Truthmission: matters of holy spirit baptism, etc

[Truthmission]

Hi Guys,

This is my first post, I stumbled across your forum on a google search for Adelaide revival, as I was speaking to a bloke who was convinced he had the Holy Spirit within him, said he spoke in tongues and previously to receiving the spirit he was at rock bottom, drug and alcohol abuser. He has claimed that this all changed after the Holy spirit entered him. Have any of you witnessed anything such as this?

1) From what I have read of the Bible, Tongues are mentioned but the main reason for them is so that a person of God can talk in this way and then people of all different languages can UNDERSTAND what is being said.. its like a universal language.

Paul also says that the weight to be put on on speaking in Tongues that cannot be understood by at least someone is very minimal. I do not understand the use of it if no-one can understand it.

2) Also from reading many of your posts of quite traumatic experiences with some Christian Churches. I am very much against people being indoctrinated or force fed dogma without any proof from the writings of the Bible at all. I have also been told of abuse that is done in the name of God to supposedly expell demons ect and its quite sickening.

If what you are being told does not seem loving and selfless as Jesus was, then you are being fed someones opinion only. (note rebuking with a good intent is another issue)
Jesus rebuked the Jewish pharasis (priests) that did that in his day, and explained that if they mislead people then it comes down on them on day of judgment.

3) I really hope that when you are being told anything by anyone that warrants questioning you actually look it up, whether its googling, the Bible or scientific books. I have used many resources to try to find the truth.
It has been prophesied that people will turn against religion, and much of that is due to Mans warping of what the true message is. Unfortunately I cannot guide you to any particular religion that I believe has the entire truth and acts in a Christ like manner. Hard to say it but the JW's do have some very good articles and books, but be sure to check the references ect.

I would recommend the Zeightguist Movies, Religourous, PBS online evolution vidoes and Exodus Decoded.

Please NOTE that most of these are critical of Churches, and many are quite amusing / distressing to know how much we are mislead by any type of world power. BUT when it comes to disproving the accuracy of the Bible I have not seen ANY good evidence.

Google the odds of us even being alive, the odds of Jesus existing and the odds of us evolving from sludge.... Do your research and you can all rest easy that at least you looked.

[wolty]

BUT when it comes to disproving the accuracy of the Bible I have not seen ANY good evidence.

Maybe you are just not looking in the right places. Try science. That would be geology, archaeology, physics and cosmology.
Actually I look at it another way. The bible has to prove to me it is accurate. And it isn't. It is sorely lacking in numerous areas. And believe me, I have looked.
Greetings btw. :)



Google the odds of us even being alive, the odds of Jesus existing and the odds of us evolving from sludge.... Do your research and you can all rest easy that at least you looked.
Like I said someplace else (a christian forum) the results are in and there is no need for debate at all. Evolution is a fact. Anybody that cannot see that does not understand it. Do you honestly think we haven't looked?

I would think all here have looked and have made up their own minds with regards evidence.

However, if you want to discuss the issues you raised, re evolution, I am sure we can find a suitable place on the island.

[Truthmission]

Lads,

Thanks for the speedy reply, totally understand and respect where you are coming from. I will make every attempt in further discussions to quote the Bible scriptures I am discussing, but as you can understand it obviously takes more time, but if I do miss out on something in particular and you feel its my opinion.. please pull me up on it, I will try to always distinguish between scripture and my opinion. As I will with you on unsubstantiated scientific claims.. which unfortunately in Evolution Vs Creation debates there are plenty. I have seen that on both sides things claimed to be FACT are honestly not so.

Wolty:-
I Honestly think that your search for PROOF of evolution is far from over, I keep tabs on new breakthroughs ect and have quite a few links on the latest science data.
As for us evolving from an amino acid to get to human, I'm sorry the evidence is NOT there, any honest scientist will accept that. Evolution by natural selection cannot be labelled a FACT as it cannot be proven in experiments, please refrain from calling it a certainty as it is a theory. Darwin got many things wrong.

In terms of science, did you know that Einstein believed in God there are many good quotes from him. Also Isaac Newton, he actually wrote more on evidence of creation/God than he did on his other scientific theories. These people are geniuses and they looked into the areas you have mentioned.

Mathematics is also required in proven theories, probabilities ect. Have a google of the probability of Humans evolving from sludge,

2) The chances of us being that lucky to be on Earth, the exact distance from the sun to support life, a singular moon to incline the earth to get our seasons so that life still exists, our atmosphere.. this list goes on an on.. do you really think we can get that lucky??

3) Look at the prophecies the Bible got correct (eg Babylon), how the Bible has been proven continually correct when it comes to history, that with only recent digs have been proven correct ( many cities & people mentioned in the Bible.. not mentioned in other texts )

4) When the Bible touches on science it also shows truth..

a) ie the creation story, science agrees with the chain of events.
b) The Bible often went against the scientific views of the time..

5) When you look at the odds of the ancient prophecies of the Messiah.. and there are many details.. for Jesus to actually fulfill all this the odds are minute.


Mr Black:-

This Holy Spirit Baptised.... The people that claim to be so, have seemed to always elude that I am not one of those people... what does that feel like?? Does the story he told me ring true?

Thankyou for being polite, I assume that we should be as I am only interested in logic here, I am deeply hurt that religion has found ways to twist and warp the true messages of God to the point that its totally reasonable for people to turn away entirely. I don't want an emotional battle with anyone, I just want to look at the facts here.

I am advocating for the Bible to be read on its OWN merits, not with the indoctrination of centuries of political/ Human manipulation that is all. I would recommend sites such as Biblos, so at least you can see different translations of the Bible.. Unfortunately even translators have some bias.
Are you unfamiliar with Jesus warning of the word being manipulated or rebuking the Jewish Priests? If not I am happy to quote the scriptures, we can organise a list of every point that you cannot find for yourself in the Bible. I want to make all this as clear as possible.


Here are a few scriptures I had in mind:-

below is the motivation.. its out of care not manipulation.

Rev12:12 On this account be glad, YOU heavens and YOU who reside in them! Woe for the earth and for the sea, because the Devil has come down to YOU, having great anger, knowing he has a short period of time.

So both sides have a short period of time,


Finding the Lost - Matthew 18:12-14

http://img.heartlight.org/heartlight5.0/icon2_printer.gif (http://www.heartlight.org/cgi/simplify.cgi?wjd-matthew) http://img.heartlight.org/heartlight5.0/icon2_email.gif (http://www.heartlight.org/cgi/forward.cgi?wjd-matthew) http://img.heartlight.org/heartlight6/feed-icon-14x14.png (http://www.heartlight.org/rss/track/devos/wjd/)
"If a man has 100 sheep, but one of the sheep becomes lost, then the man will leave the other 99 sheep on the hill. He will go to look for the lost sheep. Right? And if the man finds the lost sheep, the man is happier about that one sheep than about the 99 sheep that were never lost. I tell you the truth. In the same way, your Father in heaven does not want any of these little children to be lost." (

[davo]

presenting a 'nice' god does not make the claim more truthful.

[Truthmission]

Hi Davo,

Anything specific you do not agree on mate??

Have you read parts in the Bible you feel are untruthful?

Mat 6,43
“ You have heard that it is said, “Love your friends, hate your enemies”. But now I tell you: love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may become the sons of your father in heaven. For he makes his sun to shine on good and bad people alike, and gives rain to those who do good and to those who do evil.

[Loki]

1. Ambiogenisis and evolution are two different things.

2. Evolution is a fact, it has been demonstrated and observed occuring many times, to suggest it hasn't is simply disingenuous. Look up the Lensky experiments for a simple example. The recent evolution of Nylonase is another you might like to look into.

3. Good luck with these apparently unsubstantiated claims in evolution, I'd ask for examples but suspect I've seen and dismissed them before, more than once.

3. Einstein did not believe in gods, there is significant evidence for this, and it wouldn't make a scrap of difference to his work if he had.

4. Probability is part of the vast majority of evolutionary work, do you read?

5. Before you start on the xian god, could you provide some evidence for the existence of the supernatural in general, I like to start at the basics.

[davo]

which unfortunately in Evolution Vs Creation debates there are plenty. I have seen that on both sides things claimed to be FACT are honestly not so.

Indeed, but please point out what is incorrect and why in the Theory of Evolution.


Wolty:-
I Honestly think that your search for PROOF of evolution is far from over, I keep tabs on new breakthroughs ect and have quite a few links on the latest science data.

That's the beauty of science, it progresses and is not stagnant dogma.


As for us evolving from an amino acid to get to human, I'm sorry the evidence is NOT there, any honest scientist will accept that. Evolution by natural selection cannot be labelled a FACT as it cannot be proven in experiments, please refrain from calling it a certainty as it is a theory. Darwin got many things wrong.

Evolution is a fact, the Theory of Evolution is an explanation of the mechanics of it.


In terms of science, did you know that Einstein believed in God there are many good quotes from him.

No, he was at best a deist. Anyway this is just an Appeal to Authority.


Also Isaac Newton, he actually wrote more on evidence of creation/God than he did on his other scientific theories. These people are geniuses and they looked into the areas you have mentioned.

This does not make them right. It's an error of reasoning to use this, a logical fallacy called Appeal to Authority.


Mathematics is also required in proven theories, probabilities ect. Have a google of the probability of Humans evolving from sludge,

Straw man argument, what are you talking about 'sludge'? You are the one claiming humans came from dirt. Science is making no such claims of truth.


2) The chances of us being that lucky to be on Earth, the exact distance from the sun to support life, a singular moon to incline the earth to get our seasons so that life still exists, our atmosphere.. this list goes on an on.. do you really think we can get that lucky??

This is a case of post hoc, ergo proper hoc (it happened after, therefore was caused by).

You are looking back at a situation and applying statistics to it.

If I throw a dart at the wall, there is 100% chance it landed where it did as a start (let's just say).

Draw a line down the wall, there was a 50% chance. Keep drawing lines over and over, and you can say there was a 1 in 10 billion chance of it landing at that exact spot! wow!

It's not luck, processes led us to be here, looking back at those processes because they occured and stating it is luck is an error of reasoning


3) Look at the prophecies the Bible got correct (eg Babylon), how the Bible has been proven continually correct when it comes to history, that with only recent digs have been proven correct ( many cities & people mentioned in the Bible.. not mentioned in other texts )

Most cities and nations of antiquity have fallen, and most of the ones that are around today will probably fall eventually, also, if only you're willing to wait long enough.

oh the benefit of hindsight and picking and choosing. ;)


4) When the Bible touches on science it also shows truth..

Like it saying Pi is 3 if you do the calculations of 1 Kings 7:23 then again in 2 Chronicles 4:2? Or that you could build an Ark to hold every single animal on earth? The list goes on .. I guess you are going to cherry pick and then interpret aren't you?


a) ie the creation story, science agrees with the chain of events.

No it does not. Show us the evidence for that claim!

Even christians agree :

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0404order.asp


b) The Bible often went against the scientific views of the time..

Like where?


5) When you look at the odds of the ancient prophecies of the Messiah.. and there are many details.. for Jesus to actually fulfill all this the odds are minute.

unless it was a reconstruction of existing fable to make it more friendly, such as the story of john the baptist.

Anyway, I have to run catching transport in 15mins to melbourne for the atheist convention! weee!

[Truthmission]

Just quickly, I will respond to Loki in the moved post..

BUT this Holy Spirit feeling, healings ect in the Revival Church... is there any favorable aspects of this Church?

Cheers

[loubert]

truthmission, or whatever ya name is.

I suggest you get your facts right about einstein, when he refers to "god", he was refering to a god of universal order not a personal god as in jebus, allah, ect ect ect.
There is a HUGE difference, on top of that, by arguing that because some smart dude/dudette believed in cat, dog, or a god is an argument from authority, which frankly is a rather poor debating point.

BUT when it comes to disproving the accuracy of the Bible I have not seen ANY good evidence.I have, the bible itself.

[Truthmission]

Sorry Guys I am at work, but I will get to those good questions and links.. busy one today.. but to

Loubert...

Hi my name is Justin..thanks for the input

I know Einstein did not have a personal God, but at least he did not make stuff up and call something a Fact, he marvelled at the unknown and beauty of the universe... He never said something living comes from non-living out of chance.. which an Atheist must believe yes??? If there is no intelligent design than us as humans, are supremely lucky indeed, impossible odds really.

This is a quote that you must disagree with??

A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. (Albert Einstein)


I am not saying just because some dudes.. such as Newton / Einstein... believed in something so should us all, but these minds are very unique and powerful, surely we should investigate their points of view, compare it with the evidence and make our own choice. I am just asking you all to have an open mind. No-one is infallible, but I can see that the Bible has merit.
As others have done and I will do my best, is there anything in particular how the Bible proves itself incorrect??

Thanks in advance

[davo]

Just quickly, I will respond to Loki in the moved post..

BUT this Holy Spirit feeling, healings ect in the Revival Church... is there any favorable aspects of this Church?

Cheers

On the bus so short reply ....
What does this churchs members do that is 'good' that an atheist could not?
Your question is better asked of them. I see no point in religious faith, it is a suspension of reasoning and logic placing god as an explanation, this can be dangerous and moderate believers empower the nutcases.
So really what is so redeeming about it?
Nothing.

[Truthmission]

No thats not really what I am asking....

There are people out there that claim that the Holy Spirit entered them, and from that point on, their lives have changed dramatically for the good.
To the point they do not even crave previous high risk damaging behavior.

This is supposed to be different from say a smoker that gives up but still craves.....

I have only attended one born again type church and it was an unpleasant experience. The man up the front demanding all the glory saying he can cure anything.... so I never went back...

So as many of you seem to have had experiences with such types and can look at it logically now, is there anything in these BA churches you can give merit too.

[Truthmission]

Mr Black,

Thanks for the link.. will have a good look, certain seems like you have had a "colorful" life!!

Just a quick comment on your Dawkins quote lol

I used to believe that too, the horribly OT God, but once you take it in context, knowing that Jehovah( Yahweh) God had a plan for mankind, made promises to his chosen ones, intended his Son to take a Human form from these chosen people ect. He could not allow others to destroy the lineage.

The Philistines, Canaanites ect who where in great opposition to the Jews(Israelites) had evil dieties that they performed great evil for, human sacrifices, fetus eating ect ect.. these types of people could have easily wiped out the Israelites.. that would have made God a liar

So, God could never let his promised be broken or his will be changed. He loved these people most and gave them so much.

God makes no excuses that sooner or later we all will be judged, he created us so why would he want w*&nkers around. It is made quite clear when Jehovah makes destructive decisions that its for a reason.. such as in Sodom...

Gen 6:5 The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.

[Truthmission]

Sorry typing too fast.. I was meaning Placenta Eating... common with the Wicken.. and sacrificing Fetuses/ infants to their Gods.. there is proof of that that has been unearthed of ritually sacrificed Babies in glass jars.. I can find the source if you can't find it on google....

Jephthah's daughter was not killed by God, there is debate about whether she was actually killed at all. Such a sacrifice is an abomination to Jehovah, as its something he hated about false worship... Something to note, The Bible comments much about all the things the Jew did wrong.. just because its mentioned in the Bible does not mean it was done as part of Gods will. Just look at Cain and Abel.

Why do you think you should have met God by now where in the Bible are you thinking??

Occam's Razor is about simplicity, origin of life is clearly not simple, the belief in Atheism is a faith as is the rest of the majority of Religion, you cannot prove there is no God, as far as I and many others can see there is order in the universe, in a very delicate balance. I believe there was a intelligent creator, Atheists simply believe luck is the answer close enough??

[wolty]

Wolty:-
I Honestly think that your search for PROOF of evolution is far from over, I keep tabs on new breakthroughs ect and have quite a few links on the latest science data.
As for us evolving from an amino acid to get to human, I'm sorry the evidence is NOT there, any honest scientist will accept that. Evolution by natural selection cannot be labelled a FACT as it cannot be proven in experiments, please refrain from calling it a certainty as it is a theory. Darwin got many things wrong.

My search for proof regarding evolution is over. You will find scientists are not arguing over the fact. They may have disagreements over how evolution works and small things, but the debate is over, the facts are in.
Quote from talkorigons. (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html)
Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent.

Are you telling me you know more than 99.9% of scientists working in the relevant fields?



In terms of science, did you know that Einstein believed in God there are many good quotes from him. Also Isaac Newton, he actually wrote more on evidence of creation/God than he did on his other scientific theories. These people are geniuses and they looked into the areas you have mentioned.


(

Others have commented on this and I always find it dishonest that it is trawled out again and again. So did you lie, are you badly informed or do you want to believe so badly that you suspend reason and research?

[loubert]

As others have done and I will do my best, is there anything in particular how the Bible proves itself incorrect??where do you want me to start?

men and women living for hundreds of years,
the story of noah,
no archaeological (sp?) proof of moses and his journey..

ect ect ect in fact, i'd say the entire thing.

as for your quotation of einstein,i would say you are reading and interpreting it out of context.

by quoting such people, you ARE arguing from authority


He never said something living comes from non-living out of chance.. which an Atheist must believe yes??? If there is no intelligent design than us as humans, are supremely lucky indeed, impossible odds really.

For a start, einstein was well known for cosmology, not biology. So really the man had really no place to say anything regarding such topics.

Tell me, why are we humans such a impossibility without intelligent hocus pocus?

Are you familiar with the Miller-Urey experiment of the 1950's? while this does not produce "life", it may provide a small part as to how life did come about on our wet rock. I am not going to just cop out and say that god did it, when i cannot understand something or not have a reason as to why something came about..... i think you'll find that, that was what einstein was talking about.

[wolty]

the belief in Atheism is a faith as is the rest of the majority of Religion, you cannot prove there is no God, as far as I and many others can see there is order in the universe, in a very delicate balance. I believe there was a intelligent creator, Atheists simply believe luck is the answer close enough??

Not even in the same universe.
Atheism is a faith? Just like not believing in the tooth fairy is a faith? Please stop being silly.

And I would think all religions rely on faith, as there is no observable evidence.

Edit: Atheists believe luck is the answer? Really? How do you know this? Or did you make it up.
Hang on I know. You thought of something in your head and assumed it was true, and then posted it as the truth.

[loubert]

just like not playing chess is a hobby.......please, you'll have to do better than that.

[Truthmission]

Ok I have some good stuff to go on and make a re-buttle.. just wanna make sure I cover it all.. I do thank everyone for their comments.

But I really don't think I am being silly here Wolty... Since the theory of No God... which means the universe appeared from somewhere, undirected, time goes on and that non-living matter forms life, basic to begin with, a plant comes along and then some time after that a Human is walking around.. ALL out of random chance and luck. surely these are a matter of faith, as you will not find proof of this occurring, or re-create this happening.

Science has found some forms of evolution yes I realise that as much as I realize my skin is different from other races through adaptation.

If something cannot be proven from start to finish, you have to admit its an opinion / faith. I agree there are similarities with us and Homo-Erectus, BUT there is no proven link between the two species.. Some evolution docos call it a "Big Bang" of intelligence, plus many other massive differences.. Every museum I have looked at on Human origins, still admit there is no confirmed evidence we are directly related to any other species...

Some people even claim there are renegade african christians keeping the missing link skeletons kept under wraps..

Gotta go, I will try to answer all these questions.. thanks again and have a good night!!

[wolty]

@ loubert, we always have to start with defining what an athiests is, because people just couldn't be bothered finding out themselves. Also it disturbs their misconceptions so much. Then they have to start all over again, when they should have worked it out before saying stuff.

[loubert]

I know Wolty, i know..... just that I/we all seem to hear it over and over and over......

Be back a bit later, I have a hockey game that i am not competting in, watching or have anything to do with, to attend to. :rolleyes:

[Truthmission]

Not even in the same universe.
Atheism is a faith? Just like not believing in the tooth fairy is a faith? Please stop being silly.

And I would think all religions rely on faith, as there is no observable evidence.

Edit: Ahteists believe luck is the answer? Really? How do you know this? Or did you make it up.
Hang on I know. You thought of something in your head and assumed it was true, and then posted it as the truth.


No Guys, I really hope I come across differently to the people you have dealt with before of faith... Wolty.. no the luck and chance I got from discussions, evolution videos and reading some of Dawkins work.. I was not trying to be condecending.. surely a belief in evolution has elements of luck??


Mr Black... I will change the PM setting.. but you can put me in whatever category you like, I am not one of the people you mention that treats others badly because of opinion, but I do expect people to back up their beliefs or lack of.

I apologize if I have misconceptions about you Wolty/Loubert, as I'm sure you will also have about me. I will try to be patient and I hope you will show me the same.

[wolty]

But I really don't think I am being silly here Wolty... Since the theory of No God... which means the universe appeared from somewhere, undirected, time goes on and that non-living matter forms life, basic to begin with, a plant comes along and then some time after that a Human is walking around.. ALL out of random chance and luck. surely these are a matter of faith, as you will not find proof of this occurring, or re-create this happening.


My response regarding silly was directed at your post about atheism being a faith.
No, atheism is not a faith. Just like you not believing in thor is not a faith. Understand yet?

Because you have used words such as random chance and luck, I will hazard a guess and suggest you know nothing about evolution. Perhaps an understanding of the concept would be a good start for you.

And even if evolution was not correct (and it is), it makes no difference whether any god exists.

But if you want to disagree with all the available evidence with regards biology, genetics, physiology ,archaeology from the last 200 years, then who am I to argue.

[Loki]

Perhaps you might like to look at some of these

http://www.gla.ac.uk/projects/originoflife/html/2001/pdf_articles.htm

Plenty more available if that is not enough.

Science might not have nailed down the precise mechanism or mechanisms which definitely led to life, but to suggest sciences only answer so far is "chance" or "luck" is ludicrous. It may be that the precise mechanisms may never be known, fossilisation and subsequent recovery of individual molecules seems problematic to me. There are many plausible explanations, and evidence to support many of them.

[atheist_angel]

Sorry typing too fast.. I was meaning Placenta Eating... common with the Wicken.. and sacrificing Fetuses/ infants to their Gods.. there is proof of that that has been unearthed of ritually sacrificed Babies in glass jars.. Ok, I'm lost. "Wicken" Who? The village or the surname? I didn't think "glass" containers were common in the good o' eras. It was a luxury among the few and the rich, as I understood it.I can find the source if you can't find it on google....That would be nice.Jephthah's daughter was not killed by God, there is debate about whether she was actually killed at all. Such a sacrifice is an abomination to Jehovah, as its something he hated about false worship... Something to note, The Bible comments much about all the things the Jew did wrong.. just because its mentioned in the Bible does not mean it was done as part of Gods will. Just look at Cain and Abel.The tale of Abraham offering up Issac is a legend about the transition from "human burnt offering", (read 'human sacrifice') to "animal burnt sacrifice". I really don't think you know what you're talking about here.

[wolty]

No Guys, I really hope I come across differently to the people you have dealt with before of faith...

Not different yet, but you have nice manners, unlike most theists that post here.



I apologize if I have misconceptions about you Wolty/Loubert, as I'm sure you will also have about me. I will try to be patient and I hope you will show me the same.

We (and I think I speak for loubert here as well) really don't start with misconceptions. We relate to what you say. If you are in error, we will say something. We have already had to say something about your idea about faith in no gods. That is par for the course on fantasy island. And I mean it happens every single time. It does get very annoying having to define something that is easily understood. If we are short with you, that is the reason.

Most here will have abundant patience. And we all know, we don't have to post if we don't want to/ couldn't be bothered.

Thanks for your replys, hope all goes well with you.

[Truthmission]

Mods..

My last post didn't come through it was quite lengthy... any reason??

[Truthmission]

OK thanks.. took me about an hour.

I started working on it 9am Adelaide time today

[Truthmission]

Spuing!! try again

Morning all

Mr Black / Angel

Baby in Jars

Leviticus 18 and 20 list some of the detestable religious practices of the Canaanites and says that these acts caused the land to become defiled, so that its inhabitants were vomited out. This comes with the warning that if the Israelites copy those practices, the land will also vomit them out. That is exactly what happened.
Archeology gives some hints about what the Canaanites did. On one of the High Places, archaeologists found several stone pillars and great numbers of jars containing the remains of newborn babies. When a new house was built, a child would be sacrificed and its body built into the wall to bring good luck to the rest of the family. The firstborn were often sacrificed to Molech, a giant hollow bronze image in which a fire was built. Parents would place their children in its red hot hands and the babies would roll down into the fire. The sacrifice was invalid if the mother showed grief. She was supposed to dance and sing. The Israelites later copied this practice in a valley near Jerusalem called Gehenna. Hundreds of jars containing infant bones have been found there, hence being driven out as well.


http://www.answers.com/topic/canaanites




Wiccan/Placenta
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080710215120AAOvHip

Angel:-

Mr Black was commenting on the Evil acts told of in the Hebrew scriptures.
Abraham and Isaac was not discussed.

Why do you think you are an Apostate? If there is a God that is not a good stance.

Loki / Wolty:-

Thanks for all the links and I am sorting out a rebuttal.

I am glad you mention that current science does not have a definite and accurate explanation to life without a creator, most evolutionist claim it to be a fact and ignore the gaps. I am against this as being claimed a fact.

In terms of Evolution definition, what do you guys believe, Biogenesis? Wouldn't you have to if there is no God.
You would also have to believe we have chimps as ancestors??

Look up this link.. see all the gaps and question marks when looking at the Hominid family tree , to me they require some sort of jump or leap of faith to believe the tree in entirety, that is why I call it a type of faith.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/humans/humankind/


Have you considered this little creature in terms of creation? :-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_beetle
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v12/i1/bombardier.asp
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/422599.stm


A question:- What percentage of the Brain have you concluded Humans use??

[nettybetty]

Side Question TruthMission...I noticed you are in Adelaide and that recently there are posters all over Adelaide Uni with your "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind" quote all over the place...is that where you got your Einstein inspiration??

I'm probably opening a can of worms here, but oh well....

On that particular quote really when you break it down, it doesn't help the case for religion at all....at it's most literal science is only lame with religion, and with out science religion is blind. I would much rather be considered lame than totally blind, for when one is blind they can't see the truth/fact/evidence.

However I've read that Einstein shouldn't be taken literally, and this quote formed part of a delivery on Philosophy...and really you can take religion to mean one of several things:
1. a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny;
2. an institution to express belief in a divine power
3. A collection of practices, based on beliefs and teachings that are highly valued or sacred.
4. Any practice that someone or some group is seriously devoted to.

Mainly pulled from definitions on the web...
So if you take each of those definitions and apply it to the quote, you get completely different meanings.
Within the field of science, there are 'rules' that people perform science by, things such as falsifiability, empirical observation etc. To a scientist the foundations of science are sacred, they underpin everything they do (definition 3) and furthermore, most scientists I work with are pretty devoted (definition 4). Thus you could take that Einstein quote to mean that without following the 'rules' of science or not being devoted, the results will be lame (and they usually are).

Another way to look at is is that without a bit of belief in what you are doing (based on previous research) will yield results. However a good scientist will usually do lots of research and use this to design said experiment, thus increasing the likelihood of success - science without creativity would be crappy, as nothing new would be achieved. So maybe what Einstein meant was that science without a bit of belief in the science is lame.....

I think to make your point you need a better quote....

By the way, if you are going to attack evolution, you need to read more than a popular book by Dawkins....try an evolutionary biology textbook, some probability theory, and the journals. I work with a group of evolutionary biologists, and evolution is a highly complex process (ie. not the common monkey to man approach). Being told the people I work with are wrong by someone who has at most basic understanding of evolution, is a bit of an insult and well, a display of downright ignorance. Show them the evidence or get in the lab yourself and do it and then we can all give up and go home.

[nettybetty]

Every museum I have looked at on Human origins, still admit there is no confirmed evidence we are directly related to any other species...


Interesting, considering there are countless studies out there on conserved regions of the genome...and well, there is conservation between Neanderthal and Humans in the form of the foxp2 gene - they are identical. Furthermore, there are rumours that a more complete Neanderthal genome will be published very soon, which should shed some light on how similar Neanderthal are to humans (or should I say the one they took the DNA from).....

Do you mean species of other homo? or moving out to Genus? If you are after direct species links, well humans are the only existing homo so it's a bit difficultto establish direct species links, considering the relatives of modern humans existed about 40,000 years ago - makes doing genetic studies a bit difficult....However we do have pretty comprehensive morphological studies.

If you start getting out to the tribe of Hominin you find incredible genetic conservation, suggesting a common ancestor between Pan (chimp) and human. Move out again and you are at family level and again, massive genetic conservation. There are bacterial sequences which are so well conserved they appear all throughout the animal kingdom. There are complex theories which deal with evolutionary genetics including coalescent theory, which are applied to effectively trace the origins of sequences and establish common ancestors etc.

PS. If you want literature citations, I can go dig it up for you just let me know!

PPS. Scientific opinion/theory is based on a body of observable, verifiable evidence therefore greatly differs from the standard definition of opinion/belief....please keep this in mind when making points. Furthermore, many theories esp. physical/mathematical have strict rules and proofs which mus be obeyed. Big Bang Theory does have some observable evidence, including microwave radiation - I've only read the popular science versions of this though.

[Truthmission]

Netty:-

No I have not been to the Uni for years :)

I'm sorry if I offended you, and no I am not a biologist, and I am not a expert in the field, but I am willing to learn. I am not against scientific research or your friends, but what I am against is conclusions being drawn without all the appropriate links, experiments and facts. I am quite happy when reading respectable scientific information when they do divulge inconsistencies and issues with the conclusion being drawn. You have to admit even from that PBS link i sent there must be assumptions to draw the conclusion that there is no God and it all just happened without any design / intelligence input, I can't see how any of you can argue against that. The debate is still OPEN on this, there are many highly regarded Biologists that do believe in Intelligent Design.



Mr Black...

Crickets have stopped lol:- But please feel free to perhaps play devils advocate there is lots of sites that talk about Babies in Jars in that time period.. apologies if I mentioned glass as before.. I was mistaken.. its clay, I will attempt to be more thorough.

http://www.penn.museum/sites/Canaan/MiddleBronzeAge.html
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=NsJNAxgtydYC&pg=PA187&lpg=PA187&dq=canaanites+infants+in+jars&source=bl&ots=msY59LRXlS&sig=oJVmWzTceOOUAbMLZFMn9CMvJBE&hl=en&ei=YEOYS9_LINKHkAWA8oBC&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBUQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=canaanites%20infants%20in%20jars&f=false

[Truthmission]

Mr Black:-

Canned?? why would that be? I have sited all my references and reasoning behind my opinions yes?? I will try to stay amusing for you !! I am not trying to be annoying.

Netty:-

Do you have an opinion about Brain usage percentage as my previous posts??


Ok in my effort to stay amusing,

Have you guys considered the Babylon Prophecy??

In Isaiah
“It shall never be inhabited, neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation: neither shall the Arabian pitch tent there; neither shall the shepherds make their fold there.”




Babylon is not re-built.. Sadaam tried and failed... there are NO inhabitants, nor families ( generations) to live there.

Now you gotta admit, its a big statement to say it will NEVER be inhabited again??

Babylon has not been inhabited since the prophecy was fulfilled about its destruction, it was a world Mecca, arguable most powerful kingdom, lush and abundant flora and fauna.

it clearly says Arabian.. meaning Native person of that land or Babylonian descent. It simply means that the powers that where there will never be again, and gives numerous examples of what is actually meant by that.
If it said not even a tent.. without Arabian on it, then you have part of the Prophecy fail. But you have to take it in the way it was intended, its quite easy to see what was intended. Babylon was full of false gods, and barbaric activities, God had enough and whamo.. its still ruined.

[davo]

US forces have occupied Babylon since 2003 with a base .. there are people living there for sure.

[wearestardust]

Going back to the very first post:

Hi Guys,

This is my first post, (bulk snippage)... Do your research and you can all rest easy that at least you looked.

What, actually, was your point? What were you trying to get at? It started with, oddly enough, a theist (we now find) asking atheists about theology, and finishing with some incoherent comment about evolution. But I'm not sure.

[Truthmission]

http://architecture.about.com/cs/countriescultures/a/saddamspalace.htm
http://www.aish.com/jw/j/48960566.html

The role of Saddam Hussein's Babylonian palace was more symbolic than functional. When American troops entered Babylon in April, 2003, they found little evidence that the palace had been occupied or used.


Ok check the links above.

Now this is my point:-

The Bible states that Babylon will be destroyed and will not be inhabited from generation to generation, not even an arabian to pitch his tent.

Now this is a big statement, seeing how prosperous Babylon was, a lush city and now it is a desert. Sure many large cities have been destroyed and re-built and re-inhabited but not so for Babylon, and it hasn't for thousands of years.

I know the UN has a small base there but this is an enemy to that country, the meaning in the Bible states multiple generations and arabic, to me meaning local people living there for generations.. this simply has not happened.

By reading the inscriptions on Ishtars gates, Saddam was likening himself to a enemy of the isrealites, Nebuchadnezzar, claiming he would be the next big king...

Now in my personal opinion, I believe that his attempt to contradict a Bible promise lead to his immediate removal.


Mr Black:-

The Bible is an ancient group of scriptures, often the only writings of a particular incident, and as time goes on there is more information and evidence that presents itself to give more merit to the stories.
I believe the finding of the Clay pots is one. Now these Hebrew scriptures are written so that they actually account for the wrong doings they did themselves too, admitting to sacrificing in the way the cannanites did also.

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/health/ancient-grave-reveals-4000-year-old-canaanite-warrior-in-lebanon_10080990.html



This is from Wiki.. hope thats ok

Classical Greek and Roman accounts

Later commentators have compared these accounts with similar ones from Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language) and Latin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin) sources speaking of the offering of children by fire as sacrifices in the Punic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punic) city of Carthage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carthage), which was a Phoenician colony. Cleitarchus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleitarchus), Diodorus Siculus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diodorus_Siculus) and Plutarch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutarch) all mention burning of children as an offering to Cronus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cronus) or Saturn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_%28mythology%29), that is to Ba‘al Hammon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ba%60al_Hammon), the chief god of Carthage. Issues and practices relating to Moloch and child sacrifice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sacrifice) may also have been exaggerated for effect. After the Romans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire) defeated Carthage and totally destroyed the city, they engaged in post-war propaganda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda) to make their archenemies seem cruel and less civilized.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moloch#cite_note-4)
Paul G. Mosca, in his thesis described below, translates Cleitarchus' paraphrase of a scholia to Plato (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato)'s Republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Republic_%28Plato%29) as:
There stands in their midst a bronze statue of Kronos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cronus), its hands extended over a bronze brazier, the flames of which engulf the child. When the flames fall upon the body, the limbs contract and the open mouth seems almost to be laughing until the contracted body slips quietly into the brazier. Thus it is that the 'grin' is known as 'sardonic laughter,' since they die laughing.
Diodorus Siculus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diodorus_Siculus) (20.14) wrote:
There was in their city a bronze image of Cronus extending its hands, palms up and sloping toward the ground, so that each of the children when placed thereon rolled down and fell into a sort of gaping pit filled with fire.
Diodorus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diodorus) also relates that relatives were forbidden to weep and that when Agathocles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agathocles) defeated Carthage, the Carthaginian nobles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristocracy) believed they had displeased the gods by substituting low-born children for their own children. They attempted to make amends by sacrificing 200 children of the best families at once, and in their enthusiasm actually sacrificed 300 children.
Plutarch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutarch) wrote in De Superstitiones 171:
... the whole area before the statue was filled with a loud noise of flutes and drums so that the cries of wailing should not reach the ears of the people.

[loubert]

Belief. TM, you sure like throwing that word around.

do I believe in evolution. NO, I think it is the best explanation that fits the data.

as for the human brain, i'm not sure where you're going with this but i'll bite.

100% buddy. :eek:

[Truthmission]

Mr Black:-

I understand your take on Babylon, I obviously don't agree but still a remarkable situation to have been prophesied.

What about the commander Cyrus being named as an invader? Do you give the Bible credit for this?

Also:-


Are these the passages you refer too?? Are you sure you are understanding them in context??

s the God the Hebrews the author of cannibalism? "And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and everyone shall eat the flesh of his friend in the siege and in the desperation with which their enemies and those who seek their lives shall drive them to despair." (Jeremiah 19:9) This punishment fit the crime for the Hebrews who sacrificed their children to their idols were condemned to eat their own children! Cannibalism was never acceptable to the ancient Jewish leadership. 2 Kings 6:24-30 reports the disgust of the King of Israel: And it happened after this that Ben-Hadad king of Syria gathered all his army, and went up and besieged Samaria. And there was a great famine in Samaria; and indeed they besieged it until a donkey's head was sold for eighty shekels of silver, and one-fourth of a kab of dove droppings for five shekels of silver. Then, as the king of Israel was passing by on the wall, a woman cried out to him, saying, "Help, my lord, O king!"
And he said, "If the LORD does not help you, where can I find help for you? From the threshing floor or from the winepress?"
Then the king said to her, "What is troubling you?"
And she answered, "This woman said to me, "Give your son, that we may eat him today, and we will eat my son tomorrow.' So we boiled my son, and ate him. And I said to her on the next day, "Give your son, that we may eat him'; but she has hidden her son."
Now it happened, when the king heard the words of the woman, that he tore his clothes; and as he passed by on the wall, the people looked, and there underneath he had sackcloth on his body.

[wearestardust]

Mr Black:-

I understand your take on Babylon, I obviously don't agree but still a remarkable situation to have been prophesied.

Prophecy of a nation that the jews instensely disliked happened to come 'true'? If all the prophecies about the second coming in the early writings of the new testament had come true, I'd be more inclined to give it more credence than mere coincidence.


What about the commander Cyrus being named as an invader? Do you give the Bible credit for this?

The bible noted that Cyrus conquered Bablyon after it had happened? Yes, very prophetic. Conventional bible scholarship puts this part of Isaiah as having been written after the fall of Babylon.

What is your point?

[loubert]

Hey at least you guys got your reply's.... I'm still waiting............

so far, total silence.

[Truthmission]

Stardust:-

RE Cyrus, this is prophecy.. before it happened, hence the enormous credit the Dead Sea Scrolls gives the Bible.


Mr Black:-

I realize lots of bad stuff happens in the Bible, but are you sure you are taking the passages in the correct context. God has wrath no doubt.. just look at what happens to Evil people in revelation.

But in the passage you mentioned the Israelites where not obeying God, he could see they where inclined to do wrong, he for sore what they would have to do to survive, Its not really encouraging them to do it. Its similar to a plague. He did not at that time help them defeat their enemies, he allowed them to have a time of distress.


What is my intention:- Perhaps to get some of you to possibly have a more open mind on what is in the Bible, perhaps another viewpoint, not just be forever damaged from what a Cult or other group has forced on you.

Also since I struggle to find a Church group that I find totally " Christ Like" seeing you peeps seemed to know the groups to stay away from and save myself similar distress.

I also find that if anyone would know reasons not to believe you guys should, so I am keen to listen respectfully. I don't claim to know everything, but I am interested in people point of view and why.

[Truthmission]

Loubert, sorry champ trying to do too many things.. I did look it up just didn't post... sorry..

I have had discussions with Evolutionist before about brain usage, as they have told me that evolution has much to do with energy conservation and redundant features are not part of the plan.

There has been myths about brain usage around 10-20% for instance and that would trump those theories..

Below is some articles, but I'm not sure if they answer the question either way.

What I am interested in is the "Big Bang" of thought that is unique to humans.. ie tool usage, creativity, imagination, respect for the dead, spirituality ect.. something different from other creatures. These are some of the reasons why i would argue Humans are so unique and a favorite to the creator.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-brain-may-use-only-20

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=people-only-use-10-percent-of-brain

[davo]

Izekiel predicted babylon would conquer egypt, you can't lose eh?

[Truthmission]

@ToothMissin': Do you think you may have left out a few steps of reasoning here?



I'm going to let the others spoil your uniqueness fantasies. We humans really don't deserve capitalising.


Hey Dude, this is what I got out of the PBS Evolution videos, which Dawkins starred in too.. I did like them.

Please chill on the tooth missing, dim remarks ect bizo.. I doubt any of you would talk to me like that face to face. You all showed so much compassion to the ex revival bloke seeking help. I may not know as much as you on certain issues and vice versa, I like you guys and enjoy conversing, so please keep it real.

Thanks

[loubert]

RE Cyrus, this is prophecy.. before it happened, hence the enormous credit the Dead Sea Scrolls gives the Bible.



wooaaaahhhh there....

and exactly where is the evidence for this.......? or are we shoe horning again, or perhaps wishfull thinking.

[loubert]

I have had discussions with Evolutionist before about brain usage, as they have told me that evolution has much to do with energy conservation and redundant features are not part of the plan.

There has been myths about brain usage around 10-20% for instance and that would trump those theories..

Below is some articles, but I'm not sure if they answer the question either way.

What I am interested in is the "Big Bang" of thought that is unique to humans.. ie tool usage, creativity, imagination, respect for the dead, spirituality ect.. something different from other creatures. These are some of the reasons why i would argue Humans are so unique and a favorite to the creator.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-brain-may-use-only-20

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=people-only-use-10-percent-of-brain


regarding your special attributes you give to humans..
lets start with tool usage



tool usage has been observed in other primates. otters for eg. use rocks.

http://www.pigeon.psy.tufts.edu/psych26/tools.htm


personally i think this covers both tool usage and creativity.

imagination is a very hard thing to pin down. perhaps primates have imagination, i don't know.

you then said ect ect..please elaborate.

[wearestardust]

Stardust:-

RE Cyrus, this is prophecy.. before it happened, hence the enormous credit the Dead Sea Scrolls gives the Bible.




Theologians disagree. For example:

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-96894898/cyrus-messiah-historical-background.html

I still don't understand what point(s) you were trying to make in your first post in this thread, notwithstanding the thread has subsequently meandered like a pidgeon trying not to be stepped on in a crowded pedestrian mall.

[Truthmission]

Mr Black; This Illogic you speak of, I did mention these where points that PBS made, have you watched these?... So its not from my own thought.

And please don't blend me into one of your pre-determined type boxes, as it seems many of you would have been in my position/belief at some stage..

[Truthmission]

Ok here is the link:-
I am told the videos I were given are there

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/

I have been trying to note all my sources, on this occasion sorry about the confusion, as I wrongly assumed you would know about this site mainly because Dawkins seems quite involved in both sites...

I do believe my references are to your liking now?? It seems that with some of our topics it is hard to find sources which are not biased in some way.. that seems to be the nature of it, but I will do my best.

[wolty]

there are many highly regarded Biologists that do believe in Intelligent Design.





Link please. How many is many? What percentage? From my readings it would seem to be about 0.01%
Will get back to you on the other stuff.


And nettybetty, You are my hero. :)

[Truthmission]

No Probs, I'll try to sort something for you, its very interesting.

Sorry if I have been a bit scattered in my posts, been in and out of doing jobs and the conversation is widespread. I have been trying not to keep anyone hanging for too long and I want to answer Loki's points..

I will try to hold back with more detailed sources before answering too quickly in the future.

[wolty]

No Probs, I'll try to sort something for you, its very interesting.

Sorry if I have been a bit scattered in my posts, been in and out of doing jobs and the conversation is widespread. I have been trying not to keep anyone hanging for too long and I want to answer Loki's points..

I will try to hold back with more detailed sources before answering too quickly in the future.

Sounds good to me. What you will find on these forums very quickly, is that you will state two or three points and will get two or three responses to each one. Which means you then have ten responses to get through, which in turn opens up even more discussion. It is a never ending cycle that meanders on getting nowhere. Eventually what normally happens is the theist gets bored with not convincing us and moves on. To be replaced by another and another.

[nettybetty]

Netty:-
there are many highly regarded Biologists that do believe in Intelligent Design.
[/URL]

Name at least one - Michael Behe is not highly regarded, namely because he steal's other scientists work and then regurgitates it as his own evidence.

Mr Black:-
Netty:-

Do you have an opinion about Brain usage percentage as my previous posts??


Short disclaimer: I'm not an evolutionary neuroscientist, I'm actually a molecular biologist who happens to work with evolutionary biologists......I think there would be people out there who are total experts at this, but here's what I think based on what I've learnt and a couple of links...

What do you mean exactly? That the human brain is too energy hungry to be a product of evolution? The reason why our brains have gotten so large is still debated, but it is understood it is a mixture of increasing number of neurons (this is seen over an individual's lifetime as well), diet and adaptation. However it is thought that there was extensive selection pressure for the advantages of a large brain...here's a nice little article I found which sums it up nicely, though I bet it is far more complex:
http://www.allaboutscience.org/evolution-of-the-human-brain-faq.htm (http://books.google.com.au/books?id=NsJNAxgtydYC&pg=PA187&lpg=PA187&dq=canaanites+infants+in+jars&source=bl&ots=msY59LRXlS&sig=oJVmWzTceOOUAbMLZFMn9CMvJBE&hl=en&ei=YEOYS9_LINKHkAWA8oBC&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBUQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=canaanites%20infants%20in%20jars&f=false)


The notion that the x% of the brain is utilised is a total myth. You use all of your brain (maybe not all at once, and like they say "use it or lose it", so the more you challenge the brain usually the better). Just think about what you are doing at any one moment - talking ,breathing, sensing touch, digesting food etc. and you get the picture as to why such a huge brain might be necessary, that's a heck of a lot to process!! Here's another web link explaining the percentage myth (I know it says it's for kids, but it's worded really well!!):
[URL]http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/tenper.html

If you think about it, the human brain has pretty much allowed us to evolve to the most adapted species in the world - humans can live and survive anywhere based on their ability to innovate and problem solve.

As for holes in the fossil record - we are lucky to have what we have. But if you are a creator, why bother with all these intermediates? It doesn't make much sense, even at the basic level of this question.

We don't know that animals aren't capable of certain things we class as higher-order thinking. In fact as already mentioned, it seems quite the opposite - animals can sense death (this is becoming a rather hot topic atm), animals can feel, and some are capable of using tools as already mentioned. To me the notion that "humans are special" or the earth is unique seems to be confined to religion. Is it that people want to think they are special as some way to feel valid? Really, if anything the notion that humans are special/unique has done more damage to the planet - the notion that we are superior is actually stated is the bible - I can't remember the exact quote, but I remember my Archaeology Professor talking about it, and how this notion of superiority has caused us to pretty much treat the earth like trash and thus maybe lead us to our doom (very Avatar I know!) But essentially we are animals with self-consciousness, if anything we should be using that innovation/higher order thinking to look after what we have and make the most of it, rather than lording over the land because we have a superiority complex.
Really in a universe the size of the one we are in, we are nothing but a speck.....

[nettybetty]

And nettybetty, You are my hero. :)


Awww thanks... :)

[Truthmission]

Morning

@ Netty/Loki/Wolty

% of God Believing Scientists

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution

Notable Biologists

In 1994 John Wells earned another PhD in Molecular (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_biology) and Cell Biology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_Biology) from UC Berkeley.[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Wells_%28intelligent_design_advocate%29#c ite_note-Numbers381-9) After receiving his doctorate, he worked at a position he described as "a post-doctoral research biologist at Berkeley, writing articles critical of Darwinism.”[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Wells_%28intelligent_design_advocate%29#c ite_note-wells.2C2ndPhD-20) Shortly after that Wells joined former UC Berkeley law professor Phillip E. Johnson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_E._Johnson), father of the intelligent design movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design_movement), at the Discovery Institute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute).[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Wells_%28intelligent_design_advocate%29#c ite_note-Wells_autobiography-12) He now serves as a fellow at the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Science_and_Culture),[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Wells_%28intelligent_design_advocate%29#c ite_note-21) hub of the intelligent design movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design_movement), and at the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Society_for_Complexity,_Information_ and_Design),[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Wells_%28intelligent_design_advocate%29#c ite_note-22) which also promotes intelligent design.[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Wells_%28intelligent_design_advocate%29#c ite_note-aaas-23)


Paul Chien was born in 1947 in Hong Kong and earned bachelors degrees in Biology and Chemistry from Chung Chi College (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chung_Chi_College) of the Chinese University of Hong Kong in 1966 and his Ph.D. in 1971 from the University of California at Irvine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_California_at_Irvine) in the laboratory of marine invertebrate physiologist, Grover C. Stephens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_C._Stephens).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Chien#cite_note-discobio-0) After a brief postdoctoral fellowship in the laboratory of Wheeler J. North (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler_J._North) at the Kerckhoff marine laboratory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerckhoff_marine_laboratory) of the California Institute of Technology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Institute_of_Technology) in Corona del Mar, California, he joined the faculty of the University of San Francisco (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_San_Francisco) in 1973. His research has involved the transport of amino acids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amino_acids) and metal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal) ions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ions) across cell membranes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_membranes) as well as the detoxification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detoxification) mechanisms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanism_%28biology%29) of metal ions.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Chien#cite_note-1)



You don't like Behe huh?? Thats a shame, I really like his work, is there anywhere I can research this stealing???

Below is a topic he has commented on, it also brushes on instinct too.... your comments??

http://www.ucg.org/booklets/EV/oddities-nature-defy-evolution.asp



Neanderthals

From what I have seen in multiple Evolution based sites and Videos. It has been explained to me that at some stage Human Emerged, there was a kind of "Big Bang" of the mind.

see http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/about/overview_series.html

Neanderthals and Erectus fossils and living areas have been studied for any kind of progress, over 10's of thousands of years they seemed to have done the same thing, used the same tools, same hunting methods, basic living quarters and little appreciation of the dead.

Whereas Humans, where constantly developing, cave paintings showed creativity, they where able to communicate on a whole different level to any other creature. They where able to capitalize on this and pass this information and new technologies onto future generations.
PBS has made a good video on this evidence.

From this information I get the idea that Humans in one way or the other where selected to be the rulers of the earth and we do have the power to save or destroy it, we have that responsibility. This also separates us from other animals.. this list is quite lengthy.

So something happened, which to my knowledge is unexplained to why we are the way we are. Also something happened for a inhabitable earth to become habitable and spawn life. Again to my knowledge there has not been conclusive scientific evidence that 1) Life came from non-living and 2) The processes involved for Humans to have evolved from Erectus or Neanderthal.


FoxP2 / :-

Interesting reading, it seems many animals have this, but Neanderthals have it identically to Humans. Now does that definitively prove we are related?
It seems to be part of the puzzle for language and communication, yet it seems Neanderthals did not utilize it.

This seems to be a good example of findings that sure are in line with evolutionary theory, but could they really be used as a definite proof of the theory as a whole?


and @ Mr Black

You are right on my previous style of posting, its true I was feeling in say a bar type environment speaking of what I have learnt so far on various topics talking to many different people and if i am pulled up on something, it would be like a quick reference to a book or link at least to show I was not making stuff up . Some statements I made like the glass jar one was something I looked up years ago, so I am bound to make some sort of mistake, but the overall issue is still the same to me, nevertheless I realize from everyones reaction this is not adequate and I will try to change that style.

[Truthmission]

LOL !! Too funny! I like your new signature!!:)

You would like this too from Ghandi:-
“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”


@Mr Black, if its ok I know you see them as failing points, but I would be most appreciative if some of the other members had a chance to reply too.

As for not carrying much weight, would you like me to do some research on Prophecies, I think they are a good indication of something supernatural.

I have looked at parts of your intended book, and i intend to have a good look. It seems you have a good grasp on what is written in the Bible, but I guess I am not convinced ... with due respect that you may have not understood the overall intent of the scriptures.

I am interested (I'm sure I could find it in your Book), but for you to stay in a religion for so long, was it simply your patience that kept you there, or did you see / feel anything that you could not logically understand. Ie did you believe you could talk in tongues, did you change after being told you had the Holy Spirit?

I originally posted in this forum as a Ex-revival person posted and I wanted to know of any persons that experienced this and now know different.

One more thing:- Do you have anything specifically against what Jesus had to say?

[wearestardust]

Morning

@ Netty/Loki/Wolty

% of God Believing Scientists

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution



You're confusing belief in god with belief in creationism. Many scientists (and theists generally) believe in evolution and god.

I note the 1987 figure of 700 out of 480,000 life scientists believing in creationism. That's about 0.14% which admittedly is higher than Wolty's estimate.

The Wiki article also refers to Gallup polls saying that 5% of scientists are creationists, but if you look at the reference it appears that "scientist" means "person with a technical degree in something that might be taught in a science faculty". Not the same thing.

[Truthmission]

Ok would it be fair to say that an Atheist by definition MUST believe in Biogenesis? Yes?
The conversion from pond scum to something alive. This is still very unknown since there is little to no evidence preserved. This is a completely different issue to evolution which is different again to the chimp -> human issue.

[wearestardust]

Yes, he does not appear to be taking things in. I nailed him on this conflation issue yesterday afternoon (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showpost.php?p=60959&postcount=73), about five hours before he began pulling Behe out of his Wiki.

Sorry. I just can't keep up. so many non-sequiturs, so little time.

[Truthmission]

Ok, that may have been a source of confusion for me then.

So there is nothing in you that ponders the origin of the universe, Man, Justifying your existence, Meaning of Life type stuff? Obviously this is of interest to me, and I am interested in an Atheists viewpoint.

Shouldn't you have this sort of evidence to support your opinion on the universe not having a creator?

I have picked up that you where patient in prayer ect to help or change things in your life and you got nothing in return. From my studies unfortunately God can take some time if ever to reply.

Let me tell you a story that happened to me on a couple of occasions.

I am a keen Dirt Bike rider, on one occasion I was traveling quite fast down a dangerous hill, which at the end has a sharp turn and a steep valley. Usually I brake very late and lean hard, on this occasion I had an overwhelming feeling right at the start of my descent to test the brakes, I ignored it but the further I got down the hill the greater the feeling, so mid way down the hill I tested them... no brakes... BUT I had time to down shift and get past safely.


Another occasion I was riding for several hours in dense scrub, jumping over lots of little mounds, as I approached a similar average mound, something again overwhelming caused me to stop and inspect first, as I approached there was at least a 100m cliff.

Being a believer and just the way it all happened, I do have the feeling I was somehow looked after in some way, interested if any of you have similar experiences and what you would put it down to..

[loubert]

Morning

@ Netty/Loki/Wolty

% of God Believing Scientists

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution

Notable Biologists

In 1994 John Wells earned another PhD in Molecular (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_biology) and Cell Biology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_Biology) from UC Berkeley.[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Wells_%28intelligent_design_advocate%29#c ite_note-Numbers381-9) After receiving his doctorate, he worked at a position he described as "a post-doctoral research biologist at Berkeley, writing articles critical of Darwinism.”[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Wells_%28intelligent_design_advocate%29#c ite_note-wells.2C2ndPhD-20) Shortly after that Wells joined former UC Berkeley law professor Phillip E. Johnson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_E._Johnson), father of the intelligent design movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design_movement), at the Discovery Institute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute).[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Wells_%28intelligent_design_advocate%29#c ite_note-Wells_autobiography-12) He now serves as a fellow at the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Science_and_Culture),[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Wells_%28intelligent_design_advocate%29#c ite_note-21) hub of the intelligent design movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design_movement), and at the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Society_for_Complexity,_Information_ and_Design),[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Wells_%28intelligent_design_advocate%29#c ite_note-22) which also promotes intelligent design.[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Wells_%28intelligent_design_advocate%29#c ite_note-aaas-23)


Paul Chien was born in 1947 in Hong Kong and earned bachelors degrees in Biology and Chemistry from Chung Chi College (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chung_Chi_College) of the Chinese University of Hong Kong in 1966 and his Ph.D. in 1971 from the University of California at Irvine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_California_at_Irvine) in the laboratory of marine invertebrate physiologist, Grover C. Stephens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_C._Stephens).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Chien#cite_note-discobio-0) After a brief postdoctoral fellowship in the laboratory of Wheeler J. North (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler_J._North) at the Kerckhoff marine laboratory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerckhoff_marine_laboratory) of the California Institute of Technology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Institute_of_Technology) in Corona del Mar, California, he joined the faculty of the University of San Francisco (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_San_Francisco) in 1973. His research has involved the transport of amino acids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amino_acids) and metal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal) ions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ions) across cell membranes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_membranes) as well as the detoxification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detoxification) mechanisms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanism_%28biology%29) of metal ions.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Chien#cite_note-1)



You don't like Behe huh?? Thats a shame, I really like his work, is there anywhere I can research this stealing???

Below is a topic he has commented on, it also brushes on instinct too.... your comments??

http://www.ucg.org/booklets/EV/oddities-nature-defy-evolution.asp


and this had exactly what to do with regard to what? that there are a few "scientists" out there that don't think the evidence for evolution is compelling?
you sir, have no idea about how science works.

the discovery institute is a laughing stock among serious research places.


Neanderthals

From what I have seen in multiple Evolution based sites and Videos. It has been explained to me that at some stage Human Emerged, there was a kind of "Big Bang" of the mind.

see http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/about/overview_series.html

Neanderthals and Erectus fossils and living areas have been studied for any kind of progress, over 10's of thousands of years they seemed to have done the same thing, used the same tools, same hunting methods, basic living quarters and little appreciation of the dead.

Whereas Humans, where constantly developing, cave paintings showed creativity, they where able to communicate on a whole different level to any other creature. They where able to capitalize on this and pass this information and new technologies onto future generations.
PBS has made a good video on this evidence.

From this information I get the idea that Humans in one way or the other where selected to be the rulers of the earth and we do have the power to save or destroy it, we have that responsibility. This also separates us from other animals.. this list is quite lengthy.

So something happened, which to my knowledge is unexplained to why we are the way we are. Also something happened for a inhabitable earth to become habitable and spawn life. Again to my knowledge there has not been conclusive scientific evidence that 1) Life came from non-living and 2) The processes involved for Humans to have evolved from Erectus or Neanderthal.
i debunked you on tool usage among humans and animals and yet you still won't get it through your thick skull, now you're just pissing me off.



FoxP2 / :-

Interesting reading, it seems many animals have this, but Neanderthals have it identically to Humans. Now does that definitively prove we are related?
It seems to be part of the puzzle for language and communication, yet it seems Neanderthals did not utilize it.

This seems to be a good example of findings that sure are in line with evolutionary theory, but could they really be used as a definite proof of the theory as a whole?

there is more than the FoxP2 gene, do some research.



you are really good at ignoring facts and statements and trying to shift the focus of the debate.

A belief in evolution does not negate a belief in god. what it does negate is a literal interpretation of the genesis story/myth.
which is what fundamentalist xtians in the states have taken "offence" to.
Further more i suggest you read some real history books and take a close look at how the religous groups in human history have treated those with different scientific ideas. Galileo is a prime example of one church trying to stiffle science, what happened to socrates is another example when your philosphy dosn't agree with the current religous ideas.

to you sir I say good day, I will no longer debate with someone that ignores facts, does not admit to their wrongs and trys to manipulate their questions to disregard any previous facts.

[Truthmission]

Thanks Mr Black will have a look..

As for Loubert:- I am a Degree Qualified Mechatronics Engineer with honors..so that means that I do actually have some idea on science, If not I would not have made it this far. I don't think being rude really gets your point across. Some of you are very emotional on this topic, and I can understand why.

I do question things when they do not make sense to me, especially when something is stated as fact and is not.

Seeing it seems I will be getting booted/silenced, I would like to thank Netty and Loki for your pleasant comments and interactions.

[loubert]

As for Loubert:- I am a Degree Qualified Mechatronics Engineer with honors..so that means that I do actually have some idea on science, If not I would not have made it this far. I don't think being rude really gets your point across. Some of you are very emotional on this topic, and I can understand why.

I do question things when they do not make sense to me, especially when something is stated as fact and is not.


woopy do. I am a trade qualified chef studying science with a major in maths and stats............
Hey you wanna talk about rude?

hows this, you enter a debate and the opponent when shown facts and history contrary to what he/she is saying completely ignores them and continues on his/her way trying to argue the same thing over and over and over...... you sir, need to have a hard look at your debatting style and what not. That to me, is the height of rudeness

[wearestardust]

Shouldn't you have this sort of evidence to support your opinion on the universe not having a creator?



Why? There are an infinite number of things for which there is not evidence and for which we would agree do not exist. You are making a special case for god by assuming her/his/their/its existance prior to evidence, and demanding evidence of non-existance. However, there is no case for such special treatment that I am aware of.

Google "russell's teapot", "sagan's dragon", and "invisible pink unicorn" for more worked up and sophisticated versions of what I just said.

[wearestardust]

As for Loubert:- I am a Degree Qualified Mechatronics Engineer with honors..so that means that I do actually have some idea on science, If not I would not have made it this far.

Yet nothing you have posted in this thread seems particularly concerned with science. Indeed none of your posts seem even to be concerned with facts; they seem to be just regurgitation of things that your pastors or whoever have told you, and which don't stand up to the mildest analysis (eg: babies in glass jars; timing of the writing of the later parts of Isaiah).

Asking now for about the third time, I think, I'm still wondering what your first post was about. Just a few lines explaining what you were trying to say, have answered, and/or elicit in responses is what I am looking for.

[Soup Dragon]

I need no more proof - there IS a God!!!

Right I'll get me coat and run to the nearest church. Obviously I've not contributed to this thread at all, just waded through it... I'll be back soon to convert some of you over to my new side...

;)

[nettybetty]

There has been myths about brain usage around 10-20% for instance and that would trump those theories..


Still catching up on missed posts, but how can a myth, specifically one which is scientifically debunked, be put forward as being able to trump a scientific theory (which has observable evidence)?

This statement makes no sense and is complete null point.

[loubert]

further more

Degree Qualified Mechatronics Engineer with honors

my emphasis....

:D

j/k

[wearestardust]

further more



my emphasis....

:D

j/k

You scalliwag!

[nettybetty]

Neanderthals

From what I have seen in multiple Evolution based sites and Videos. It has been explained to me that at some stage Human Emerged, there was a kind of "Big Bang" of the mind.

see http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/about/overview_series.html

Neanderthals and Erectus fossils and living areas have been studied for any kind of progress, over 10's of thousands of years they seemed to have done the same thing, used the same tools, same hunting methods, basic living quarters and little appreciation of the dead.

Whereas Humans, where constantly developing, cave paintings showed creativity, they where able to communicate on a whole different level to any other creature. They where able to capitalize on this and pass this information and new technologies onto future generations.
PBS has made a good video on this evidence.

From this information I get the idea that Humans in one way or the other where selected to be the rulers of the earth and we do have the power to save or destroy it, we have that responsibility. This also separates us from other animals.. this list is quite lengthy.

So something happened, which to my knowledge is unexplained to why we are the way we are. Also something happened for a inhabitable earth to become habitable and spawn life. Again to my knowledge there has not been conclusive scientific evidence that 1) Life came from non-living and 2) The processes involved for Humans to have evolved from Erectus or Neanderthal.


FoxP2 / :-

Interesting reading, it seems many animals have this, but Neanderthals have it identically to Humans. Now does that definitively prove we are related?
It seems to be part of the puzzle for language and communication, yet it seems Neanderthals did not utilize it.

This seems to be a good example of findings that sure are in line with evolutionary theory, but could they really be used as a definite proof of the theory as a whole?


It's not definitive proof as a whole - you stated there were no links between species of homo, I provided one. How exactly do you know that Neanderthals didn't have language? How do you know they did the same thing over and over? Neanderthals painted, they crafted instruments, and some biologists actually believe that is where early humans got the behaviour!

Here's a few links:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070619164133.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100111154914.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090528133423.htm

These are all general news releases, but links to the actual journal articles are usually at the bottom.

Check out the documentary called "The Neanderthal Code" - it talks about hunting tools that Neanderthal used compared to early Homo Sapien and how their tools lead researchers to believe that Neanderthal were using language to communicate (its in the last part of the doco). Not the best doco, but it paints a very interesting picture.
Seems you are stereotyping what your view of a Neanderthal is over the evidence.

It's pretty well established modern human didn't evolve directly from Neanderthal - it is thought Neanderthal evolved from an earlier exodus of Homo Erectus from Africa, and humans came out of Africa after Neanderthal were living across Europe. Hence why Neanderthal are considered our cousins. So far, little gene flow has been found in the mitochondrial DNA of humans compared to neanderthal, which means the current thought is if they interbred it may not have been very much, if at all. There are other species including H. hedelbergensis which are gradually being fit into the picture but I'm not going to post all the info here, there are some great textbooks out there on the subject. What I've posted here is the tip of the iceberg.

Onto Behe (groan)...
Behe's limited knowledge of science was presented during a Court Trial recently where he testified against ID not being taught in science class. He claimed that the immune system couldn't have evolved, and there was no evidence for evolution of the immune system, to which the prosecution presented several textbooks on immune system evolution. Also durig the same trial, he quote-mined a scientist, and said scientist stated he didn't state what Behe claimed. He generally takes others work and twists it to hi own suiting. There was a documentary about this while ago, I'd have to go hunting to find it again.

If Behe really wants to prove intelligent design, why doesn't he start data collecting with all the folks from the Discovery Institute just like the evolutionary biologists have had to? Because, the evidence goes the other way, so Behe just misquotes actual researchers.

The Discovery Institute are considered a bit of a joke in the scientific world. How many of their scientists are getting into well regarded peer reviewed journals? They even have a list of journals 'accepting' ID ie. send it here to get published. That's bias, you shouldn't apply to a journal based on whether it accepts a notion of your research or not. Research is supposed to be reviewed based on the science and evidence in the paper....Oh hang on, ID isn't based on science, hence the problem. Religion smears the very foundation of science, so of course they aren't going to be taken seriously.

I base my definition of a credible scientist not on where they obtained their PhD (just about anyone can do this if they want) but their publication history....For example, I did a scholar search on Philip E. Johnson - notable law professor? Nice to see a "scientific" establishment such as the Discovery institute is taking it's advice on evolution and ID from a lawyer!! He is hardly someone working in the field of evolutionary biology. It's a bit like a biologist performing open heart surgery. They are highly specialised fields. Same goes for the Wiki entry, only 700 scientists working in fields related to evolution believe in creationism (out 0f 48,000) , it gets bigger (5% believers) when you move to other fields but of course, it's expected, a chemistry graduate isn't going to understand evolution the same way a biologist will. Hardly a case to state evolution is wrong.

As for Chien, he was a marine biologist. It wasn't until he joined the Discovery Institute that it went down hill. How on earth can a marine Biologist head a Paleontology program? He has admitted he has no credit in the field...really they can't find a single paleontologist who supports ID?? Again, would you let a physicist treat you for cancer?



Sorry, but it's a try again from me....

[nettybetty]

Thanks Mr Black will have a look..

As for Loubert:- I am a Degree Qualified Mechatronics Engineer with honors..so that means that I do actually have some idea on science.
.

Bit of Advice, Science is a big field - don't shoot yourself in the foot, an idea of science and understand a lifetime's worth of specialised concepts isn't the same thing!

I have a degree in Microbiology and a Masters in Biochemistry, currently working on a PhD - doesn't mean I say that I can design safe buildings or make robots, even though I understand science as a whole.

[Truthmission]

@Betty thanks for the replies, do appreciate that you have given me something look at.

Regardless of what experiences I have in relevant areas, when I read about these new discoveries ect they nearly all credibly use words like perhaps or maybe in their results with respect to actually proving that Humans evolved or Biogenesis. No where can I find the proof of a creator of any sort not being required for at least life to start. Until that is found there will always be people contemplating a divine creator.

Loubert:-

As for being rude, I have stated I have limited time to reply to all of this, even offered to work out a list. People seem to have got angry when I have a rebuttal to their posts and call me closed minded. Yet not many of you are not concerned about pleasant discussion. You don't have to treat people with contempt because they do not agree with you.

Mr Black:-

As for being booted, it did seem that you where talking about that, seems other members may have thought that in the poll too.
If you kill the thread can I still look at it later?
I'm not interested in a power struggle, bit if it makes you feel better than me good stuff.

[loubert]

Loubert:-

As for being rude, I have stated I have limited time to reply to all of this, even offered to work out a list. People seem to have got angry when I have a rebuttal to their posts and call me closed minded. Yet not many of you are not concerned about pleasant discussion. You don't have to treat people with contempt because they do not agree with you.


FACE PALM time.........................thats the thing, you havn't offered any rebuttal at all, all you have done is manipulated your next line of questions so that the last rebuttal isn't relevant due to you moving the goal post's everytime.

As i have shown you, tool usage isn't a unique character of humans, and there is some evidence to show that neither are emotions.

But than you cut to neanderthal's and still were talking about the "brain explosion?" when initially you tied tool usage ect as a unique proponent of humans. ergo we are special (gods favourites if i'm not mistaken)

You where shown to be wrong about tool usage in regard to humans vs other animal life, so you ignored that angle and switched your argument to neanderthals, which you are probably going to regret and proven wrong again on,,, so whats the switch to next time......

[Truthmission]

Like I explained before, the source of my information here for the most part was a video made by PBS advocating Evolution.

My simple point was that the tool usage, weaponry, creativity blah blah (see other posts) are quite different to ANY other species. PLUS the fact that we could pass this information on to other generations.

Where is the problem?? what have I side stepped? as this in not my intention.

I am happy to search the forums to be proven wrong on this but it would be contrary to what I have seen so far on the topic.

There are members here happy to help in my quest for truth others seem annoyed by it.. My intent is not to annoy.

[wolty]

OK gone through the pain again.( why do I keep doing it to myself?).

Mr TM, I am going to agree with Loubert as well. The shifting of the goal posts is very annoying. One question gets answered (correctly) and then it is on to another thing you don't understand. That then gets answered (correctly) and then it is another. And so on. Just because you do not understand the answer (and maybe even the question itself) makes for very unhappy forum members.

Watching one doco will NEVER give you enough knowledge to understand. You need to read books, you need to research on the net, you need to talk to people in relevant fields, but most of all you need to come to the learning table with a free mind, without preconcieved ideas about how things should be. You are doing yourself a great disservice by not being skeptical about everything you have learnt before.

There will always be unanswered questions in your life. No-one will ever have all the knowledge that they want. But you are the only one that can work at it.

I think you would have been better off sticking with theology questions. Until you realise that science will never be able to reinforce your belief, you will always come up short.

That is all I am going to say on the matter Over and out.

[atheist_angel]

Also you never replied to me on the Apostate thing..ok?Why do you think you are an Apostate? If there is a God that is not a good stance.Which G-d?I have not dismissed you guys, I think you may have misread my post, mr black and I was not discussing Abraham

Have a read of this..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_of_Isaac

I am paying attention and willing to learn, but I need time.

Ok, I have read it, just as you've requested. Did you read it? But according to Rabbi J. H. Hertz (Chief Rabbi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Rabbi) of the British Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire)), child sacrifice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sacrifice) was actually "rife among the Semitic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic) peoples,"Have you read any of the Midrashic interpretations?

If not, have fun and happy reading!

[Truthmission]

Yep I will have a look thanks for your time.

I have had a quick look at the links you and netty sent, I will have a proper look when I can, I have found some stuff for re-buttle, from the same website.... but I think I will try one point at a time, as it seems too much otherwise.

Its funny, I have not been called dim, stupid, incoherent, possibly illiterate and the like ever really. Perhaps I have never had the company of such intelligent and witty folk.

Anywho been enlightening, hope this thread is still alive when I get back. Have a good weekend xo

[Fearless]

There are members here happy to help in my quest for truth others seem annoyed by it.. My intent is not to annoy.

Your posts annoy me as soon as I see your signature.

[wolty]

I have had a quick look at the links you and netty sent, I will have a proper look when I can, I have found some stuff for re-buttle, from the same website




Do the rebuttal from somewhere else. Get a book. Do some research. Talk to someone that is in the particular field you need to know about.
Please.

And when you get the rebuttal, then pull it apart as we would do. And then understand how we do it. Please please be skeptical. Everything and I mean everything I read, listen to or am interested in, I research and then I go someplace completly different to get another perspective.

You should think of your learning as above anything else in the whole world.
Remember, you are only here for a very short time. Make the most of it. Be passionate about your learning, it is very important.

[wearestardust]

Its funny, I have not been called dim, stupid, incoherent, possibly illiterate and the like ever really. Perhaps I have never had the company of such intelligent and witty folk.



Perhaps you haven't had to do much written communication. And perhaps you haven't before put yourself in the position of having your ideas challenged - as opposed to people just nodding and moving on to the next subject, which is what tends to happen in face to face social situations.

[Atrax Robustus]

Well!

Saw the poll and thought I'd read this thread to see what's been happening . . . 40 minutes, four ice cubes and a single malt later . . . nuke him Mr B! TM is either a Poe or a theist strummer.

[Fearless]

Actually, tell you what... if you can prove your signature is true I'll use it as my signature... if you can't prove it then do me/us a kind favour and remove it... thank you.

Proverbs 14:6
The mocker seeks wisdom and finds none, but knowledge comes easily to the discerning. (NIV)

"The whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one." And the Bible identifies him, saying: "The one called Devil and Satan . . . is misleading the entire inhabited earth."—1 John 5:19; Revelation 12:9.

p.s. Proof does not come from your bible nor voices in your head. I need something a little more irrefutable.

[wearestardust]

Well!

nuke him Mr B!

From orbit?

"it's the only way to be sure"

[wolty]

Am I being too nice? I am only trying to help.

I know it is very annoying having to teach someone critical thinking, but at least I tried.

Don't hold it against me you lot. :)

[wolty]

I must give thanks to that BGBarber guy, for giving me the idea of Objectionable Sig Dissection.

And we all know, he did admit one thing of truth don't we?

This idea would be another string in your bow, Mr B. :)

[wolty]

@Wolty: I had to squeeze rather hard to get the truth out of him even on that.
I could here him squeel from here when you did that.



Somewhere in Sydney is a very worried chap whose name is known to an atheist. He will torture himself over that in ways Torquemada never thought of.
:D

[nettybetty]

@Betty thanks for the replies, do appreciate that you have given me something look at.

Regardless of what experiences I have in relevant areas, when I read about these new discoveries ect they nearly all credibly use words like perhaps or maybe in their results with respect to actually proving that Humans evolved or Biogenesis. No where can I find the proof of a creator of any sort not being required for at least life to start. Until that is found there will always be people contemplating a divine creator.



When you get back after the weekend, can you please list or link me to what you have read which has 'maybe' 'perhaps' etc... My first thought is that yes, in some literature they use these terms esp. when describing early hominin behaviours, simply because they weren't there (unlike yourself, who claims to know Neanderthals don't speak).

Genetic literature is far more decisive - simply because you can't 'interpret' genetics like you 'interpret' archaeolgical remains.

You haven't answered my question - if there is a divine creator, why all the human/ human like fossils? Why not just plop us here? Without any fossils to be found, then the case for humans being 'created' may be just that bit more believable. Why do we have genes conserved with so many species? If we were put here, really you think the almighty creator would've at least made as bit better, so we don't go around killing each other, catching diseases, getting cancer etc.

[loubert]

TM, if you really are truthfull about wanting to educate yourself, i'm going to suggest a book for you.

Our cosmic origins by Armand Delsemme
linky
http://www.cambridge.org/uk/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521794803

it covers a large array of what has been discussed and somethings that havn't.

Just on a side note, as atheist's, we do not claim to have all the answers, that role seems to be taken up by the worlds religions.
Personnaly, I am very comfy admitting that the answer to a lot of questions is that I do not know the answer. If the questions piques my curiosity enough, I will probably research it ect, sometimes not though.
but i am not going to claim that the imaginary dragon in my garage did it.
I simply do not know the answer, and there is nothing wrong with that.


Perhaps we can all recommend you one book each, i know i know, it'll be a lot of reading, but hey, you, us ect might just learn something.

[Truthmission]

Morning Everyone,

I have read the posts over the weekend and on the Poll, I have also done some research and some pondering on your comments.

It does seem I owe you people an apology, I did try to convey this message in my posts, but I can see how my posts are becoming annoying. Firstly from now on I will try to devote chunks of time to this discussion and not just pop in from time to time between jobs at work. My intent was to try to collect as much sources as I can to maintain a rebuttal and not let you think I was avoiding discussion.

Also from my education and profession.. namely, engineering, project management and a bit of legal stuff, problem solving is a big issue, where I try to "brainstorm" as much as I can without directly dismissing any point. So you can appreciate this "side stepping" is not a way that i intend to avoid you comments its just to fuel more discussion.

I am sorry if some of you has though I have dismissed or ignored your efforts. If you look in my posts you can see my concern of this thread being lost as I would not be able to reply to everyones efforts. I never thought any discussions on these topics would be quick or easy so I am not concerned about finding a conclusion after a few posts.

So from that I do not mind if this particular thread is closed... not lost or deleted, so then I can post some new topics on the specific subjects.

I was thinking subjects on the line of:-

1) Biogenesis
2) Are Humans Unique?
3) Bible and Prophecy
4) Does the Bible agree with science


It seems one thread is too much to hold these issues that I would be appreciative we discuss.
I do thank the patient people who are awaiting my replies, I will not forget about them rest assured, and I hope to bring some good material to the table as you folk have.

Thanks

[Truthmission]

Oh perhaps one more sunject,

Bible and Theology.. is there anything positive about the lessons.


I would also like to share this link that some good friends of mine sent me. They are basically Atheists, but can still see the majority of my points and accept some of the "missing links"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/samir-selmanovic/religion-needs-atheism_b_498051.html

its a really good write up that I believe we should take in ..

quote " Atheism at its best offers ethics, a philosophy of life, and an enriching discussion about virtue. Does God have an ego that can be wounded by our disbelief in God's existence? Would God, if there were such a thing, prefer a world where humans love and care for each other and the planet, even at the expense of acknowledging God, or one where humans believe and worship God at the expense of caring for one another and the world? "

[nettybetty]

Morning Everyone,

So from that I do not mind if this particular thread is closed... not lost or deleted, so then I can post some new topics on the specific subjects.

I was thinking subjects on the line of:-

1) Biogenesis
2) Are Humans Unique?
3) Bible and Prophecy
4) Does the Bible agree with science


It seems one thread is too much to hold these issues that I would be appreciative we discuss.
I do thank the patient people who are awaiting my replies, I will not forget about them rest assured, and I hope to bring some good material to the table as you folk have.

Thanks

Fassbinder the 2nd?
In the interest of preventing endless threads and sidestepping, here are the answers to your four topics:

1. It happened. How? What? When? are still unanswered, doesn't mean a leprechaun/wizard/dragon/fairies/unicorns/other assorted deity made things.
2. No. Look around you - there are lots of animals on this planet, some which behave better than what is classified as H.Sapiens.
3. depends on how you define time. But the historical bits of the bible aren't accurate, so why should I worry about what it says about the future? Furthermore, if you believe it, and put it in your subconscious, sometimes it tends to manifest, that's the power of suggestive thinking. The world will change, humans may go extinct etc....meh, I'll keep living until it does, why worry about what you can't change?
4. No. Not unless you adhere to the 'pick'n'mix' version of the bible. Even if you 'interpret' Genesis the six days of creation are out of order to facilitate ID/created life which evolved, there is no evidence of Noah's ark/great flood which covered the earth etc. etc.

Yes, this is my opinion, If you need to know how I reached above conclusions, and what evidence I used, it can be supplied.

[wolty]

Oh perhaps one more sunject,

Bible and Theology.. is there anything positive about the lessons.

Interesting idea. Maybe have a look at my thread here (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?t=4350) for some thought provoking things that happened to me last night.

From my perspective the answer is no. I am a bit time poor at the moment, so I will leave it at that and revisit it later.



I would also like to share this link that some good friends of mine sent me. They are basically Atheists, but can still see the majority of my points and accept some of the "missing links"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/samir-selmanovic/religion-needs-atheism_b_498051.html

its a really good write up that I believe we should take in ..

quote " Atheism at its best offers ethics, a philosophy of life, and an enriching discussion about virtue. Does God have an ego that can be wounded by our disbelief in God's existence? Would God, if there were such a thing, prefer a world where humans love and care for each other and the planet, even at the expense of acknowledging God, or one where humans believe and worship God at the expense of caring for one another and the world? "





I promise to have a look and give you feedback, but as above, a bit time poor. :)

[Loki]

Truthmission

Could you do me a favour and read a book called The Greatest Show On Earth.

It is an attempt to describe the evolution in a simple manner. It covers a lot of ground and provides examples for what the author considers the basic points. It doesn't cover everything but would be a good starting point. Reading this would circumvent a lot of the facepalms and throwing up of hands you get when you say something really back-arseward like "prove man evolved from chimpanzees".

Yes I know this is a Dawkins book. There are many others around which attempt the same synthesis. I'm suggesting The Greatest Show On Earth simply because it is reasonably well written, is current, and is readily available. If you read this you will be able to point to particular sections and we will know what you are talking about, it will also save you saying things which are simply wrong and which we are sick of hearing.

Dawkins spends some time talking about the people who deny the basic facts of evolution. I don't mind if you skip over these bits, he doesn't hold back. These bits however might give you another insight on some of the things we see over and over again, and the basic misunderstandings people make, often willfully.

[Truthmission]

Morning Loki,

Sure I think that would be a good idea thanks, I will probably try to get hold of that book that has been done as a counter too" the greatest hoax on earth" and perhaps get some dot points to share.

I have read some of Dawkins work before and I do agree he writes very well.
I have been doing research on these topics and I am getting my info together at the moment in those subject categories I mentioned.

I have also been playing my own devils advocate and looking at the counter arguments too, in an attempt to not annoy ( even though I have appreciated the links sent ect) . I have been looking through previous posts on this forum and I can tell many of you have spent time on these topics already.

One thing I see as being a bit of an issue is tolerance and understanding intent when it comes to Biblical things, and the fact it was written by man, sometimes it was to convey what God was thinking, some other times it was a record of historical events, commentary and prophecy. I can see that some of you have read things, seen that it perhaps does not fit with current Human knowledge and dismiss the whole thing. I can understand that and I am currently trying to point out things that do not seem right such as the creation account.. I may have stumbled on some light on this issue. For me when you compare these points to the whole writings, they seem minimal, I think this tolerance could be a HUGE factor.

A good example was my discussion with Mr Black, I mentioned Babylon and Cyrus. Some people see the Prophecy as coming true as I have mentioned, others state that as the US have a camp near there..... case closed.. I would argue against that as I do not see that as a deal breaker.
As for Cyrus, as Isaiah would have needed supernatural powers to predict this stuff, so people point out the need for a second Isaiah ( no need for powers). I would argue there is no substantial proof to that, as I have some more info on this too.. for those other intended posts.

For those reasons I am keeping an open mind on the topic, doing more research and not jumping to final blow conclusions on there being no God just yet, but it is becoming more obvious to me why people do which is good.

Thanks again for your input.. and I am working on it keeping in mind your comments.

Cheers Loki :)

One more thing I am currently reading this book, I would highly recommend this book, especially to people who have read the Bible and have been disappointed with God.... I often think of Mr Black when reading this book.

http://mexc.blogspot.com/2006/01/book-disappointment-with-god.html

[Truthmission]

Black,

Yeah fair enough from going through some of the posts, I can understand people getting annoyed, as it seems some people do get on here to be a nuisance. Thats not my intent.

Its clear to me you have done lots of research/ reading ect and you have come to your conclusions, which is of interest to me. The subjects/post I get involved in I will keep that in mind, so I will take a little time out to do that, and perhaps through in a couple of possibilities worth exhausting.

[wolty]

I have also been playing my own devils advocate and looking at the counter arguments too, in an attempt to not annoy ( even though I have appreciated the links sent ect) . I have been looking through previous posts on this forum and I can tell many of you have spent time on these topics already.


Great idea TM about the devils advocate, almost the beginning of critical thinking. :) Remember most of us here ask questions regarding things we do not understand, but that is after trying to research said material anyway. We will always evaluate everything we read and put it into some context as well. Sounds to me like you are beginning to understand what actually occurs on fantasy island, and the questions we answer, that really could have been understood earlier by posters. That and the refusal to believe proper evidence drives most of us crazy.

One thing I see as being a bit of an issue is tolerance and understanding intent when it comes to Biblical things, and the fact it was written by man, sometimes it was to convey what God was thinking, some other times it was a record of historical events, commentary and prophecy. I can see that some of you have read things, seen that it perhaps does not fit with current Human knowledge and dismiss the whole thing. I can understand that and I am currently trying to point out things that do not seem right such as the creation account.. I may have stumbled on some light on this issue. For me when you compare these points to the whole writings, they seem minimal, I think this tolerance could be a HUGE factor.

Remember it is just not "current human knowledge". There are myriad reasons that we do not believe. One thing that I always think of is, why do bad things happen to good people. After researching, reading, talking to people, including pastors I have realised that my questions will never be answered to my satisfaction. Ergo: the next step is no god. And it is easier to live that way.


For those reasons I am keeping an open mind on the topic, doing more research and not jumping to final blow conclusions on there being no God just yet, but it is becoming more obvious to me why people do which is good.

Thanks again for your input.. and I am working on it keeping in mind your comments.



Sounds to me like you are starting to understand us.

[Truthmission]

Black:-

Just quickly the Yancy books you have read, does that include " Disappointed with God?? "

Wolty:-

I have just finished collecting all the unanswered points in this thread, I think I should answer some questions on why I believe especially when it comes to why bad stuff happens ect too. Its a big topic.

Certainly seems as though I have my work cut out for me already, thanks all for being patient.

[wolty]

Wolty:-

I have just finished collecting all the unanswered points in this thread, I think I should answer some questions on why I believe especially when it comes to why bad stuff happens ect too. Its a big topic.
It is a huge topic, but only one of many. Answering questions on why you believe is a good idea, but don't get upset if everyone pulls them apart. Answer what you are comfortable with.


Certainly seems as though I have my work cut out for me already, thanks all for being patient. No dramas, I do think you have your work cut out for you. It is not going to be easy for you at all. I do hope that you realise that.

The thing is, we have a head start on you. We can understand evolution/creationism. We understand or have researched how the mind works. We understand sociology, how and why humans act and react the way they do. We understand the how and why of religion.

But most importantly we understand why we are atheists, why we behave the way we do, how the world works, why societys work or not. We can understand why different social values can work or not. We just understand, and if we don't, we research, we read, we talk, we interract. It is a never ending life of learning.

[Loki]

One thing I see as being a bit of an issue is tolerance and understanding intent when it comes to Biblical thingsI think this is an issue with many of the theists that come here. The fact is the bible is at the end of a long line of issues and really isn't very important, or important at all. Before you get to the bible you really need to go through;



Why do you believe in the supernatural, and what is your reason or evidence.
Why do you believe in the existence of gods, and what is your reason or evidence.
Why do you believe in the existence of one specific god, but no others, and what is your reason or evidence.


Only then can you profitably move onto the contents of a book. If you jump straight to your novel here you probably won't like the response.

edit: I hope you can see why you can't use the bible as an argument for any of these three points, circular reasoning and all that.

.

[Truthmission]

Hey Loki,

Yeah that is a great idea, instead of me coming up with my own subjects those 3 questions sound good and reasonable.. I also think I have some good answers for the other thread on questions for Christians too.

The thing is how others on this forum have said there are myriads of reasons why they are an Atheist, the same goes for me being a Christian. It would literally result in me writing a book to explain it all in one hit.

I think a huge factor may be trying to put some sort of Guarantee on the accuracy of the Bible with some evidence out side the Bible, perhaps one point at a time, as I can see I would get buried in replies if I posted all at once...

Another point is that there seems to be too many accuracies in the Bible for them just to be a co-incidence in my opinion when you look at the shear number of them all too.

Another issue it seems is how critical are we to be over certain issues, for example Babylon. I would rate that one as a currently fulfilled prophecy when you read the scriptures behind it, but others point to a small US base near there as debunking it. Surely it deserves some credit on that?.

There seems to be many prophecies, visions and historical commentary in the Bible that you can look at in different lights and get an approval tick or debunk... I suppose depending on how far we can personally stretch biases too. I do think that it should logically get to a stage whether the dots can be joined and accepted or dismissed.

I'll sort something out shortly for discussion on those 3 points, thanks for the direction.

[Loki]

This is only a personal hypothesis of mine, but bear with me. Many people come here and want to bang on about either the bible or evolution. There's a rip roaring argument and then they go away again. I suspect that most of the time both sides think they have "won" the argument, or something like that, but no understanding or even vague agreement is reached.

I think the main reason this is so is that both these topics are incidental in many ways to atheism, they are out on the fringes. Evolution supports atheism in many ways, and the known facts are pretty hard to circumvent, but atheism is well supported without it. The bible, in terms of atheism, only comes at the end of a long line of issues which start with a reason and evidence for the supernatural of any kind (including astrology, tarot, leprechauns, homeothapy, etc.), meanders through reason and evidence for gods of any kind and only then moves onto the monotheistic gods.

Perhaps discussion on more basal issues would end in stalemate as well. I don't know, very few of our visitors can see that this is where atheism is formed. A lot of atheists come to atheism from the bible but we very rapidly work our way back to the basics, and that is where you need to meet us.

N/B I'd appreciate feedback if people think my hypothesis is without base, just trying to put a few things together in my head and this makes sense so far.

.

[Loki]

Thats why I don't like the "both sides win" model, I'd like to see the "both sides agree there is food for thought" model, but haven't yet, and don't think I will while the argument is biblical.

I can see the argument each of you is making, just don't really care either way. I can see why Truthmission dismisses your agrument by saying that the US base isn't intergenerational. I can see why you deny Truthmissions suggestion that there has never been an intergenerational settlement on that site since the events mentioned, despite some archaeological evidence to the contrary apparantly. Just can't see any solution to the impasse unless someone comes up with more evidence.

[Loki]

Yes, several of these definitions could be argued here, and as they are all valid depending on context or intent I suspect resolution is unlikely.

[Truthmission]

Truthmissions suggestion that there has never been an intergenerational settlement on that site since the events mentioned, despite some archaeological evidence to the contrary apparantly. Just can't see any solution to the impasse unless someone comes up with more evidence.

Mr Black / Loki...

Just wondering if you could point me out some info on this archaeological evidence????, ...........on another note I have a good friend who is an Archaeologist and I was going to ask him some other things on Sodom ect too... Apparently at one stage its existence was denied until archaeological proof was found as the Bible seemed to be one of the only sources of its existence. I have also been told that there is some evidence of the " fire and brimstone" too.. Of course there is controversy on this too... as it seems to be with many things that the Bible has a say in...

[wolty]

ummm, could someone explain to me the relevance of this babylon story please.
Is it OT or NT?
I take it that it is a biblical story that has repercussions for prophecy.
Maybe TM could explain it to me in simple terms that I would understand and then research.
Pardon my ignorance, I like to learn.

[Truthmission]

Hi Wolty,

Loki has asked.. as I'm sure many of you would like to know reasons why Christians believe in the Bible. I was born into being told to have faith in Jesus, as was told about Santa, Easter Bunny, tooth fairy ect.. not that I am putting Jesus in that category, but its something that I cannot see.

As time goes on people question what they have been told as I have, I no-longer just have blind faith, I believe I have some substance to base my beliefs on.

I obviously have quite a bit of explaining to do on this, and lots of points to cover, so Loki has suggest one by one.

At the moment we are picking on a Prophecy on the Bible regarding Babylon. Babylon is mentioned in the OT, do a google there is much info on it and I have discussed it earlier in the thread. Babylon is mentioned a fair bit in the Bible as it was a huge, beautiful and prosperous place, basically a world mecca, with great natural resources.

The Prophet Isaiah basically claimed that God had told him it would be destroyed and never inhabited again, at least 200 years before it happened. It is still a ruin, despite recent attempts by Sadaam to rebuild it to its glory and proclaim himself as a great king likened to Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar ( also mentioned in the Bible).

So this could be one point to show a possible supernatural event in the Bible. I understand just one thing could be a co-incidence so thats why we need to look at others too...

Its just a small starting point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon
http://www.bible-history.com/babylonia/BabyloniaHistory_of_Babylonia.htm




http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/cid:310211804@02122009-2C3F

[wolty]

oooooo I like learning. :)

Thanks for that. Appreciated.

[TÐöer]

Another point is that there seems to be too many accuracies in the Bible for them just to be a co-incidence in my opinion when you look at the shear number of them all too.

Have you read Dan Browns works? It's filled with accuracies too, but I don't think you believe it is real.

It's not what's accurate in it that matters, it is what is not true that matters. Look at Mr. Blacks example.

Heck, even before verifying the details of the book for accuracy, look at the overall story and see if it makes sense. The answer is nope.


So this could be one point to show a possible supernatural event in the Bible. I understand just one thing could be a co-incidence so thats why we need to look at others too...

Sorry for not following the plot, but correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Black has proven that the place is not barren as prophersized, because of the US Base.

Why are you ignoring this fact?

[wolty]

It's not what's accurate in it that matters, it is what is not true that matters.

@ The Doer, I agree with you. That is the thing about being skeptic. It takes many many instances of reliable information to verify truth.
And the major sticking point in all this will be the wrong things in the bible.
We posted about this originally in this thread, the inaccuracies in the bible.

@ Mr TM, This is what I see as the problem, as above. You can show us things that according to you verify the prophecy, but there are many other areas where it is wrong.

I am sure you could give us 20 things and then we show you 30 things and so on ad infinitum. Not that I mind too much because I love ancient history (did senior ancient history) and am always willing to hear others points of view and learn about things I didn't know.

[wolty]

Sorry for not following the plot, but correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Black has proven that the place is not barren as prophersized, because of the US Base.



That my good friend is a question of degrees. :)

[TÐöer]

haha... The tread was too long to keep up with. :P

[Davoz]

Truthmission, in an earlier post you raised a question about the uniqueness of humans. That's a good starting point for a few comments I'd like to make. If 'unique' is taken conventionally to mean 'having unique features', then it's certainly true of humans, but at the same time it's trivially true because it's also true of platypuses and elephants and - to extend its trivial truthfulness further to inanimacy - it's also true of chairs and tables. Identifying uniqueness is roughly what Aristotle thought of as the categorisation of objects (A/not-A), and there's a lot of it about!

We all form hundreds and thousands of beliefs about objects from the point of view of their perceived uniqueness. Our beliefs are formed from inputs that are perceptual (tactile, visual, etc.) and inputs that are non-perceptual and in propositional form (and sometimes called doxastic). But belief-formation is not unique to humans. A chimp may form a belief that a banana is in a particular concealed location, and will use perceptual and neurophysiological skills to find it. A unique human feature is our skill at putting such beliefs into propositional form. Some kinds of beliefs coalesce over time into what we agree to call knowledge, and we form large numbers of sets of belief and knowledge. Sets may be as diverse as the history of flight, automotive mechanics, Biblical exegesis or desiderata for atheism, and a typical and predominant (but not exclusive) feature of such epistemological sets is that they are internally consistent and coherent. Even so, they are often - again typically but not exclusively - what I think of as 'asymptotic' (Stephen Jay Gould famously explained this in relation to science and religion as their being 'non-overlapping magisteria'). However you describe this feature of epistemic sets, it helps to explain the frustration expressed in some posts which results from the asymptotic offset in evidence when your particular epistemic set encounters others.

A common assumption I've argued against elsewhere is that all major (internally consistent and coherent) epistemic sets are of equal value in terms of their capacity for truth-conduciveness, i.e., permitting descriptions of reality which are equally truth-approximating. One salient factor here is the assessment of probability which many atheists intuitively or methodically employ (as do many agnostics and sceptics - Michael Shermer is a good example) to gauge the truth-conduciveness of the different belief-forming practices which produce epistemic sets. It has been estimated that there have been up to 100,000 religions (I could locate the reference if I had hours to spare, but the figure is less important than what it implies for this argument). That represents some concomitantly diverse and enormous range of truth claims. Whatever its controversies, historical mistakes and revisions, science has established over several hundred years a wide range of universal truths, or facts (I rely here on Stephen Jay Gould's observation that a 'fact' in science refers to something so regularly confirmed that one would have to be perverse not to accord it one's 'provisional assent'), in a way that no either dead or extant religion has ever yet been able to do. While no probabilisitic or 'frequency-count' method of assessing the truth-conduciveness of belief systems (or epistemic sets) is foolproof, knowledge- and belief-forming greatly benefits in robustness and persuasiveness from using it.

I can see that you are acquiring skills in Scriptural exegesis and checking out their validity on this forum, but I simply invite you to see that your (internally consistent and coherent - if it is so) epistemology is in a relatively hermetically sealed bubble.






.

[Truthmission]

Heck, even before verifying the details of the book for accuracy, look at the overall story and see if it makes sense. The answer is nope.


Sorry for not following the plot, but correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Black has proven that the place is not barren as prophersized, because of the US Base.

Why are you ignoring this fact?

@The Doer


Thanks for the input but you see from earlier on with discussions with Loki I am not ignoring Mr Black, we simply have a disagreement on validity, we discussed the validity of a US camp. When you look at what the prophecy says AND its overall intent, a camp like that would not be enough to de-bunk the prophecy as it is written. That is obviously my opinion and I think to be fair Babylon should at least be an eyebrow raiser for non-believers even if they think that a US camp cancels it out.. thats all I am asking an open mind to perhaps keep a mental note on and then we can move on to the next piece of accuracy in the Bible.

@ Wolty, I have heard the argument about inaccuracies in the Bible before and I am not the end of the line .. far from it in understanding the Bible correctly.. but I try and I am still content with my beliefs.. which is more than most Christians I think.
Many of the so called inaccuracies / contradictions are usually quite easily explained when the context in which the verses are put into context. The Bible must be taken for the who, where, when and why things are written. The majority of the attacks I have seen against the Bible have been very misleading in what was actually written and often taken out of context.

@Davoz,

Thanks for that, I understand for the most part what you are saying I think, and this "Uniqueness" as we are promised we are in the Bible is a big deal for me. I am happy to look into this subject and I do have some good info to share, but I have been advised to try to look into one point at a time, and hopefully sometime soon we can look at all these points.. I don't want to miss out on covering it all, for mine and everyone elses sake looking at this thread.

Cheers

[Seamus]

The only really useful thing I know about revivals is they're a great place to go if you want to get laid.:p


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I have never ever seen any proof of precognition or fortune telling of any kind, and that includes holy prophecy of every flavour..

Even biblical prophecy written after the event (which is much of it)tends to be 'a little skewed.'

My favourite is the prophecy of The Second Coming, which has been constantly revised since the C1st CE. Jesus actually promised to return within the lifetime of his disciples.

One of the many ironies of Christianity is that it arguably the greatest example of a failed millennial movement on the planet.

One of the fascinating things about biblical prophecy is that no two denominations seem to agree on the meaning(s). The link below on the second coming is fascinating.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Coming_of_Christ



REVELATIONS: At the Catholic school I attended, Revelations was seen as bit of an embarrassment,so we ignored it. I read it at 16 .My first thought was;"this guy is nuts" Today of course I'm of a more technical bent,my thought is "probably suffering from rizote poisoning,as I'm not sure if they magic mushrooms or peyote on Patmos"

[Truthmission]

Morning Black :)

As always great input and nice piccies!!

Putting down Revelation as a guy on LSD, based on the assumption he ate food that was off.. Interesting for sure..Evidence probably not??...

A few years ago I did some study on revelation, based on the JW's take on it. I do have trouble with their own being the anointed ones ect. But apart from that its a very interesting interpretation on prophecy. I don't want to get too side tracked on this thread as advised, but I would really like to know your input on this highly controversial topic of Revelation, well your view when you where a believer.

[atheist_angel]

Morning Black :)

As always great input and nice piccies!!

Putting down Revelation as a guy on LSD, based on the assumption he ate food that was off.. Interesting for sure..Evidence probably not??...

A few years ago I did some study on revelation, based on the JW's take on it. [...]But apart from that its a very interesting interpretation on prophecy. I don't want to get too side tracked on this thread as advised, but I would really like to know your input on this highly controversial topic of Revelation, well your view when you where a believer.Book of Revelation? Worst epilogue EVER!I do have trouble with their own being the anointed ones ect.Anointing?

So I take it you don't believe in the Divine Right of Kings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_right_of_kings)...

...but you do believe in the Mandate of Heaven (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_of_Heaven)?

Do you believe in a physical anointing or a spiritual anointing?
Do you think the physical anointing causes a spiritual anointing?

Just trying to understand your position and your take on things... :confused:

[Truthmission]

Angel, thanks for the links.

To be honest, I don't claim to have a full understanding of Revelation, but it does seem to link in with many of the OT prophets, so I will study it further.

I have studied for a few years with the JW's and the anointed class of people where of great concern to them. The are the ones supposedly to lead as Kings and rulers in the new world. The JW's pretty much claim to have the remnant of the 144000 anointed with them, and they will shortly be having a memorial around easter for Jesus's death where they invite only the Anointed to take part of the bread and wine in memory of the last supper.

The anointed ones are mentioned in Revelation and apparently they have starling insight into the scriptures, the JW's hence amongst other things claim to be the ONLY true worshipers of Christ and that all others are misleading the world and are basically tools of Satan.

This is of concern to me, so I have not formed a solid opinion or foundation on such important issues, to make a conclusion, any insight is appreciated.

As for the Divine right of Kings, its clear in the Bible to obey Laws / Kings unless they contradict laws of God. Its a good idea so as not to end up in Jail ect.

This is also important for the idea of Gods right to rule, it seems that Jehovah will allow all the many types of Government to rule Humans, when we all seem convinced that man will lead man to his injury...( approx bible verse" then we will have no reason to question Jehovah ruling in the New World.

[wolty]

@ Wolty, I have heard the argument about inaccuracies in the Bible before and I am not the end of the line .. far from it in understanding the Bible correctly.. but I try and I am still content with my beliefs.. which is more than most Christians I think.
I think maybe you try harder than most christians.


Many of the so called inaccuracies / contradictions are usually quite easily explained when the context in which the verses are put into context. The Bible must be taken for the who, where, when and why things are written. The majority of the attacks I have seen against the Bible have been very misleading in what was actually written and often taken out of context.


Question No. 1.
Can god do anything?

[Truthmission]

@Wolty, I think I know where you are getting with that one. I reading a book "Disappointed with God" at the moment which sheds light on that question.

a) Yes can do anything

I would like to spend some time on this and get something concise as it is important... as I do really want to focus on one thing at a time, as it seems there has been no more input against the Babylon prophecy.. BUT

b) Dwelled with the Hebrews..lots of show off stuff, yet they still built a golden calf, killed infants
c) Showed visions to Prophets, they still wanted more signs and felt abandoned at times, many hated them too.
d) He sent down his Son, many miracles ect Jews/Romans killed him
e) Worked through the Apostles... many where killed/tortured

Things have not gone well for God concerning Humans at every turn we seem to be against him. Its clear in the Bible people who turn to God and choose that path instructed WILL have a hard time... heaps of scriptures on that...I want to go into that in detail later.

So it seems God has tried many different approaches to reach people, it seems at the moment he has retracted the supernatural events and there are only a few prophecies still going and yet to come, this explanation is really inadequately brief, I will finish the book and continue research....

So all we can do now is discuss an ancient book and see how real / relevant it is today with evidence.

So can I move off of Babylon?? Discussed enough?

[wolty]

@Wolty, I think I know where you are getting with that one. I reading a book "Disappointed with God" at the moment which sheds light on that question.

a) Yes can do anything



But it says here,

Judges 1:19 And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.

Mark 6:5 And he could there do no mighty work

Hebrews 6:18 It was impossible for God to lie.

But then it says here

Revelation 19:6 The Lord God omnipotent reigneth.
I'm confused.

[Truthmission]

Most Impressed :)

Judges 1:19 And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.

a) Yes God was often with people when things went wrong, he was even with people when they where thrown in pits!! The above is simply saying Judah as a person could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, not that God could not do it, it was obviously not his will


Mark 6:5 And he could there do no mighty work

b) This is in relation to Jesus, and by looking at the other verses you can see why he could not do the mighty work...faith was lacking.. he was not interested in ones without an open heart.. BTW I do not take Jesus as actually being God... I have references if you like..

Hebrews 6:18 It was impossible for God to lie.

c) Excellent point, you are correct, I was jumped in too quickly.

But then it says here

Revelation 19:6 The Lord God omnipotent reigneth.
I'm confused.

[Truthmission]

more on a)

19. the Lord was with Judah; . but they could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley-The war was of the Lord, whose omnipotent aid would have ensured their success in every encounter, whether on the mountains or the plains, with foot soldiers or cavalry. It was distrust, the want of a simple and firm reliance on the promise of God, that made them afraid of the iron chariots (see on [210]Jos 11:4-9).

http://bible.cc/judges/1-19.htm

look at the bottom commentary on the link, very useful

[gruber]

2) The chances of us being that lucky to be on Earth, the exact distance from the sun to support life, a singular moon to incline the earth to get our seasons so that life still exists, our atmosphere.. this list goes on an on.. do you really think we can get that lucky??



Well lets look at that, there are over a billion galaxies in the observable universe, each contains around 100,000 to over 1million stars. Now you dont have to be any good at maths to relise thats a lot of dam stars, now lets say that even 20% of stars have planets, there is alot of room from different orbits, number of moons, Star type, etc etc. Just because the Earth is the distance it is from the Sun doesnt make it special or a rarity by any means

[atheist_angel]

Wait now, I'm confused.

@TM: He can create stars, but...

Can't end war, hunger, and poverty?

Just provide empty promises in the form of a prophecy?

[Atrax Robustus]

Hi TM.

Nice to see that you're here and expressing the desire to at least discuss areas of disagreement - good one.

Can I please challenge you on one thing - with a sincere wish that you see the error and counter its affect on all of your future communications with theist and non-believer alike?

It's a quick fix - with no need to argue, however as a small change to your method of communication it will at the very least stop driving me to absolute mind-melting distraction! I'm actually looking for it in each and every one of your posts now!
















etc not ect


et cetera - is latin for "and the rest" and the correct abbreviation is etc. Please, irrespective of how you might pronounce et cetera, at least spell it correctly - it's only three letters after all!

Thanks in advance. (I'm not a spelling or grammar nazi - but ect is driving me absolutely fucking nuts!)


After thought - 'cos I KNOW someone will raise it . . . Yes I know that ECT is supposedly useful if you are absolutely fucking nuts!

[Truthmission]

Wait now, I'm confused.

@TM: He can create stars, but...

Can't end war, hunger, and poverty?

Just provide empty promises in the form of a prophecy?


Angel,

Strange isn't it what Humans are like, we really do bring all this war, hunger and poverty on ourselves.. yet there are people who assuming they believe in God to blame it on him, and some non-believers use it to show that there could not be a God that loves us.

The Earth has the resources that everyone could be happy and fed, I recommend watching ZEITGEIST Addendum at http://www.thevenusproject.com
there is some good info on just how lucky we are on Earth... or could be.

This subject reminds me about the movie the Matrix, where one of the agents is explaining to Morpheus how the original Matrix was perfect, happy, healthy people no wars etc.. but people went nuts and craved the chaos... I know there is not much substance to this point but I do tend to agree.

He lets people have choice to extreme extents, they could choose to do anything and God gave us that freedom to his pain.

Genesis 6:6 (New International Version)

6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain


Also with that choice we seem to be the only species that will willfully kill ourselves knowing that we will die, amazing really for the rulers of the Earth..

The prophecies sometimes are of a warning to people what will happen if they do not follow Gods instructions, they are not empty at all.

God has made promises to certain people ie Moses, Abraham, David and others, God ensures they come true.

[Truthmission]

Fair call, I just wanted to answer Angel.. I will start a new thread on the Subject, Science/Reality and the Bible... This seems to be a main issue that needs to be dealt with. Hopefully I can answer all those patient posters such as Loki and Netty on the topic.

[atheist_angel]

Angel,

Strange isn't it what Humans are like, we really do bring all this war, hunger and poverty on ourselves.. yet there are people who assuming they believe in God to blame it on him, and some non-believers use it to show that there could not be a God that loves us.

The Earth has the resources that everyone could be happy and fed, I recommend watching ZEITGEIST Addendum at http://www.thevenusproject.com
there is some good info on just how lucky we are on Earth... or could be.

This subject reminds me about the movie the Matrix, where one of the agents is explaining to Morpheus how the original Matrix was perfect, happy, healthy people no wars etc.. but people went nuts and craved the chaos... I know there is not much substance to this point but I do tend to agree.

He lets people have choice to extreme extents, they could choose to do anything and God gave us that freedom to his pain.

Genesis 6:6 (New International Version)

6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain


Also with that choice we seem to be the only species that will willfully kill ourselves knowing that we will die, amazing really for the rulers of the Earth..

The prophecies sometimes are of a warning to people what will happen if they do not follow Gods instructions, they are not empty at all.

God has made promises to certain people ie Moses, Abraham, David and others, God ensures they come true.Statistically probable coincidence based on common sense is all you have given me in the way of "proof" and argument. You're explanation is weak! I can make up my own, so called, prophecy that says if one throws delicate glass objects at a brick wall, those objects will break. Would such a prophecy based on common sense prove the existence of a g-d, just by being true? No, it would NOT.

The Venus Project appears to be a dream about how to create a utopia-like world. It is not religious based. Quite the opposite in fact. The Zeitgeist movies are the product of poor research at best; Conspiracy theory at worst; And are completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not there is a g-d.

How many so called prophecies have turned out to be wrong. This my friend is hard to put a number on, because everytime a prophecy is WRONG, "Religion" just keeps 'reinterpreting' it until it looks 'right'. How 'convenient' for them.

[nettybetty]

Angel,

Strange isn't it what Humans are like, we really do bring all this war, hunger and poverty on ourselves.. yet there are people who assuming they believe in God to blame it on him, and some non-believers use it to show that there could not be a God that loves us.

The Earth has the resources that everyone could be happy and fed, I recommend watching ZEITGEIST Addendum at http://www.thevenusproject.com
there is some good info on just how lucky we are on Earth... or could be.

This subject reminds me about the movie the Matrix, where one of the agents is explaining to Morpheus how the original Matrix was perfect, happy, healthy people no wars etc.. but people went nuts and craved the chaos... I know there is not much substance to this point but I do tend to agree.

He lets people have choice to extreme extents, they could choose to do anything and God gave us that freedom to his pain.
.

If God loves us, why does he let this happen? He happily smited people in biblical times, why doesn't he smite the bad guys now? His proudest creation might end up going extinct, really if he existed and valued us why isn't he stopping it?

Try telling someone whose had a relative murdered they brought it onto themselves...try telling someone that their terminal cancer was brought onto themselves...how about a small child in a war torn country starving to death? We did that to ourselves?
To make such a statement is ignorant.

Using the 'free will' argument is the biggest cop out, and it's been discussed over and over. Platinga's Free will defense is discussed here: http://exapologist.blogspot.com/2006/10/intermission-quick-point-about.html

Basically the point is it's not about evil and God coexisting, but the lack of evidence for God existing, so its really a moot point. Evil exists, and on top of this is the philosophy that maybe people don't have free will. Yes, an individual may be able to choose between right and wrong according to society, but at the end of the day, are we are all acting upon our inherent instincts and genes?

So what do you define as evil? Is a lion eating a zebra considered evil? The world is full of species taking advantage of other species, and doing things which may seem 'evil' to humans. Nature is full of barbarism, predation etc., so do animals also have the free will to act evilly ie. a lion could choose to be vegetarian? That a lion is also being punished for the sins of humanity? That the how nature is observed, is against what God intended? That makes no sense.


Zeitgeist - conspiracy theories about religion and how it was established to control..It's been debunked, they couldn't even get their Egyptian facts right: http://conspiracyscience.com/articles/zeitgeist/
Interesting you are a quoting something which says religion is all about control, not the existence of God.
According to Jared Diamond, the world doesn't have enough resources - it's overpopulated, and he isn't alone on this.

While utopia is a nice thought, greed and corruption to keep the fat cats happy isn't going to end. I often wonder if human nature is meant to be about the individual or the community, or it's flux between the two. For a utopian society, religion can't exist unless everyone follows one religion, otherwise religious wars can't be eradicated and people killing in the name of religion can't be eradicated. This is what exactly what radical muslims are after, so what, everyone is expected to follow a single doctrine? Hmmm heard that before, and it began in Germany....again an ill-thought out concept which offers no support to your cause.

On the subject of the matrix, how do you know that it's god and not a bunch of aliens who need energy?

[Davoz]

Using the 'free will' argument is the biggest cop out, and it's been discussed over and over. Platinga's Free will defense is discussed here: http://exapologist.blogspot.com/2006...int-about.html


Adding to nettybetty's recommendation, TM, you might also like to have a look when you can at Daniel Wegner's The Illusion of Conscious Will (Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 2002), a full-length treatment that will really set your heart beating.

[Darwinsbulldog]

TruthMission wrote:
So it seems God has tried many different approaches to reach people, it seems at the moment he has retracted the supernatural events and there are only a few prophecies still going and yet to come, this explanation is really inadequately brief, I will finish the book and continue research....

Hi TM,

It seems to me that if god is real, he could have made many hints in the bible of a natural nature that would prove his existence. He could do this in such a way as to not give anything away about the future, such as:-

All
The Talk
Of the
Market [from Asimov's Novel "The End Of Eternity]

[In the native Hebrew, Greek, whatever]

Or he could have caused supernatural events to occur that would be without scientific explanation.

I have read the whole bible, and nothing like this sort of thing appears.

The god YEWA is very local, Jesus is local. There are no Penguins, No blind Cave fish, No Koalas, no funny little phrases like E=MC2, etc, etc. There is a lot of nonsense, but it is all nonsense.

[Truthmission]

@ Netty... hey sorry about my delays to your posts, I will get to it, I do want to focus on the other thread I started as I have so many to answer.. Science one etc.

Just a bit of background on you.. have you read the Bible at all?, there are many answers in there to your questions, it does take time to collect them.

The most important piece of advise in regards to understanding the Bible is NOT to read it as a scientific report, it shares concepts, basic ideas and themes on science. It was written in a way so that Ancient people could get some very simplified answers, and that we in the future could see that it is trustworthy. Its like criticizing someone that says the sky is blue, and you furiously correct them explaining about refraction/scattering of light, water particles, atmosphere, molecules etc etc.. need to give it a bit of a chance.

As I have previously mentioned the book "Disappointed in God" covers many if not all those questions on God, his love, free will and the likes... I will take some notes..

Thanks again

[Loki]

The most important piece of advise in regards to understanding the Bible is NOT to read it as a scientific report, it shares concepts, basic ideas and themes on science. It was written in a way so that Ancient people could get some very simplified answers, and that we in the future could see that it is trustworthy. Its like criticizing someone that says the sky is blue, and you furiously correct them explaining about refraction/scattering of light, water particles, atmosphere, molecules etc etc.. need to give it a bit of a chance.

So it's the most important book in the universe and provides all the answers, but was written as a kindergarten primer so don't criticize it because it's trying to dumb down the concepts so illiterate bronze-age nomads can "get" it?

Any idea how ridiculous this sounds.

[Truthmission]

Loki:- Lol, no don't look at it that way.. patience I will try to sort something out, but Black has been pointed out to me it should be presented in a certain way...takes longer than casual replies... sorry

BTW did you have any luck with Babylon ie.. the proof of inhabitants you mentioned??

[Loki]

I never said I'd look up Babylon. Biblical prophesies relying on the careful interpretation and context of particular words seem like wishful thinking to me. Got one which is incontrovertible?

Until you can provide some reason to entertain the existence of gods in general I'm not really interested in a book written about one a long time ago by persons unknown.

[riddlemethis]

@ Netty... hey sorry about my delays to your posts, I will get to it, I do want to focus on the other thread I started as I have so many to answer.. Science one etc.

Just a bit of background on you.. have you read the Bible at all?, there are many answers in there to your questions, it does take time to collect them.

The most important piece of advise in regards to understanding the Bible is NOT to read it as a scientific report, it shares concepts, basic ideas and themes on science. It was written in a way so that Ancient people could get some very simplified answers, and that we in the future could see that it is trustworthy. Its like criticizing someone that says the sky is blue, and you furiously correct them explaining about refraction/scattering of light, water particles, atmosphere, molecules etc etc.. need to give it a bit of a chance.

As I have previously mentioned the book "Disappointed in God" covers many if not all those questions on God, his love, free will and the likes... I will take some notes..

Thanks again

[gloves off]That is the biggest load of bullshit I've ever seen committed to an atheist forum, particularly because it is done deliberately. To quote the best tennis player of all time: "You can not be serious!" This is apologetics at its absolute worst.

I can only pose one question: Have YOU read the bible? I have, six times, three versions & it isn't even a kindergarten primer for scientific concepts. The more you read it, whether literally or as metaphor the less sense it makes. If you take to it with the metaphor brush, you are simply admitting that you are making shit up!

Your claim is completely blown out of the water by the enlightenment that DID NOT happen as a result of the birth of Christianity. Centuries of sweet fuck all scientifically speaking, but plenty of power mongering, killing in the name of and hoarding of wealth. If it were such a mind expanding book that it encouraged people to head out and discover the intricacies of the universe you might have a leg to stand on, instead the publication of the bible rather lead people to pretend they had the final word on life the universe and everything & humanity endured centuries of living in a cess-pool. Surely this god you champion is smart enough to at least write a tome of analogies that would actually stand the test of time in the concepts it discusses, let alone which might have actually prompted some kind of scientific revolution, chock-full of scientific themes as you claim it is. I mean for fuck sake, he didn't even tell them that washing their fucking hands is a good idea - or have you found a metaphor for that, which has been missed by every bible scholar before you, as well![/end gloves off]

[Praxis]

I reiterate what I said to bgbarber.

You, TriteMuffin, are full of shit.

Although riddlemethis puts it far more eloquently (she's more edjamakated than I am ;) ).

[TÐöer]

It was written in a way so that Ancient people could get some very simplified answers, and that we in the future could see that it is trustworthy.

Yep, I understand, walking on water, and parting of seas, make more sense to ancient people. :rolleyes:

But it fails to show the modern man, that the stories are believable in anyway. If the bible was indeed a beautiful book, then it will be right to both the ancient and the modern man. Eg. contain some details, which has a disclaimer to it, being for men of a different era.

Or perhaps, they could have a portion of it to be hidden until the time was right. (have you watched "push"?)

Secondly, it doesn't make sense at all, that God would expect, a modern man, to believe a book, which has been proven, meant for ancient ppl. His message should be equally spread to his creation of every era, and not just relevant to some.

He has revealed that babylon will fall, I'd like to know, which country is going to fall now, for their evil deeds?

[Truthmission]

But it fails to show the modern man, that the stories are believable in anyway. If the bible was indeed a beautiful book, then it will be right to both the ancient and the modern man. Eg. contain some details, which has a disclaimer to it, being for men of a different era.

Or perhaps, they could have a portion of it to be hidden until the time was right. (have you watched "push"?)

Secondly, it doesn't make sense at all, that God would expect, a modern man, to believe a book, which has been proven, meant for ancient ppl. His message should be equally spread to his creation of every era, and not just relevant to some.

He has revealed that babylon will fall, I'd like to know, which country is going to fall now, for their evil deeds?

Very fair comments, I can very much see the Bible relevant for all eras of Humans. The Bible has been shown to be historically accurate when events such as cities have been destroyed, sometimes the only source until recent digs.

In terms of the next cities to fall, the Bible actually predicts nations falling... depending on how you interpret Revelation. John perhaps uses monsters to illustrate possible political powers or nations. Please note I am not concrete on this stuff, but some interpreters see the UN, US, UK, Russia and China from memory as big players in matters of destruction, it also could be seen as Religion as a whole is banned / destroyed too for its evil deeds. But again I am green at this stuff.

[Praxis]

depending on how you interpret Revelation.
EPIC FAIL

[Truthmission]

Yeah I know, Doer asked me a question and I tried my best as to what I understand. To Interpret Revelation, a firm understanding of the rest of the Bible is required, and alas I am still learning, I don't claim to be infallible.
It is interesting to read Revelation with background knowledge though. For most of my life I pretty much have been told the OT was of little value, but now from looking into it, the NT is much clearer and more useful.

I read this quote last night, reminded me of our discussions...

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. (http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/1152.html) http://www.quotationspage.com/icon_info.gif (http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/1152.html)http://www.quotationspage.com/icon_plus.gif (http://www.quotationspage.com/myquotations.php?add=1152)http://www.quotationspage.com/icon_email.gif (http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/1152.html#email)http://www.quotationspage.com/icon_blank.gif
Aristotle

[Truthmission]

Thats ok to end the thread as I agree we have got off topic, I really didn't expect to get into the discussions we did and I can see from an archive point of view this thread has too many subjects.. hence my other threads.

I did originally post this thread to get more insight into a certain church and the Holy Spirit, I do now know your stance on it.. basically hooey I'm told....

I do regret as I can see I may have come across as preaching to you, but I do think I have reasons for my beliefs, and yes it is hard work putting it all together for this forum, but I am glad I am working on it.

I would like to thank everyones input, and just because I haven't addressed every issue, I do have several pages and quite a few hours of research I have done as a result of your posts.

I realize I really do need to spend much time getting together sources to be of any benefit to you guys and myself, I thank you for posting the questions and links you have as they all do help into closing in on the truth which is my goal.

I do realize that due to my current beliefs and avatar etc I am automatically put into a certain category. I was brought up to follow Christs teachings, and when done properly..not as religion has done, cannot be faulted. JC seems to be an exceptional role model that I can look up to.
So for me to disregard the Bible I would need a good reason, as even if there was no Bible just the story of the life of Jesus I would see his life as a one of honor and all my respect to him.

I really do hope this thread remains as I do plan to keep looking at it as a reference, so please Mr Black keep it.. I may just learn??

Also I do not think you are horrible at all, I have tried often to commend you for your input, and I do wish Christian groups would not try to "shield" there followers from people like yourselves, as I think many of your points are though - provoking..

As for my time with you to end do you mean I will be banned?

[atheist_angel]

Perhaps try reading something other than watchtower magazine.

Good Luck to you TM; hope you figure it all out!

[wearestardust]

Post # 198.