Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 On May 13, 3:09 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <f23v14$pbs$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > > <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: > > Jason wrote: <snip> > > > I do believe there is proof (in the form of fossils) that God created life > > > on this earth. There have been at least two books about this subject. > > > What books? I can explain the theory of evolution here without much > > trouble and have done so. I can point you to evidence that fits this theory. > > "Bones of Contention" by M. Lubenow > A thorough examination of all pre-human fossils. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_lubenow.html "The major theme of Bones of Contention is that the various species of hominid cannot form an evolutionary sequence because they overlap one another in time. "Firstly, he argues that a species cannot survive once it has given rise to a new species. Unlike many other creationists, he does at least attempt to give some justification for this. Supposedly, the newer, fitter descendant species, would, because of its superiority, drive its parent species to extinction. The argument is incorrect because members of the parent species may live in a separate region from the new species. If the species come into contact again, there may be no competition because they have diverged enough to occupy different ecological niches. (Many scientists would argue that even the requirement for a separate region is unnecessary.) Additionally, it is a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory to claim that a new species is "superior", in an absolute sense, to its parent species. Typically, both species will be "superior" at living in their own niches. "This argument is so broad that it would not only disprove human evolution but all evolution; Lubenow is basically asserting that a species cannot split into two species. Obviously this is not the view of speciation accepted by evolutionists, since it would follow that the number of living species could never increase. Nor, in fact, is it a view of speciation generally accepted by creationists, most of whom believe that many living species descended from the same biblical 'kind'. In fact, this argument is so weak that even Answers in Genesis has abandoned it; as they correctly point out, "... there's nothing in evolutionary theory that requires the main group to become extinct." " > Another interesting book: > "In Six Days" Editor: J.F. Ashton > 50 scientists explain their reasons for believing in the Biblical version > of creation. 93% of qualified scientists don't even believe in God. Have you even read these books? Why don't you present arguments from these books instead of just simply telling us they exist? Thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of books describe evidence of evolution. <snip> Martin Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 On Sat, 12 May 2007 17:30:24 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1205071730250001@66-52-22-33.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <ragc43t77bh612omlhsvbtv2oc0s04mdld@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Sat, 12 May 2007 15:39:42 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-1205071539420001@66-52-22-50.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <GrqdnZkQdNyMsdvbnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish >> ><jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: >> > >> >> Jason wrote: >> >> > In article <hJSdnSrqr5mbn9vbnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish >> >> > <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> Jason wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> I consider God to be omniscient and omnipotent. He is also a >dictator but >> >> >>> that is not a problem for Christians. God is a loving God and >would be a >> >> >>> wonderful dictator. >> >> >> That is the fear talking. >> >> >> >> >> >> This loving hypothetical god also is said to have nearly >> >> >> sterilized the planet, because it had a temper tantrum when >> >> >> its creation did not perform up to its expectations, yet, >> >> >> had been created exactly as it wished it to be and had been >> >> >> foreseen to be. How could it have been otherwise if this >> >> >> hypothetical loving god was really omniscient and >> >> >> omnipotent? That is one crazy and sadistic hypothetical >> >> >> demon, you got there. >> >> >> >> >> >> You better keep complimenting it and kissing its ass, or it >> >> >> might do you and infinite punishment. >> >> >> >> >> >>> I would not trust a dictator that was human but would >> >> >>> trust God since God is perfect. >> >> >> (snip) >> >> >> >> >> >> Kiss kiss (don't hurt me). >> >> > >> >> > The other alternative is going to hell and being forced to worship Satan. >> >> > I believe my choice is better. >> >> >> >> Once you understand that the whole story is mythology, other >> >> choices open up. >> >> >> >> In the mean time, you will probably sleep better if you keep >> >> sucking up to your imaginary, hypothetical god. >> >> >> >> I understand. I once feared the same demon. >> > >> >On judgement day, you will really be shocked. >> > >> There is no evidence that there will be a judgement day. There is no >> evidence that any gods exist. There is no evidence that the god you >> worship is the right god. There is no evidence that you won't be the one >> going to hell for worshipping the wrong god. > >Not true--the WRITTEN evidence is in the Bible. No, religious writings are absolutely _never_ evidence. You may choose to ignore that fact, but it won't change because you ignore it. Your religious texts cannot be shown to be more reliable than any other religious texts. >In many courts in America, >written evidence such as contracts are deemed very important. It depends on the purpose to which it is used and the provenance of the writing. The Bible fails on both counts and cannot be admitted into court except to the extent that it would be used to answer a question about what was written in some verse of the Bible. It is not and cannot be used for history or science. >Josh McDowell wrote a book entitled, "Evidence That Demands A >Verdict". I actually saw him preach in a church service. I actually own his collections of lies. His books are dishonest and misleading. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 On Sat, 12 May 2007 17:31:38 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1205071731380001@66-52-22-33.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <l9hc4397k7375tbe40ikt1vfsrm4b9admr@4ax.com>, Don Kresch ><ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > >> In alt.atheism On Sat, 12 May 2007 11:49:10 -0700, Jason@nospam.com >> (Jason) let us all know that: >> >> >In article <5alq3oF2oseo3U1@mid.individual.net>, "Steve O" >> ><spamhere@nowhere.com> wrote: >> > >> >> "Tokay Pino Gris" <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote in message >> >> news:f247a9$n2t$01$2@news.t-online.com... >> >> > Jason wrote: >> >> >> In article <h21a43tsn3815kcq54g0chgce5tli4prgc@4ax.com>, Don Kresch >> >> >> <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> In alt.atheism On Fri, 11 May 2007 17:51:48 -0700, Jason@nospam.com >> >> >>> (Jason) let us all know that: >> >> >>> >> >> >>>> In article <5akd8hF2oeg1dU1@mid.individual.net>, "Steve O" >> >> >>>> <spamhere@nowhere.com> wrote: >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>>> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >> >>>>> news:Jason-1105071713050001@66-52-22-112.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> >> >>>>>> God created people that had free will. Free will is neither perfect >> >> >>>>>> or >> >> >>>>>> imperfect. Even the created angels had free will--Satan exercised >> >> >> his free >> >> >>>>>> will when he started a rebellion. Even Angels have free will. God >> >> >> does not >> >> >>>>>> want programmed robots that are programmed to say, "I love God". He >> >> >>>>>> wants >> >> >>>>>> angels and people to love and worship God because they want to love >> >> >>>>>> and >> >> >>>>>> worship God. You don't appear to know much about the doctrine >of free >> >> >>>>>> will. Books have been written about that subject. >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> . >> >> >>>>>>> Yet it cannot hold. Since god is omniscient and created >> >> >>>>>>> everything (according to the doctrine of your religion), there can >> >> >>>>>>> be >> >> >>>>>>> no free will. It's not possible. >> >> >>>>>> I disagree. I have free will--you have free will. >> >> >>>>> Then you have just demonstrated why there is no God. >> >> >>>>> You aren't listening to what you are being told - if there was an >> >> >>>>> omniscient, all powerful God who knows exactly what will happen >in the >> >> >>>>> future and is in control of what will happen from the moment of >> >> >>>>> creation- there can be no free will, as God will already know >what you >> >> >>>>> will do >> >> >> before >> >> >>>>> you were even created- IOW, no free will. >> >> >>>>> You are quite clear on the fact that there is free will, therefore, >> >> >> by your >> >> >>>>> own statement, there is no God. >> >> >>>> That debate could go on forever. The bottom line is that we have free >> >> >>>> will. >> >> >>> Ok. Then either god is not omniscient or god didn't create >> >> >>> everything. Which will it be? >> >> >> >> >> >> God is omniscient and omni powerful. God can do anything that he >wants to >> >> >> do. He can create anything that he wishes to create. If you reply, >please >> >> >> don't snip anything that I stated in these 5 sentences. You done >that the >> >> >> last time. >> >> > >> >> > The saying is "omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent". Which just is not >> >> > possible. At least one of the three is a contradiction. Make your pick. >> >> > >> >> I don't think he really understands the implications in order to pick one. >> >> He just doesn't seem to have the capacity to understand why free will >and an >> >> omnipotent, omniscient creator God are contradictory. >> > >> >I consider God to be omniscient and omnipotent. >> >> And did god create everything? If so, then there's no free >> will. > >God gave us free will when he created mankind. Even angels have free will. So you teach that God is not omniscient. Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 On May 13, 3:30 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > <snip> > > > > I am sure that you believe everything that is stated above. You know more > > > about science than I know and I respect your knowledge. However, I have > > > read conflicting information in other sources. Do you concede that 50 > > > years from now, scientists will know more about genetics than they > > > presently know? > > > Yes, of course. They can never say for certain that Neanderthals were > > a separate species. But I have to respect their judgement when they > > say that human / neanderthal offspring would probably be infertile. > > That was an assumption and there is proof that the offspring would > probably be infertile. I think you meant "there is NO proof..." They can infer that human / neanderthal offspring would be infertile from the fact that horse / donkey offspring are infertile or that wolf / dog offspring or that lion / tiger male offspring are infertile. They could be wrong and it could be easily shown if any unique neanderthal genes were passed on to modern humans. > > > Do you concede that there are people that know as much > > > about science that you know that have different opinions than you related > > > to this subject? > > > You snipped the links. > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cro_Magnon > >http://www.answers.com/topic/cro-magnon > >http://www.answers.com/topic/neanderthal > > > The different sources do not provide wildly different information. > > The sources that are advocates of creation science do provide information > that is different than the advocates of evolution. And yet the conclusions creationists make are wildly different. Why is that? > > > Please comment on this statement: > > > When I was in college, a biology professor that was an advocate of > > > evolution told my class that it would be possible to dress a Neanderthal > > > man in a business suit; cut his hair and give him a shave--and that > > > Neanderthal man could walk down the street in a large city and most people > > > would not pay any attention to him? Was that a true statement? > > > We don't know. Seriously. For all we know Neanderthals had orange > > skin. We can only guess what they would have looked like from their > > bones. > > The orange skin must be new information. Do you have proof that > Neanderthals had orange skin or is it another assumption? You seriously need to learn to read scientific text. Emphasis added below: > > WE DON'T KNOW. Seriously. FOR ALL WE KNOW, Neanderthals had orange > > skin. We can only GUESS what they would have looked like from their > > bones. That neanderthals looked just like us but bigger is an ASSUMPTION and it would have been wrong for your college professor to make such an assumption. Even two human beings picked at random won't look alike. > > > Have you read the news reports indicating that scientists have found > > > evidence indicating that Cro-Magnums and Neatherthals mated and produced > > > offspring? > > > Did you notice that those reports were referenced in the links I > > provided? > > > > Did you know that in 1972--scientists at that time believed that it was > > > impossible for Neantherthals and Cro-Magnums to produce offspring when > > > they mated due to vast genetic differences? > > > Neanderthals and modern humans (let alone Cro Magnon man) are 99.5% > > identical. Even so, the offspring they produced might have been > > sterile. What would need to be shown is that there were genes that > > originated in neanderthals that then got passed to modern humans > > through interbreeding with Cro Magnon man. Sort of makes you wish you > > were a graduate student in genetics and you could get involved in this > > research, doesn't it? > > I hated genetic college classes. I hated the Punnett Square. So? Kind of disqualifies you from talking seriously about evolution if you have no interest in learning about genetics, doesn't it? > > The irony, of course, is that this research would be the final nail in > > the coffin of creationism because if modern man is descended from both > > Cro Magnon man and Neanderthals then modern man definitely was not > > created "as is" but formed as a result of interbreeding between two > > separate groups. > > > > You mentioned in your above post that Neanderthals and Modern man are > > > 99.5% identical. Are all races (including pygmies) 100 percent identical? > > > I can't find a website that gives me a straight answer. I know such > > research has been done: I remember reading that Japanese people share > > a lot of genetic markers with Europeans and that Polynesian ancestry > > can be traced back to Taiwan and the Philippines. There's even a > > _European Journal of Human Genetics_ that (obviously) specializes in > > human genetics but papers from it are not available on line. > > > Problems arise because we are all part of the same species: race > > accounts for only 5% of our variation ( Seehttp://en.wikipedia/wiki/race > > ) as variations in height, eye colour and skin colour within local > > populations are not considered racial differences. As the total > > variation between different people cannot be more than 0.5% then the > > difference between people of different races can only be 5% of 0.5% or > > 0.025% of our total genome, meaning that people belonging to different > > races (European and Japanese for example) can be up to 99.975% > > identical. You'd expect pygmies to be significantly different from > > white people genetically but researchers claim that "genetically there > > is no evidence that Pygmies are distinct from other Africans" (See > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmies) so it would appear that, > > genetically, we are very close indeed to being 100% identical. > > One of my concerns is that the researchers will try to manipulate the data > to indicate what they want the data to show. "Manipulating data" is not science. Remember what happened to the Korean geneticist who was found to have manipulated data? He is now facing jail time for fraud: manipulating data is a serious charge, not only because it is dishonest, but because it would mean that scientists are fraudulently accepting government funding. Accusing someone of manipulating data is a serious charge and you should be prepared to back it up. (It's too bad you have no interest in genetics.) "Scientists", however, who receive money from Christian "science" organizations are free to manipulate data -and are in fact encouraged to do so. > For example, when they state > that the offsping are probably sterile--that's is merely nothing more than > an assumption based upon their wanting to make the data link up with > evolution theory. Not at all. Evolution is a fact whether human / neanderthal offspring were sterile or not. It's irrelevent. > When advocates of creation science do that--you get > upset. Thank you for admitting that advocates of creation "science" do "nothing more than" make "assumptions". > However, when advocates of evolution do the same thing--you don't > appear to get upset or even notice it. Have you heard the old saying--"it > depends on whose oxen is gored". You have no evidence that "advocates of evolution" have ever made assumptions. You, yourself are only making an assumption that they do because you want to discredit their work but the fact is that when you ASSUME, you make an ASS out of U and ME. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 On May 13, 3:39 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1178953436.055714.108...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > On May 12, 8:36 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > Here are some statistics that I found. I will let you tell me whether or > > > not the murder rate was higher during 1950's compared to the 1990's and > > > 2000's. I did not see any 5's or higher in the 1950's but saw lots of 8s > > > and 9s in the 1990's and 2000's > > > There are no 8s and 9s in the 2000's. There aren't even any 6s and > > 7s. How can you lie so boldly when you yourself are posting the > > statistics??? Note that the murder rate peaked in 1991 and has been > > dropping steadily ever since. > > That's true-there are not 8s or 9s in the 2000's--I made a mistake. > However, there are NO 5s or higher in the 1950's and all figures in the > 1990s and 2000s are above 5 and at least 9 figures from 1990 to 2004 are > above 6. No, they aren't. From 1999 on, the figures are BELOW 6. > > Homicide Rate (per 100,000), 1950=AD2004 > > Year Homicide > > rate > > 1990 9.4 > > 1991 9.8 > > 1992 9.3 > > 1993 9.5 > > 1994 9.0 > > 1995 8.2 > > 1996 7.4 > > 1997 6.8 > > 1998 6.3 > > 1999 5.7 > > 2000 5.5 > > 2001 5.6 > > 2002 5.6 > > 2003 5.7 > > 2004 5.5 The differences between the murder rates in the 50s and now are clearly not significant difference because the murder rate actually peaked in 1991 at 9.8. Despite your claims to the contrary, the murder rates have been, in fact, dropping. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 On May 13, 3:48 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1178954706.988121.96...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > On May 12, 9:03 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > Good point--another factor is related to illegal immigrants that have > > > committed murders. Back in the 1950's the numbers of illegal immigrants in > > > America was much less than it now is. I read that 20 percent of the > > > inmates in federal prisons are illegal immigrants. > > > This is rascist! You don't have any evidence that these illegal > > immigrants are in jail because they have commited murder! Until you > > have statistics stating why they are in jail you can't assume that! A > > lot of them could be in jail for _being_ illegal immigrants. > > I don't know about other states but in California illegal immigrants are > only placed in state prisons if they committed a felony. They may be > placed in Federeal Prisons but NOT state prisons. Which would explain why 20% of the inmates in FEDERAL PRISONS are illegal immigrants. > If they catch illegal > immigrants that have not committed crimes, they are usally sent back to > Mexico. 1) Not all illegal immigrants will be Mexican 2) The law allows for imprisonment for up to six months for first offenses and up to two years for repeat offenders. This is how they deter illegals from simply coming back over the border. > I live in California and have seen various stories related to > illegal immigrants that have been convicted of murder. If you truly > believe that NONE of the illegal immigrants that are in prison have > committed murder--you are living in a dream world. I am not the one living in a dream world. What part of what I wrote below did you not understand? Where did I say that NO murder had ever been commited by an immigrant? Jason, we have been civil up to now but if you start attacking me personally then the gloves are off! > There are at least two > gangs--one is called the Mexican Mafia and the other one is called Nutras > Familia (spelling??). The members of those two gangs have committed lots > of murders. It is racist to to equate all illegal immigrants with gang members. There have been white gangs, black gangs and even Asian gangs in America too. Most people who come to America looking for work are not only not looking for trouble but are going to avoid getting into trouble for fear of being sent back to Mexico. Martin > >http://www.americanpatrol.com/REFERENCE/isacrime.html > > > "Under Title 8 Section 1325 of the U.S. Code, "Improper Entry by > > Alien," any citizen of any country other than the United States who: > > > "Enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place > > other than as designated by immigration officers; or > > > "Eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers; or > > > "Attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a > > willfully false or misleading representation or the willful > > concealment of a material fact; > > has committed a federal crime. > > > "Violations are punishable by criminal fines and imprisonment for up > > to six months. Repeat offenses can bring up to two years in prison." > > > The fact that illegal immigrants are in jail should not be interpreted > > as evidence that illegal immigrants commit any more murders on average > > than any other group in the United States. In fact, they would be > > expected to commit _fewer_ murders because commiting murder is an > > excellent way to draw the attention of immigration officials to your > > case! > > > Even if statistically more murders were commited by illegal > > immigrants, most illegal immigrants are from Latin American countries > > and, thus, are predominently Catholic and not atheist. This goes a > > long way to explaining why only 0.2% of the prison population is > > atheist. Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 On May 13, 3:52 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1178955578.365189.164...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On May 12, 9:48 am, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > > I do notice that you happened to select 1950 to make your claims. What > > > do you think the murder rate was in 1935? 1925? 1915? 1890? Other > > > earlier years? Murder rates change over time. Your 55 years is a fairly > > > small tracing. > > > Going back to 1890 would make things worse. What sort of records did > > they keep back then? If a man was caught red handed commiting murder > > and hanged within a week then would there be records about it let > > alone statistics that survive to this day to tell us about it? And > > what about unsolved cases? How many murders never got recorded as > > murders because there was no conclusive forensic evidence to indicate > > foul play? > The main reason that I only went back to 1950 is because things like the > depression and World Wars may have had an effect on the figures. And today we still have the drug trade. Is this an admission on your part that murder rates have nothing to do with belief in God? Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 On May 13, 4:05 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > I had some major problems with an atheist psychology professor that > ridiculed a fellow Christian and myself related to a situational ethics > class. Let me make one thing clear: I _never_ initiate a round of personal attacks, not even in an online debate like this. I fully admit that there are several regular atheist posters who freely use words like "moron", "idiot" and "liar". I prefer to say things like "Your argument is nonsense", "You're being ignorant" or "You are lying" which is not the same thing because I am responding to a poster's argument and not attacking them personally. Even if somebody has lied repeatedly in post after post, it does not justify calling them a liar: it could just be that you think lying is a valid debating tactic. In any case, I hope you similarly understand the difference between "This [argument] is racist" and "You are racist". > I have had other athest professors that I respected. I don't > dislike evolutionists or atheists--I just disagree with them. I don't > dislike the advocates for abortion--I just disagree with them. Well then you are different from other fundies who come here because most fundies who come here gleefully tell us we will "burn in Hell". There's nothing more hateful than that. On a personal note, I admit to feeling outright hatred for all Moslems after 9/11. The only way I got over that hatred was to realize that it is religions, not religious people, which are evil. It's like hating an AIDS patient rather than the virus inside of him. > I took a > debate class in college. We appeared to not like each other during the > debates but actually we were friends. I once witnessed a trial where the > lawyers appeared to hate each other and be prejudiced against each other. > During the noon break, I saw them eating lunch together in the courthouse > cafeteria. They appeared to be close friends. They were probably the best of friends. Time and time again, they would have both worked on the same cases, albiet from different sides. They may have each known nobody with whom they had more in common. You obviously forget the true purpose of debate: the purpose of debate is to arrive at the truth by attacking a question from both sides. It isn't a question of having winners and losers. Lawyers who work on opposing sides of cases are collegues, not adversaries. I admire your gift for observation. I just wish your ability to actually see the world the way it is could save you from nevertheless thinking the world is very different from what you see. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 On May 13, 4:22 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > The earth is like a test for all of us. We have free will. You keep saying this but the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly against this assumption: people are driven primarily by instinct. There is no evidence that we make capricious decisions. And your own theological beliefs also contracdict te notion of free will because you believe God already knows what we are going to do: if God already knows what we are going to do then we only have the illusion of free will because we can't make capricious decisions without God sometimes being wrong. Martin > During our time > on the earth, we can either love God or turn our backs on God. On > judgement day, God will make the judgement based on whether we loved him > (while on earth) or turned out backs on him (while on earth). The people > that pass the test will go to heaven and people that turned their backs on > God will go to hell. > > It's a waste of effort and can even become obsessive if we concern > ourselves with whether or not God has pre-ordained us to love or hate him. > There was a time in history where Christians actually believed that God > had pre-ordained some people to love him and had pre-ordained other people > to go to hell. Those Christians that believed that doctrine were > mis-interpreting several scripture. They actually walked around the small > towns telling everyone that they were members of the "elect". They were so > proud. They were actually committing the sin of PROUDNESS. Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 On May 13, 4:32 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <hJSdnSrqr5mbn9vbnZ2dnUVZ_gqdn...@comcast.com>, John Popelish > > <jpopel...@rica.net> wrote: > > Jason wrote: > > > > I consider God to be omniscient and omnipotent. He is also a dictator but > > > that is not a problem for Christians. God is a loving God and would be a > > > wonderful dictator. > > > That is the fear talking. > > > This loving hypothetical god also is said to have nearly > > sterilized the planet, because it had a temper tantrum when > > its creation did not perform up to its expectations, yet, > > had been created exactly as it wished it to be and had been > > foreseen to be. How could it have been otherwise if this > > hypothetical loving god was really omniscient and > > omnipotent? That is one crazy and sadistic hypothetical > > demon, you got there. > > > You better keep complimenting it and kissing its ass, or it > > might do you and infinite punishment. > > > > I would not trust a dictator that was human but would > > > trust God since God is perfect. > > (snip) > > > Kiss kiss (don't hurt me). > > The other alternative is going to hell and being forced to worship Satan. > I believe my choice is better. What if neither God nor Satan exist (which is, in fact, the case)? What then? Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 On May 13, 4:51 am, Martin <usen...@etiqa.co.uk> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <4645e8ec$0$6946$fa0fc...@news.zen.co.uk>, Martin > > <usen...@etiqa.co.uk> wrote: > > >> Jason wrote: > >>> In article <4644db72$0$6942$fa0fc...@news.zen.co.uk>, Martin > >>> <usen...@etiqa.co.uk> wrote: > > >>>> Jason wrote: > > >>>>> Evolutionists have faith that life evolved from non-life. They have no > >>>>> proof that it ever happened. > >>>> errr HELLO! > > >>>> You might not exist, but I believe I do. Therefore life _came_ (not > >>>> evolved) from non-life > > >>>> What the hell are you on about? > > >>>> Even if you belive your shite about god, then you also belive life came > >>>> from non-life, what was all that crap about dirt and breathing in life? > >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > >>> There is a BIG difference between believing that life evolved from > >>> non-life and believing that a creator God was able to take natural > >>> materials and create life from that natural materials. It's much easier > >>> for me to believe that God created life than to believe what you appear to > >>> believe. > >> You stated "Evolutionists have faith that life evolved from non-life." > > >> Are you now backtracking on that statement? > > > Not really. It must be faith because there is no evidence that live > > evolved from non-life. > > Your own fucking bible states that life came from non-life. What the > hell are you on man? I just want to make it clear that this is a different Martin. Normally, I wouldn't have to point this out but I feel I should because somebody might get confused that there are two Martins on this thread. It is especially confusing because \I post from three different accounts. Martin Quote
Guest Dave Oldridge Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 "H. Wm. Esque" <HEsque@bellsouth.net> wrote in news:NOj1i.547$Ta.298 @bignews5.bellsouth.net: > > "Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message > news:es4a43d7h562rrvh5178c7mqbccfe33vg7@4ax.com... >> On 11 May 2007 17:58:04 -0700, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> >> wrote: >> - Refer: <1178931484.446237.115210@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> >> >On May 12, 12:35 am, "H. Wm. Esque" <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote: >> >> : >> >> >> I do not see him as deliberately dishonest. Mistaken, but not >> >> dishonest. >> > >> >You're being naive. He should have known how thermodynamics relates >> >to open systems. If anything he was being dishonest in trying to pass >> >himself off as an expert and claiming he'd "proven" something. >> > >> >Martin >> >> Mr. Esque has demonstrated time and time again that he has no problem >> whatsoever with blatant fraudulent dishonesty, provided that it is in >> support of his infantile delusions. >> > It utterly impossible to express a difference of opinion from > the "self-righteous" hypocrites who make "authoritative" > pronouncements without being called a liar, dishonest, > deluded etc. Not true. But it IS utterly impossible to pass oneself off as an expert in some particular of physics and then pretend you were ignorant of it. Either the person passing themself off is lying about the expertise or about the physics. Possibly both. > These _dictatorial authorities_ will not tolerant another > viewpoint. But they will demand summission to their own > decrees, if one fails to yield cowtails to their edicts then > the personal charges and character assination follows. > Fortunately, this is the extent of their power. Apparently you don't HAVE another viewpoint. You just support the liars' right to lie and not be braced on it. I've got news for you. They have NO SUCH RIGHT. Not only that, in any truly democratic venue they will not be accorded such a right. So what kind of UNDEMOCRATIC venue are you trying to foist off on us? - Dave Oldridge+ ICQ 1800667 Quote
Guest Martin Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 On May 13, 6:39 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > On judgement day, you will really be shocked. When exactly is judgement day? Jesus told his disciples it would happen in their lifetime. People read this and always assume Jesus is talking directly to them and that they will see judgement day before they die. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 On May 13, 6:38 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <464627b9$0$21840$db0fe...@news.zen.co.uk>, Martin > <usen...@etiqa.co.uk> wrote: > > Jason wrote: > > > In article <4645e8ec$0$6946$fa0fc...@news.zen.co.uk>, Martin > > > <usen...@etiqa.co.uk> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > > >>> In article <4644db72$0$6942$fa0fc...@news.zen.co.uk>, Martin > > >>> <usen...@etiqa.co.uk> wrote: > > > >>>> Jason wrote: > > > >>>>> Evolutionists have faith that life evolved from non-life. They have no > > >>>>> proof that it ever happened. > > >>>> errr HELLO! > > > >>>> You might not exist, but I believe I do. Therefore life _came_ (not > > >>>> evolved) from non-life > > > >>>> What the hell are you on about? > > > >>>> Even if you belive your shite about god, then you also belive life came > > >>>> from non-life, what was all that crap about dirt and breathing in life? > > >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > >>> There is a BIG difference between believing that life evolved from > > >>> non-life and believing that a creator God was able to take natural > > >>> materials and create life from that natural materials. It's much easier > > >>> for me to believe that God created life than to believe what you appear to > > >>> believe. > > >> You stated "Evolutionists have faith that life evolved from non-life." > > > >> Are you now backtracking on that statement? > > > > Not really. It must be faith because there is no evidence that live > > > evolved from non-life. > > > Your own fucking bible states that life came from non-life. What the > > hell are you on man? > > > Whether it was puffed into existance or came from self-replicating > > molecules, life came from non-life one way or another. Go back 4.5Gyears > > and the earth was a ball of molten rock, now it's teaming with life. > > What does that tell you? Once there was no life, now there is. If life > > didn't come from non-life where the hell DID it come from > > There is a big difference between believing that God created life from > non-life and believing that life naturally evolved from non-life. > > Let's say that I used a helecopter to place a brand new car deep in a > jungle that a tribe of people lived in that had never before seen a > vehicle. > > Perhaps some of those people may believe the car came about as a result of > natural forces. Perhaps some of the other people may believe the car was > designed and created. > > Do you see my point? Not at all. Suppose surrounding the car were various car parts and that these car parts could be shown to naturally appear from elements commonly found in the jungle. Suppose you could also find some rusted out car parts that look like they came from old cars that no longer work. Suppose that there were also smaller vehicles like scooters and motorcycles there and that these smaller vehicles used some of the same kinds of parts. Then the natural conclusion would be that the car could have been assembled right there in the jungle and no helicopter was needed to fly the car in. Martin Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 In alt.atheism On Sat, 12 May 2007 17:16:13 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >In article <f25fp6$33o$03$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris ><tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> > In article <joidnaPoJuZeq9vbnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish >> > <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: >> > >> >> Jason wrote: >> >> >> >>> There is a big difference between believing that God created life from >> >>> non-life and believing that life naturally evolved from non-life. >> >> (snip) >> >> >> >> You just don't have enough imagination to hypothesize a god >> >> that created the universe with the built-in and unstoppable >> >> properties that must produce life after the right amount of >> >> cause and effect has modified its matter. >> >> >> >> Others have no problem hypothesizing such a powerful god. >> > >> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> > >> > It's far easier for me to believe that God created life than for it is for >> > me to believe that life naturally evolved from non-life. >> > >> > If I saw a new car setting in a junk yard, I would not assume or believe >> > that the car must have come about from an explosion that happened at that >> > junk yard. It would be easier for me to believe that car was designed and >> > created. >> >> You mistake "evolution" for "chance". >> Look up the "perfect 747" one of these days and why it is not applicable. >> >> Abiogenesis "might" actually have an aspect of "chance". But even chance >> can have results, if given enough time. If you play the same lottery >> numbers long enough you almost certainly will win. You just have to >> play them for 50.000 years or so (that's a wild guess. Oh, well. I just >> did the maths. Was a wee bit wrong. On average you'd have to play for >> 1442307 years and a few months....Wups. One and a half million years....). >> Still, be are talking billions of years for abiogenesis and evolution >> combined. And you only need the starting point. >> Evolution has nothing to do with chance. Far from it. > >Someone recently posted an article written by a scientist about the >complexity of a living cell. I was shocked when I read the article because >I had forgotten how complex a cell really is. I do not believe a living >cell could come about by chance I don't believe that god could come about by chance. God is very complex. Therefore, god was designed. Don --- aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert. "No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another" Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 In alt.atheism On Sat, 12 May 2007 17:20:22 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >In article <esgc43h06ki5neitn538nm7s4t7bcq8f6k@4ax.com>, Don Kresch ><ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > >> In alt.atheism On Sat, 12 May 2007 16:11:58 -0700, Jason@nospam.com >> (Jason) let us all know that: >> >> >In article <joidnaPoJuZeq9vbnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish >> ><jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: >> > >> >> Jason wrote: >> >> >> >> > There is a big difference between believing that God created life from >> >> > non-life and believing that life naturally evolved from non-life. >> >> (snip) >> >> >> >> You just don't have enough imagination to hypothesize a god >> >> that created the universe with the built-in and unstoppable >> >> properties that must produce life after the right amount of >> >> cause and effect has modified its matter. >> >> >> >> Others have no problem hypothesizing such a powerful god. >> > >> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> > >> >It's far easier for me to believe that God created life than for it is for >> >me to believe that life naturally evolved from non-life. >> >> Easier isn't necessarily correct. >> >> >> >When Einstein >> >> Cite please. > >Nightline had a special related to a debate between two oupspoken >Christians and two outspoken atheists. One of the Christians used the >quote from Einstein related to the watch. That's not a cite. A cite is an actual work of Einstein. So: cite, please. Don --- aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert. "No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another" Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 In alt.atheism On Sat, 12 May 2007 17:26:31 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: ><snip> > > >> >There is a big difference between believing that God created life from >> >non-life and believing that life naturally evolved from non-life. >> >> So, why can't your God use evolution? Who are you to tell God how to do >> things? > >I am not telling God how to do things. The first chapters of the Bible >explain how God done things. He did not use evolution to create humans, >plants and animals. Evolution kicked in after the creation of life was >finished. Where in the bible does it say that? Don --- aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert. "No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another" Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 In alt.atheism On Sat, 12 May 2007 17:30:24 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >In article <ragc43t77bh612omlhsvbtv2oc0s04mdld@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Sat, 12 May 2007 15:39:42 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-1205071539420001@66-52-22-50.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <GrqdnZkQdNyMsdvbnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish >> ><jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: >> > >> >> Jason wrote: >> >> > In article <hJSdnSrqr5mbn9vbnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish >> >> > <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> Jason wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> I consider God to be omniscient and omnipotent. He is also a >dictator but >> >> >>> that is not a problem for Christians. God is a loving God and >would be a >> >> >>> wonderful dictator. >> >> >> That is the fear talking. >> >> >> >> >> >> This loving hypothetical god also is said to have nearly >> >> >> sterilized the planet, because it had a temper tantrum when >> >> >> its creation did not perform up to its expectations, yet, >> >> >> had been created exactly as it wished it to be and had been >> >> >> foreseen to be. How could it have been otherwise if this >> >> >> hypothetical loving god was really omniscient and >> >> >> omnipotent? That is one crazy and sadistic hypothetical >> >> >> demon, you got there. >> >> >> >> >> >> You better keep complimenting it and kissing its ass, or it >> >> >> might do you and infinite punishment. >> >> >> >> >> >>> I would not trust a dictator that was human but would >> >> >>> trust God since God is perfect. >> >> >> (snip) >> >> >> >> >> >> Kiss kiss (don't hurt me). >> >> > >> >> > The other alternative is going to hell and being forced to worship Satan. >> >> > I believe my choice is better. >> >> >> >> Once you understand that the whole story is mythology, other >> >> choices open up. >> >> >> >> In the mean time, you will probably sleep better if you keep >> >> sucking up to your imaginary, hypothetical god. >> >> >> >> I understand. I once feared the same demon. >> > >> >On judgement day, you will really be shocked. >> > >> There is no evidence that there will be a judgement day. There is no >> evidence that any gods exist. There is no evidence that the god you >> worship is the right god. There is no evidence that you won't be the one >> going to hell for worshipping the wrong god. > >Not true--the WRITTEN evidence is in the Bible. No it isn't. > In many courts in America, >written evidence such as contracts are deemed very important. Josh >McDowell Is a fraud. Don --- aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert. "No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another" Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 In alt.atheism On Sat, 12 May 2007 17:31:38 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >In article <l9hc4397k7375tbe40ikt1vfsrm4b9admr@4ax.com>, Don Kresch ><ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > >> In alt.atheism On Sat, 12 May 2007 11:49:10 -0700, Jason@nospam.com >> (Jason) let us all know that: >> >> >In article <5alq3oF2oseo3U1@mid.individual.net>, "Steve O" >> ><spamhere@nowhere.com> wrote: >> > >> >> "Tokay Pino Gris" <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote in message >> >> news:f247a9$n2t$01$2@news.t-online.com... >> >> > Jason wrote: >> >> >> In article <h21a43tsn3815kcq54g0chgce5tli4prgc@4ax.com>, Don Kresch >> >> >> <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> In alt.atheism On Fri, 11 May 2007 17:51:48 -0700, Jason@nospam.com >> >> >>> (Jason) let us all know that: >> >> >>> >> >> >>>> In article <5akd8hF2oeg1dU1@mid.individual.net>, "Steve O" >> >> >>>> <spamhere@nowhere.com> wrote: >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>>> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >> >>>>> news:Jason-1105071713050001@66-52-22-112.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> >> >>>>>> God created people that had free will. Free will is neither perfect >> >> >>>>>> or >> >> >>>>>> imperfect. Even the created angels had free will--Satan exercised >> >> >> his free >> >> >>>>>> will when he started a rebellion. Even Angels have free will. God >> >> >> does not >> >> >>>>>> want programmed robots that are programmed to say, "I love God". He >> >> >>>>>> wants >> >> >>>>>> angels and people to love and worship God because they want to love >> >> >>>>>> and >> >> >>>>>> worship God. You don't appear to know much about the doctrine >of free >> >> >>>>>> will. Books have been written about that subject. >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> . >> >> >>>>>>> Yet it cannot hold. Since god is omniscient and created >> >> >>>>>>> everything (according to the doctrine of your religion), there can >> >> >>>>>>> be >> >> >>>>>>> no free will. It's not possible. >> >> >>>>>> I disagree. I have free will--you have free will. >> >> >>>>> Then you have just demonstrated why there is no God. >> >> >>>>> You aren't listening to what you are being told - if there was an >> >> >>>>> omniscient, all powerful God who knows exactly what will happen >in the >> >> >>>>> future and is in control of what will happen from the moment of >> >> >>>>> creation- there can be no free will, as God will already know >what you >> >> >>>>> will do >> >> >> before >> >> >>>>> you were even created- IOW, no free will. >> >> >>>>> You are quite clear on the fact that there is free will, therefore, >> >> >> by your >> >> >>>>> own statement, there is no God. >> >> >>>> That debate could go on forever. The bottom line is that we have free >> >> >>>> will. >> >> >>> Ok. Then either god is not omniscient or god didn't create >> >> >>> everything. Which will it be? >> >> >> >> >> >> God is omniscient and omni powerful. God can do anything that he >wants to >> >> >> do. He can create anything that he wishes to create. If you reply, >please >> >> >> don't snip anything that I stated in these 5 sentences. You done >that the >> >> >> last time. >> >> > >> >> > The saying is "omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent". Which just is not >> >> > possible. At least one of the three is a contradiction. Make your pick. >> >> > >> >> I don't think he really understands the implications in order to pick one. >> >> He just doesn't seem to have the capacity to understand why free will >and an >> >> omnipotent, omniscient creator God are contradictory. >> > >> >I consider God to be omniscient and omnipotent. >> >> And did god create everything? If so, then there's no free >> will. > >God gave us free will when he created mankind. Did god create everything? Please answer the question. Don --- aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert. "No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another" Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 In alt.atheism On Sat, 12 May 2007 17:04:51 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >In article <nghc43dkr6g440lgl6fd82t0q80on9kcm0@4ax.com>, Don Kresch ><ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > >> In alt.atheism On Sat, 12 May 2007 11:10:34 -0700, Jason@nospam.com >> (Jason) let us all know that: >> >> >> >Robyn, >> >I fully realize that atheists and members of religions other than >> >Chistianity such as Buddahism do good deeds. >> >Jason >> > >> But that contradicts the bible. Remember Psalms 14:1/53:1? >> > >Don, >I just read it. It's an interesting scripture. It's great to know that you >own a Bible. Don't need to; that's what the internets are for. > Check John 3:16. I know that one. Now then, will you address the fact that you believe something that directly contradicts what the bible teaches? Don --- aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert. "No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another" Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" Quote
Guest Martin Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 On May 13, 3:52 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > The main reason that I only went back to 1950 is because things like the > depression and World Wars may have had an effect on the figures. Jason, Do you realize that the murder rate peaked in 1980 and then again in 1991 when you were 30 and 41, respectively, and that it has been dropping since 1991? One conclusion we could make from this is that most of the murders commited over the past sixty years were commited by baby boomers like yourself. Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 In article <1179016435.560080.46490@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 13, 3:09 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <f23v14$pbs$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > > > > <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: > > > Jason wrote: > > <snip> > > > > > I do believe there is proof (in the form of fossils) that God created life > > > > on this earth. There have been at least two books about this subject. > > > > > What books? I can explain the theory of evolution here without much > > > trouble and have done so. I can point you to evidence that fits this theory. > > > > "Bones of Contention" by M. Lubenow > > A thorough examination of all pre-human fossils. > > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_lubenow.html > > "The major theme of Bones of Contention is that the various species of > hominid cannot form an evolutionary sequence because they overlap one > another in time. > > "Firstly, he argues that a species cannot survive once it has given > rise to a new species. Unlike many other creationists, he does at > least attempt to give some justification for this. Supposedly, the > newer, fitter descendant species, would, because of its superiority, > drive its parent species to extinction. The argument is incorrect > because members of the parent species may live in a separate region > from the new species. If the species come into contact again, there > may be no competition because they have diverged enough to occupy > different ecological niches. (Many scientists would argue that even > the requirement for a separate region is unnecessary.) Additionally, > it is a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory to claim that a new > species is "superior", in an absolute sense, to its parent species. > Typically, both species will be "superior" at living in their own > niches. > > "This argument is so broad that it would not only disprove human > evolution but all evolution; Lubenow is basically asserting that a > species cannot split into two species. Obviously this is not the view > of speciation accepted by evolutionists, since it would follow that > the number of living species could never increase. Nor, in fact, is it > a view of speciation generally accepted by creationists, most of whom > believe that many living species descended from the same biblical > 'kind'. In fact, this argument is so weak that even Answers in Genesis > has abandoned it; as they correctly point out, "... there's nothing in > evolutionary theory that requires the main group to become extinct." " > > > Another interesting book: > > "In Six Days" Editor: J.F. Ashton > > 50 scientists explain their reasons for believing in the Biblical version > > of creation. > > 93% of qualified scientists don't even believe in God. > > Have you even read these books? Why don't you present arguments from > these books instead of just simply telling us they exist? Thousands, > if not hundreds of thousands, of books describe evidence of evolution. > > <snip> > > Martin Martin, Have you read that book? I doubt it. It also discusses fossil evidence. Jason Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 On Sat, 12 May 2007 20:38:12 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1205072038120001@66-52-22-47.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1179019803.090831.223160@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On May 13, 3:52 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > In article <1178955578.365189.164...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Martin >> > >> > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > > On May 12, 9:48 am, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > >> > > > I do notice that you happened to select 1950 to make your claims. What >> > > > do you think the murder rate was in 1935? 1925? 1915? 1890? Other >> > > > earlier years? Murder rates change over time. Your 55 years is a fairly >> > > > small tracing. >> > >> > > Going back to 1890 would make things worse. What sort of records did >> > > they keep back then? If a man was caught red handed commiting murder >> > > and hanged within a week then would there be records about it let >> > > alone statistics that survive to this day to tell us about it? And >> > > what about unsolved cases? How many murders never got recorded as >> > > murders because there was no conclusive forensic evidence to indicate >> > > foul play? >> >> > The main reason that I only went back to 1950 is because things like the >> > depression and World Wars may have had an effect on the figures. >> >> And today we still have the drug trade. >> >> Is this an admission on your part that murder rates have nothing to do >> with belief in God? >> >> Martin > >Martin, >No--I would not concede that point. I continue to believe that Christians >that take their religion seriously are less likely to commit >crimes--including murder-- than Christians that do NOT take their religion >seriously or other people that have no regard for obeying the law. And how do you intend to go about demonstrating this? You have two problems. You need to show that this is an important variable and you need to show that there is an objective way to quantify 'take their religion seriously'. We do know that a larger percentage of people in prison claim to be Christian than the percent of people who live outside prisons. That appears to be a preliminary strike against your hypothesis. >I acknowledge--thanks to you and others--that there are atheists and members >of other religions that are wonderful law obiding people that do good deeds. >It appears to me (based upon newspaper articles and television news shows) >that crime is more of a problem in the 2000's than it was in the 1950's >and 1960's. It may be, but, of course, there were other crimes, generally against blacks or in domestic situations, in the fifties and early sixties that were ignored. So, now you will have to control for reporting bias and demonstrate something else that you appear to believe, that there was a higher percent of the population that took 'their religion seriously'. Quote
Guest Martin Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 On May 13, 7:33 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > <snip> > > > > Tokay, > > > An omnipotent and omniscient God can do anything that he wants to do. In > > > this case, he gave us free will. At the end of our test period (on this > > > earth), he will make a judgement on whether we loved God or turned our > > > backs on God. I made the choice of loving God. It's up to you about > > > whether to love God or turn your back on God. If you end up in hell, it's > > > not God's fault--it will be your fault. I don't understand why anyone > > > would want to spend eternity in hell. One person told me that he did not > > > believe there was a heaven or hell. That person is taking a really big > > > gamble. If he is wrong, he will spend eternity in hell. > > > Still not addressing what I said. > > > It is your claim that god is omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent. > > > Sure, he can give me free will. He can do anything, right? > > But if he knows everything, he knows what I will do. And since you claim > > that he is also all-loving, he lets me burn in hell. > > > Ehm... > > Does not sound very loving to me.... > > > Mind you, it was you who made these claims, not me. > > > I don't claim to believe in this bozo. How can I? (yeah, on principle > > sure, but in this particular bozo?) > > Again: He can do anything (that's "omnipotent". Look it up in whatever > > dictionary you like. "Can do everything". That's what that word means). > > And christians said he did it all. Some differ on what amount of it he > > actually did "himself", but whether you start at the big bang or last > > Thursday, he did it. > > And also, if he is omniscient (look it up. Knows everything, that's what > > it means), he knew exactly what would happen. Only way. If he is > > omniscient, then he knew. Again. If he is omniscient, then he knew. Or > > he would not be omniscient. > > Correct, so far? Or do you want to argue that? > > > So, he knows all. That means he knows also what I believe or don't > > believe. And he also knows if I ever would change my mind (hardly). He > > knows. He is omniscient. Still, your claim, not mine. > > > So, he created everything, whether at the Big Bang, or 6000 years ago or > > last thursday. And knew what he created and would happen. Again, that's > > omniscient. > > No way around it. > > I understand what you are saying and once had a Christian friend who would > discuss these same points until it caused me to avoid him. I believe that > he had some sort of obsession about these issues. I don't worry about > these issues. You probably don't worry about Fermat's last theorem either but not worrying about an argument does not prove it false. > It's really not complicated but you are trying to make it > much more complex than it is. The bottom line is God is omniscient, > omnipotent and benevolent. You need to understand the difference between belief and fact. Beliefs may defy logic and common sense but facts never do. If I had to choose between what somebody else believes and what can be logically shown to be true then I will believe logic ten times out of ten. This does not make me prejudiced: on the contrary, it is prejudicial to believe anything and "not worry" about the logic that it defies. > As a result, he could decide on how to create > the means necessary for people to get into heaven and to have a > relationship with him. The plan of salvation and eternal life is outlined > in the Bible. The summary version of the plan is that God wants us to love > him and obey him if we want to have fellowship with God and eventually go > to heaven. People have free will and choose to love God or hate God. God > (if he wanted to) could have done it a different way. You can't blame God > if you decide to turn your back on God. God doesn't exist. There's nothing for me to turn my back on. > > He knows what I do, he knows what I think and what I will think. Still. > > That's omniscient. > > And still your claim, not mine. > > > So. Pay attention. > > > He fully knew all that when he created everything. Whether that was last > > Thursday or 6000 years ago or at the Big Bang. > > > So he did it on purpose. I had no say in it. What it comes down to is he > > created me that way (that is exactly what you are saying). > > > Or do you want to argue that? That he didn't know then what would happen > > today? You claim he is omniscient, so he did know. Or he is not > > omniscient. > > > So I have no choice. I am created that way. > > > Ok, that deals with the "free will". Simply not possible. > > > So he created me that way and because he did, I will burn in hell? > > So whose fault is it, then? Mine? When I never had a choice? > > Hardly. > > If you end up in hell, it will be YOUR fault and not God's fault. You do > have a choice. The choice is to love God or to hate God. No the choice is between loving your imaginary god, hating your imaginary god and realize that your imaginary god doesn't exist. I realize that your god doesn't exist and this is a healthy realisation to make. > If you love God, > you will not end up in heaven. If your choice is to hate God, you will up > in hell. "In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison." -Adolf Hitler, in his speech in Munich on 12 April 1922 Did Adolf Hitler end up in heaven? > A benevolent God can also be a loving God that made a way for you > or anyone else to gain salvation and eternal life. Over 70 percent of > Americans are hoping to go to heaven. Millions of Chinese people are > secretly worshipping and loving God and having church services in the > homes of people. The fact remains that an omniscient god would have already decided which of us would go to Heaven and which would go to Hell, assuming either place existed (which they don't). There is no room for genuine free will, not in science and certainly not in your religion. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 On May 13, 7:34 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <jq-dnZbrc6MQqtvbnZ2dnUVZ_hOdn...@comcast.com>, John Popelish > > <jpopel...@rica.net> wrote: > > Jason wrote: > > > In article <GrqdnZkQdNyMsdvbnZ2dnUVZ_t3in...@comcast.com>, John Popelish > > > >> Once you understand that the whole story is mythology, other > > >> choices open up. > > > >> In the mean time, you will probably sleep better if you keep > > >> sucking up to your imaginary, hypothetical god. > > > >> I understand. I once feared the same demon. > > > > On judgement day, you will really be shocked. > > > If I die and am still conscious, I will be shocked. I am > > looking forward to being dead, someday. Life, without end, > > in any form, is unimaginably horrible for me. > > > Judgment and anything it involves will be small, compared to > > that shock. > > But what if you are wrong and you end up standing in front of the > judgement seat of God. It's fine for you to believe in God because your life is probably more than half over but the rest of us don't want to waste our lives believing in fairy tales. Martin Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.