Guest Jason Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 In article <5an1psF2pqabdU1@mid.individual.net>, "Steve O" <spamhere@nowhere.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news: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: > >> > > >> > > >> >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. In many courts in America, > > written evidence such as contracts are deemed very important. > > Do you consider ALL written evidence to be very important? > How about the Qu'ran, or the Baghvad Ghita, or the Book of Mormon, or even a > book describing how the Great Green Arkleseizure sneezed everything into > existence, because I can certainly show you one? > Or if not, why do you suppose that YOUR particular book is more correct and > more important than any of the others? Steve, Good point--please note that I was answering the poster's question about evidence related to judgement day Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 <snip> > > A programmed robot would do exactly what the robot was programmed to do. > > On the other hand, the people that God created had free will. God has free > > will. Neither God or people are robots. > If God is omniscient then he can see the future. If he can see the > future then he can see what he will do tomorrow. If he can see what > he will do tomorrow then his actions are inevitable and he doesn't > have free will. If he _does_ have free will then the actions he would > foresee himself doing would not be inevitable. Thus, your god cannot > have both free will and omniscience. It's a contradiction. > > Martin Martin, God may have the power to see in the future related to his own actions but that does NOT mean that God does that. If he chose not to see in the future related to his own actions--the other issues you mentioned in the above post would not be a factor. Jason Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 On Sat, 12 May 2007 21:28:50 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1205072128500001@66-52-22-47.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: ><snip> > > >> > A programmed robot would do exactly what the robot was programmed to do. >> > On the other hand, the people that God created had free will. God has free >> > will. Neither God or people are robots. > > > >> If God is omniscient then he can see the future. If he can see the >> future then he can see what he will do tomorrow. If he can see what >> he will do tomorrow then his actions are inevitable and he doesn't >> have free will. If he _does_ have free will then the actions he would >> foresee himself doing would not be inevitable. Thus, your god cannot >> have both free will and omniscience. It's a contradiction. >> >> Martin > >Martin, >God may have the power to see in the future related to his own actions but >that does NOT mean that God does that. If he chose not to see in the >future related to his own actions--the other issues you mentioned in the >above post would not be a factor. If He doesn't know, whether by choice or not, He isn't omniscient. Quote
Guest Martin Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 On May 13, 11:26 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1179019540.936296.309...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: <snip> > > 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. > > That is a true statement. Most illegal immigrants do not get involved in > criminal behavior. I have worked with some of those wonderful people. I > did not mean to offend you. I appreciate that. Under the circumstances, I think it would be better to snip what you said above. It is my opinion that US immigration policy is racist. Up until very recently, Canadians could pass into the US from Canada without even having to show their passports but Mexicans were held back with fences and were arrested if they passed into the United States. People from Canada and England have been able to work in the United States without becoming American citizens but the United States still has no guest worker program for Mexicans wanting to work in the US. (Such a program does exist in Canada: a smart, qualified Mexican would make the trek north. Some do.) Americans and Canadians can travel all over the world but people crossing into the United States from Mexico are arrested and deported. In Taiwan, Korea and Japan, a person who can find work within one month of their arrival is given permission to stay. When I lived in the Philippines I was unknowingly an illegal immigrant: in most countries in the world, being married to a local automatically causes one to be granted pernament resident status but apparently the Philippines only grants pernament resident status to people who apply from overseas: I could indeed have been thrown in jail overstaying in the Philippines but instead I found a job here in Taiwan and brought my family with me. I once had to wait in line eight hours to get a work visa to go to Korea and when I complained the girl at the window told me that Koreans have to wait just as long to get visas from the American embassy: when I told her that I was Canadian, not American, she apologized, but it was a bit late for that. I know what it is like to be an illegal immigrant and I know what it is like to be discriminated against so the comments you made before affected me quite personally. <snip> Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 In article <1179022836.954047.188470@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > 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 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Martin, Perhaps a better example would be a violin--no strings or plastic metal parts. Some of the people would think that the violin came about by natural forces but others would say that it was designed by someone. The point is that the advocates of evolution and the advocates of creation science can look at the same evidence and come to two different conclusions in much the same way that those peole examining the violin came to two separate conclusions. jason Quote
Guest George Chen Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 On May 13, 11:38 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > 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 and yet less of a problem than it was in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, as born out by actual statistics. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 In article <19uc43t1tjum96v3h4168ked9tlo937q65@4ax.com>, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > 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? The Bible does NOT say that evolution kicked in after the creation of life was finished. I was the person that made that statement. The Creation story is discussed in Genesis Chapter 1 to Chapter 6. > > 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 George Chen Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 On May 13, 12:00 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > Just because God could foresee his own actions perfectly--it does not mean > that God spends his time forseeing his actions perfectly. One person was > concerned that God was somehow responsible for his actions. Just because > God is fully capable of controlling someone's life (remember the story of > Johah and the large fish)--it does not mean that he spends all of his time > controlling the life of that poster. God gave us free will and in most > cases does not intervene in our lives. There are exceptions but this is > usually true. God doesn't spend any time even thinking about his own actions simply because he doesn't exist. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 In article <1179026321.174219.148820@e51g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > On May 13, 6:34 am, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: > > Jason wrote: > > > In article <joidnaPoJuZeq9vbnZ2dnUVZ_gqdn...@comcast.com>, John Popelish > > > <jpopel...@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. > > > > >> 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....). > > Actually, that's not true. You may never win. Let's say you can win > a lottery by choosing one number in ten. You're odds of winning are > 1/10. Are you definitely going to win after ten attempts? No, > because each attempt is an independent event in which the odds of > losing are always 90%: even after playing ten times your chances of > winning are only 65% = 1 - (.9)^10. > > This actually works in our favour: there may be billions of billions > of planets out there in the universe and perhaps we are the only > planet in the universe that has life. Why would any god create an > entire universe and only place life on a single planet? It makes more > sense if we realize that abiogenesis may be an extremely unlikely > process. How can creationists expect us to easily produce life in a > laboratory when we don't know if life actually arose anywhere besides > Earth? The beauty is that if we _do_ find life on other planets then > it would be proof that abiogenesis _does_ occur because it would show > that life does emerge from non-life, and not just here on Earth > either. Either way, creationism is a failed hypothesis. > > > 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. > > <snip> > > Martin Martin, God could create life on other planets if he chose to do that. Jason Quote
Guest George Chen Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 On May 13, 12:12 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <5an1cgF2ngp1...@mid.individual.net>, "Steve O" > > Jason, I'd like you to answer the following questions with a "yes" or "no" > > or " don't know"... > > > 1.Did your God create everything? > > God created mankind, lots of plants and lots of animals. > > > 2. Does your God know everything that has happened, is happening, or will > > happen?(omniscience) > > He knows as much as he wants to know. > > > 3. Can your God do anything?(omnipotence > > He can do anything that he wants to do. I don't know whether or there are > things that he would never do. > > > 4. Do you have free will? > yes > > > 5. Does your god know exactly what you are doing right now? > > If he chooses to know what I am doing right now. > > > 6. Does your God know exactly what you will do tomorrow? > > If he chooses to know what I will do tomorrow. > > > 7. Do you have a choice as to what you do or don't do tomorrow? > yes > > > 8. Are you capable of doing something tomorrow which your God does not know > > about? > > God (if he wants to) would know those things. > > > 9.When God created the universe, did he know everything that vwas about to > > happen? > > If he chose to know--he would know. Perhaps he did not choose to know. > > > 10. Is there any way at all you can change what God already knows you are > > going to do tomorrow? > > I can't control God. You can't control God but God _can_ control you. > > 11.Do you still believe you have free will , and can change anything that > > God knew about or would know about from the start of creation? > > yes, I have free will Really? Quote
Guest George Chen Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 On May 13, 12:16 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > Many colleges have courses entitled, > The Bible as History Name one. Are any of them secular colleges? Note that the course title would be assuming that the Bible is true and that is something that ANY non-Christian (not just atheists) would object to. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 In article <skuc43l8a5av59bjnh43mpj1b7n0hvu7q2@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > 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'. Martin, Good point. Jason Quote
Guest George Chen Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 On May 13, 12:18 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <5an1psF2pqab...@mid.individual.net>, "Steve O" > > <spamh...@nowhere.com> wrote: > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > >news:Jason-1205071730250001@66-52-22-33.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > In article <ragc43t77bh612omlhsvbtv2oc0s04m...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Sat, 12 May 2007 15:39:42 -0700, in alt.atheism > > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > >> <Jason-1205071539420...@66-52-22-50.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >> >In article <GrqdnZkQdNyMsdvbnZ2dnUVZ_t3in...@comcast.com>, John Popelish > > >> ><jpopel...@rica.net> wrote: > > > >> >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. In many courts in America, > > > written evidence such as contracts are deemed very important. > > > Do you consider ALL written evidence to be very important? > > How about the Qu'ran, or the Baghvad Ghita, or the Book of Mormon, or even a > > book describing how the Great Green Arkleseizure sneezed everything into > > existence, because I can certainly show you one? > > Or if not, why do you suppose that YOUR particular book is more correct and > > more important than any of the others? > > Good point--please note that I was answering the poster's question about > evidence related to judgement day. Please note then that the very fact that something is written down is NOT evidence that it is true. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 In article <1179023855.643441.80750@e51g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > 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 Martin, That's true. I am proud to say that none of the children of my mother and father ever spent time as inmates or convicts in any prison or jail. One of my nephews spent about a year in prison--related to drugs. jason Quote
Guest John Popelish Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 Jason wrote: > I will have lost nothing since I will eventally become dust or ashes. > However, if God and Satan does exist---you will end up in hell unless you > become a Christian. If, if, if. And if there is a god that rewards skepticism and punishes unsupported god belief, atheists will be rewarded and believers sent to damnation. What is the point of playing endless what if games? Speculation in a complete information vacuum may entertain you, but it is not a very solid basis for living. Quote
Guest George Chen Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 On May 13, 12:54 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1179026321.174219.148...@e51g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > On May 13, 6:34 am, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: > > > Jason wrote: > > > > In article <joidnaPoJuZeq9vbnZ2dnUVZ_gqdn...@comcast.com>, John Popelish > > > > <jpopel...@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. > > > > >> 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....). > > > Actually, that's not true. You may never win. Let's say you can win > > a lottery by choosing one number in ten. You're odds of winning are > > 1/10. Are you definitely going to win after ten attempts? No, > > because each attempt is an independent event in which the odds of > > losing are always 90%: even after playing ten times your chances of > > winning are only 65% = 1 - (.9)^10. > > > This actually works in our favour: there may be billions of billions > > of planets out there in the universe and perhaps we are the only > > planet in the universe that has life. Why would any god create an > > entire universe and only place life on a single planet? It makes more > > sense if we realize that abiogenesis may be an extremely unlikely > > process. How can creationists expect us to easily produce life in a > > laboratory when we don't know if life actually arose anywhere besides > > Earth? The beauty is that if we _do_ find life on other planets then > > it would be proof that abiogenesis _does_ occur because it would show > > that life does emerge from non-life, and not just here on Earth > > either. Either way, creationism is a failed hypothesis. > > > > 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. > God could create life on other planets if he chose to do that. And if a scientist ever does produce life in a test tube, you could argue that your god could have created that too. Quote
Guest cactus Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 Martin wrote: > On May 13, 6:55 am, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > >> There's really no proof that Moses existed. > > I am all but completely convinced that Moses was Ahmose. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmose > > Martin > Interesting. Any other support for your position? Quote
Guest George Chen Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 On May 13, 1:30 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1179021357.366735.22...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > 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. > Christians have written books related to free will. So? Have you read any? > It's a complex > doctrine. I do believe all people have free will. God and the angels also > have free will. God has the power to know what I will do but that does not > mean he will force me to change my behavior. He may take actions to cause > me to change my behavior. I'll tell you a true story that involved God > taking actions to change a person's behavior. This happened when the > assistant pastor of my church and his wife was traveling to another state > to visit relatives. The wife developed food poisoning and he had to pull > over at several gas stations so that she could vomit. They were about two > hours behind schedule. They drove past several overturned tractor trailors > and overturned automobiles. They turned on the radio and found out that a > tornado had crossed the same road they were on about two hours before they > arrived to that part of the freeway. She stopped having nausea after they > passed the overturned tractor trailors. You may say the tornado and food > poisoning was unrelated but that pastor and I believe that God was able to > see in the future and he took actions so that his servants avoided being > injured by that tornado. That is an example of how people do not have free will. In your opinion, God saw the future and was able to change what he saw happening. As you believe your god to be perfect, he can always do that. Thus, your god can manipulate circumstances so that things turn out the way he wants. And if he is perfect then everything always will turn out as he wants. This rules out the possibility of people having genuine free will. Quote
Guest cactus Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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. You have to believe this, because if you don't you will have no reason for proper behavior. 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. > Jason > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Quote
Guest George Chen Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 On May 13, 1:39 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > 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. > > That makes sense. Hurray! > > > 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. > > Have you ever considered that you could be wrong? In this case, if you are > wrong--you could end up in heaven or hell--the choice is up to you. All atheists have seriously considered the possibility of God's existance. That is how we became atheists. For a moment there, it looked as though you had been converted to atheism. Quote
Guest cactus Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <1179023855.643441.80750@e51g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Martin > <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> 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 > > Martin, > That's true. I am proud to say that none of the children of my mother and > father ever spent time as inmates or convicts in any prison or jail. One > of my nephews spent about a year in prison--related to drugs. > jason > > The overwhelming majority of boomers did not spend even a minute in jail. The overwhelming majority of their relatives didn't either. You are nothing special in this regard, maybe even a bit shy of the norm. Quote
Guest cactus Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <1179021474.195725.219750@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> 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 > > I will have lost nothing since I will eventally become dust or ashes. > However, if God and Satan does exist---you will end up in hell unless you > become a Christian. > > Hell is for those who believe in it. Quote
Guest George Chen Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 On May 13, 1:43 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1179021474.195725.219...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > 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? > > I will have lost nothing since I will eventally become dust or ashes. > However, if God and Satan does exist---you will end up in hell unless you > become a Christian. Feh. On the infinitesimally slim chance that Hell exists it would still be better than non-existance. What makes you think I wouldn't choose Hell if I had the choice? I'd have plenty of atheists and other non-Christians to keep me company. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 In article <1179021357.366735.22110@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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, Martin, Christians have written books related to free will. It's a complex doctrine. I do believe all people have free will. God and the angels also have free will. God has the power to know what I will do but that does not mean he will force me to change my behavior. He may take actions to cause me to change my behavior. I'll tell you a true story that involved God taking actions to change a person's behavior. This happened when the assistant pastor of my church and his wife was traveling to another state to visit relatives. The wife developed food poisoning and he had to pull over at several gas stations so that she could vomit. They were about two hours behind schedule. They drove past several overturned tractor trailors and overturned automobiles. They turned on the radio and found out that a tornado had crossed the same road they were on about two hours before they arrived to that part of the freeway. She stopped having nausea after they passed the overturned tractor trailors. You may say the tornado and food poisoning was unrelated but that pastor and I believe that God was able to see in the future and he took actions so that his servants avoided being injured by that tornado. jason > > 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 George Chen Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 On May 13, 1:57 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > It's my understanding that judgement day happens soon after we go to > heaven. There are actually two judgement days. One of the judgement days > is more like an awards ceremony--Christians are given awards (called > "crowns in the original King James Bible) based on their good works. It's > my guess that Mother Theresa received lots of rewards since she spent her > entire adult life helping people. Lots of missionaries will also receive > awards. The disciples were hoping the Rapture would happen in their > lifetimes--they were wrong. And what if you are wrong? (This is Pascal's wager in reverse.) 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.