 

[frenchfry]

...
Look I don't like bullies like you. You evidently don't have enough culture to be able to discuss with me. You don't have the historical knowledge either. The worst thing is that you are not even reading any of my posts otherwise you'd know that ONLY the secularists/atheists think that their truth is superior, which means you. That is what history teaches us.
...

I actually laughed out loud when I read this coming from you.

 

[frenchfry]

God will not judge the world because he does not exist.

How have you come to this conclusion?

The trick is how to prove that something that doesn't exist doesn't exist.

 

[Netserk]

If God made man in his image, why did he make us able to sin? Why not create us without any evil in us?

 

[Maaaaaaaarten]

If God made man in his image, why did he make us able to sin? Why not create us without any evil in us?

Nobody's claiming that He created us with evil. Does being created with the freedom to do something evil equal being created with evil within? I don't see how it does. There's quite a difference between creating someone with the freedom to sin and creating someone with evil within him.

Furthermore, in Christian philosophy I think it is often suggested that evil doesn't really exist as a separate entity. Rather it is the perversion of good. Much like darkness is the absence of light and cold is the absence of warmth, so evil isn't a separate force of its own. There's no ying and yang in Christianity. There's only the good God has created and when that is twisted things become very ugly very fast. God created the world good and when mankind rebelled against God and twisted the good that God had created and intended, they became sinful. That is, their nature has fallen from the original design of God and thus the good nature of mankind has become perverted. So in this sense, sin isn't a kind of thing really existing in this world, which would have to be created by God, since he created this world, but it is the perversion of that which God created.

So really the question is; why did God give men the freedom to disobey Him? Why did God allow the good he had created to be twisted?

Well, the truth is, I don't really have a clue. I don't claim to know the mind of God. It's not in any way logically incoherent that God might have had a good reason for allowing the fall and if He did, it's certainly not in any way necessary or even likely that we should somehow know the reason God has for permitting the fall. In fact, it seems to me that the only way we could know about something like the motivations for God to do and permit what He does, is if He chooses to reveal it to us. Now, as far as I can see, there isn't a very clear answer in the revelation of God we have in the Bible to this specific question. The Bible does deal with the theme of suffering in some occasions, but it doesn't provide a clear obvious answer to this type of philosophical speculation.

So in conclusion I'd like to say that as far as I can see there is no logical problem in this area.

On a further note; I'll certainly admit there can be very much an existential problem. The answer 'Oh well, I don't really know, but as far as I can see there isn't really a logical problem.' isn't of much help for someone struggling with evil and suffering in an existential way. Fortunately, the Bible does deal with the more existential components of suffering, as we can see in the books of Job, the Psalms, Lamentations et cetera and furthermore suffering is also a prominent theme throughout the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament.

 

[The Hitch]

maaaaaaaarten.

Since you know so much about why everyone was created and what will happen to everyone in the future etc, could you please explain to me who the first person in heaven and first person in hell were.

Im interested because obviously you see animals as non beings, seeing as how you seem to think they don't possess these things like "freedom of choice" that god only gave to man (for some reason, be good if you could explain that too)

Anyway seeing as how animals are all just robots incapable of feeling and all those other things god only lets humans do, then obviously animals don't go to heaven and hell (a blessing really since putting beings in eternal suffering for the crime of being born into the wrong family is something that rapists and pedophiles and mass murders would consider barbaric).

But Humans are descended from other mammals. Like going back 100 million years our anscestors were more like rodents than humans.

And obviously these rodents don't go to heaven.

Which is a shame cos god was watching over them all that time. In fact he was watching over them for like 1000 times as long as he has been watching over us. Must have been pretty boring. Considering the Walking with Dinosaurs series was more like a very condensed highlight reel of the affair and most of the time during the Jurrasic and Cretacious periods there was nothing really going on, just dinos sleeping and excreting and walking around.

But anyway to get back to the point, the rodents don't go to heaven. And slightly bigger rodents they evolved into didn't go to heaven. And fast forward a few dozen million years the australopithecus monkey like creatures from which we descend didn't go to heaven.

But over time the monkey like creatures became more human like creatures.

What I want to know is at what specific point did the monkey become a human.

Who was it that God said - you are a human, you have free will and you can go to heaven (more likely hell, considering the way god operates you go to hell for being totally innocent).
But your parents, they are just robots, not humans, they didn't have free will and bla bla bla (even though you share 99.9999999% of your features with them).

Since you no so much about everything maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarten this shouldn't be a difficult question to answer (though for some reason i feel you will try to avoid it)

 

[Maaaaaaaarten]

I really don't understand what you're trying to get at with this post, Hitchey. I just wrote a post, right above yours, explicitly saying I don't know so much about these types of things. I don't see what you want with this post asking questions to which you already know the answer, writing with a bit of ridicule here and there and for some reason with exceptionally poor grammar and spelling for your standards.

So I won't avoid the question; I'll happily answer and admit I don't know who is the first person to go to heaven or hell. (I also don't know why I should know it, how I could know it, or what the relevance of my knowledge about it would be if I did know it.)

 

[Jspear]

maaaaaaaarten.

Since you know so much about why everyone was created and what will happen to everyone in the future etc, could you please explain to me who the first person in heaven and first person in hell were.

Im interested because obviously you see animals as non beings, seeing as how you seem to think they don't possess these things like "freedom of choice" that god only gave to man (for some reason, be good if you could explain that too)

Anyway seeing as how animals are all just robots incapable of feeling and all those other things god only lets humans do, then obviously animals don't go to heaven and hell (a blessing really since putting beings in eternal suffering for the crime of being born into the wrong family is something that rapists and pedophiles and mass murders would consider barbaric).

But Humans are descended from other mammals. Like going back 100 million years our anscestors were more like rodents than humans.

And obviously these rodents don't go to heaven.

Which is a shame cos god was watching over them all that time. In fact he was watching over them for like 1000 times as long as he has been watching over us. Must have been pretty boring. Considering the Walking with Dinosaurs series was more like a very condensed highlight reel of the affair and most of the time during the Jurrasic and Cretacious periods there was nothing really going on, just dinos sleeping and excreting and walking around.

But anyway to get back to the point, the rodents don't go to heaven. And slightly bigger rodents they evolved into didn't go to heaven. And fast forward a few dozen million years the australopithecus monkey like creatures from which we descend didn't go to heaven.

But over time the monkey like creatures became more human like creatures.

What I want to know is at what specific point did the monkey become a human.

Who was it that God said - you are a human, you have free will and you can go to heaven (more likely hell, considering the way god operates you go to hell for being totally innocent).
But your parents, they are just robots, not humans, they didn't have free will and bla bla bla (even though you share 99.9999999% of your features with them).

Since you no so much about everything maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarten this shouldn't be a difficult question to answer (though for some reason i feel you will try to avoid it)

Monkeys have always given birth to monkeys and humans have always given birth to humans.
To the best of my knowledge there is no concrete evidence that one ever became the other.

 

[ray j willings]

This isn't a very convincing post - Not much substance.

You are claiming the existence of a supernatural being who you believe created everything. You need to have some factual proof that your supernatural being exists.

There is no scientific evidence. Old books and faith are not evidence.

Do you have a photo

 

[The Hitch]

Monkeys have always given birth to monkeys and humans have always given birth to humans.
To the best of my knowledge there is no concrete evidence that one ever became the other.

Fixed your post for you.

 

[ray j willings]

Monkeys have always given birth to monkeys and humans have always given birth to humans.
To the best of my knowledge there is no concrete evidence that one ever became the other.

If science cannot answer a question you can't fill in the space and say God is the answer. If you did that to every scientific question that eventually got answered with a scientific factual and proven answer then your God answer would have been wrong quite a few times and just like the catholic church did with Galileo they ended up looking a bit stupid.

 

[Christian]

Monkeys have always given birth to monkeys and humans have always given birth to humans.
To the best of my knowledge there is no concrete evidence that one ever became the other.

You are quite correct that no monkey ever gave birth to a human. At the same time, this is not at all what the theory of evolution postulates

 

[The Hitch]

I really don't understand what you're trying to get at with this post, Hitchey. I just wrote a post, right above yours, explicitly saying I don't know so much about these types of things. I don't see what you want with this post asking questions to which you already know the answer, writing with a bit of ridicule here and there and for some reason with exceptionally poor grammar and spelling for your standards.

So I won't avoid the question; I'll happily answer and admit I don't know who is the first person to go to heaven or hell. (I also don't know why I should know it, how I could know it, or what the relevance of my knowledge about it would be if I did know it.)

Its more about pointing out the obvious flaw that a theory of the universe that only works for 1 small species that has been on the planet for less than 1% of existence, is not a complete theory.

Either you know what happens (afterlife) for everyone, or you don't know.

Its pompous and arrogant and ignorant to say you only know what happens to you and people you like (heaven) and people you don't like (hell, how convenient) but don't give a **** about everyone else.

If all you know is that you go to heaven, but can't even explain why god only chooses you and doesn't give 99.99 (more 9's than a's in your name) a chance, then your theory is more full of holes than 9/11 truthers.

 

[Christian]

The problem with discussing the theory of evolution is that few people have a good understanding or a "working knowledge" of it.

Everyone can disagree with it, but ideally you should have studied it a bit, in order to know more or less what you are disagreeing is.

I know there are a few biologists or other scientists out there that prominently advocate against the theory of evolution, and those are often quoted. Also, today many people accept evolution yet continue to believe in god, so for many people one does not exclude the other.

But I think if people had a basic understanding of the theory of evolution, it would make away with quite a lot of discussions that are ultimately based on false ideas that people have on what evolution is.

Unfortunately in most countries the church and other religious groups lobby to keep darwinism away from the curricula of the public schools. In my country for example the vast majority of students will never explicitly learn about it. At the same time, it is being taught impicitly, for "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution", as Theodore Dobzhansky said. This way, the church is still doing its best to keep people in the dark.

 

[Tank Engine]

ECHOES ON THE TRUTH

You DO believe in fairy tales. I believe facts, man.

(of course they are telling lies, like on the slave trade topic that we discussed the other day)

Spielberg recently directed a film on the slave trade, I don't remember the title but he wished to show that Christians were the villains while the Jews were their victims as well as the Blacks, which is an obvious distortion of the truth.

You're very clear on your facts there. I assumed that you might have been talking about "Twelve Years a Slave". Apart from Amistad (1997), Spielberg also directed "Lincoln" in 2012, which had slavery as a major theme, which you might have been talking about. But seeing as we don't know what film you are talking about, how can we assess whether it is an OBVIOUS distortion of the truth?

The worst thing is that you are not even reading any of my posts otherwise you'd know that ONLY the secularists/atheists think that their truth is superior

..and I continue. In order to drive the point home

You seem to think that we should take your posts as "gospel truth". Is it impossible to read them and disagree with them?

Regarding your posting of the youtube clip, are you just being offensive? If not, could you give your reasoning for posting the clip?

 

[Jspear]

You are quite correct that no monkey ever gave birth to a human. At the same time, this is not at all what the theory of evolution postulates

I understand. I was responding to Hitches question "at what specific point did the monkey become a human." Of course monkeys never became humans.

 

[Jspear]

You are claiming the existence of a supernatural being who you believe created everything. You need to have some factual proof that your supernatural being exists.

There is no scientific evidence. Old books and faith are not evidence.

Do you have a photo

If you take this position then you must doubt everything that took place in antiquity.

 

[Echoes]

Nowadays, the "truths" that should be taken on face value, which you hardly may counter are those that are opposite to those I'm sharing here. At least in my country. You have to accept all of the Church's "tiranny" and "obscurantism". You may not question that reading grid. We are taught about it at school, in MSM, in most successful books and indeed in films... So don't reverse roles.

If you don't trust me, then just documentate and we talk, you have the whole Internet for this (and I'm sure that most won't even do it). Beside if you want to ruin my reasoning by just pointing out that Amistad is not that recent, it's pretty poor... It's a detail that does not change anything to the rest of my reasoning (yes it's the one I had in mine) and compare to Gone with the Wind, it's pretty recent.

Another example of lie that has recently been posted I see and that I've already debunked several times on this topic: the Galileo Trial (still by the same poster, by the way).

So once again, Galileo has been arrested because he gave his word that he would publish his book in a roman publishing house and instead he published it in a Tuscan one. The mistake was his. Besides he tried to interpret the Bible, which was not his job, he was a scientist and not a theologian. Besides, he never could prove that the earth revolved around the sun, he only provided hypotheses (and even that was not the reason for his trial), the evidence came with Newton and even experimental proof with telescope, after him. Finally, the Church NEVER vetoed against the heliocentric model, They had no reason for it, Copernicus never got any threats from the Church which on the contrary encouraged his work, Kepler found shelter in the Catholic Church while he was under threas in Protestant Germany.

So it's again a whole atheistic lie that I think atheists have to account for. I can't always be in a defensive position, I think we should counter-attack. This lie that dates back from the Enlightenment should be accounted for. They did too much harm.


My YT clip is a tribute to a legendary tennis player with Irish Catholic heritage.

More seriously, I'm quite fed up with all these degrading/humiliating ready-made catchprases, like "fairy tales", "magicians", etc. This poster's abrupt changes of subjects arer also boring. See, I'm talking about salad, he'd be talking about Javel bleach. "How old are you?" "Tuesday". Pathetic!

More generally speaking, when I see how even Maarten is talked to, so condescendingly. So much smugness (I thought it was against the rules to refer to someone's username?). It's kind of disgusting. If it's with me, okay, I'm rather impulsive, so it's understandable, but he's harmless and would even always respond to these attacks with calm and dignity. It's just unbearable to see...

 

[hrotha]

I understand. I was responding to Hitches question "at what specific point did the monkey become a human." Of course monkeys never became humans.

Hitch's point still stands even if you bother to reword it in more accurate terms. At which point during evolution did a non-human primate give birth to a fully human, soul-endowed primate?

Granted, this point doesn't work on Bible literalists. It's for the more reasonable religious folks out there.