Guest George Chen Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 On May 13, 1:20 pm, cactus <b...@nonespam.com> wrote: > 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 > > Interesting. Any other support for your position? That's where the "all but completely" part comes in. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 <snip> > > 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. > > > 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. > > > > 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 Jason Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 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. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 In article <5cuc43t8jkl86t2oe40uks3retvimo6i6i@4ax.com>, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > 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. Genesis--chapter 1-6 discusses that God created mankind, lot of plants and lots of animals. God also created the earth and the solar system. It's my opinion that after God finished creating mankind, lots of plants and lots of animals--that evolution took over. Darwin also believed that God created life. > > 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 Jason Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 In article <1179022831.175165.52020@e51g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > 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 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. Jason Quote
Guest cactus Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <1179021006.214437.12380@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> 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 > > Martin, > Actually, Christianity has really helped me to not fear death. I am > actually looking forward to it. I have had to deal with elderly people > that were near death. Some of them were fearful of death. We have all > heard stories about elderly people that have about a dozen different > serious medical problems and lots of surgeries. They are afraid to die and > are trying their hardest to hang on to life a little while longer. That > will never happen to me. It's my guess that many atheists will decide to > become Christians when they start getting old or develop a serious disease > that could cause them to die--just in case they were wrong and want to > cover all bases. Do you think that everyone facing death will suddenly become Christian because of your coercive eschatology? I've known a fair number of people facing death. Without exception Christianity mattered as much to them in their final hours as it did in their lives. > Related to one of your other points--please note that I rarely respond to > anyone that is disrespective to me. I believe those people are hoping to > impress other people in this newsgroup and don't really want a response. I was seriously hoping that you would respond to my comments to you about your utterly distorted view of what evolution is. I had sincerely hoped that you would provide actual evidence to prove me wrong or maybe even changed your views. But thus far my hopes have been in vain. I > once heard a professor say that when people resort to name calling or > profanity in a debate--it means they have lost the debate since the name > calling and profanity means they have run out of important points. I > learned in a debate class to never lose my temper. You appear temperate in your debating style. However, you appear to be uninfluenced by the responses you receive. This is one of the sterile aspects of scholastic debating - one is judged on presentation, so there is no requirement for the debater to evaluate the content of his, or his opponents, arguments. Discussions with you are starting to appear sterile and pointless - mere scholastic debate. Nothing will change. You cannot muster arguments to change others' views, and you have shown that you are impervious to information. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 In article <1179021006.214437.12380@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 Martin, Actually, Christianity has really helped me to not fear death. I am actually looking forward to it. I have had to deal with elderly people that were near death. Some of them were fearful of death. We have all heard stories about elderly people that have about a dozen different serious medical problems and lots of surgeries. They are afraid to die and are trying their hardest to hang on to life a little while longer. That will never happen to me. It's my guess that many atheists will decide to become Christians when they start getting old or develop a serious disease that could cause them to die--just in case they were wrong and want to cover all bases. Related to one of your other points--please note that I rarely respond to anyone that is disrespective to me. I believe those people are hoping to impress other people in this newsgroup and don't really want a response. I once heard a professor say that when people resort to name calling or profanity in a debate--it means they have lost the debate since the name calling and profanity means they have run out of important points. I learned in a debate class to never lose my temper. Jason Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 On 12 May 2007 20:41:37 -0700, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: - Refer: <1179027697.442240.134330@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> >On May 13, 8:31 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> God gave us free will when he created mankind. Even angels have free will. > > >God doesn't exist. Angels don't exist. There's no evidence that free >will even exists. Unfortuantely, idiots like Jason exist. -- Quote
Guest cactus Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <8duc431csiubbtc9p1pms7tpko0jutn720@4ax.com>, Don Kresch > <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > >> 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? > > Not a problem: Those scripture indicates that all people who don't love > God are corrupt people that have committed "abominable deeds". Let's > compare it to Romans 3:10 which states: There is none righteous--no not > one. > That's Christian scripture for you: condemn everyone who does not believe exactly as you do to your version of hell. > There is a doctrine related to the righteousness of God. God (according to > that doctrine) is the only one that is truly righteous. Any righteousness > that we develop is no different than filty rags (Isaiah 64:6). The goal is > to love God and we will be saved and delivered from our sins and gain the > righteousness of God. And Isaiah said nothing about believing a certain way. Judaism teaches that all people have a place in the World to Come. But you Christians distort the meaning of the text, using your interpretation of scripture as a spiritual bludgeon to batter people into acceptance. > > There are wonderful and kind people on this earth that are not Christians > or Jews. However, as far as God is concerned, they have sins and are > therefore corrupt people. Of course, if those people became > Christians--they would be saved and delivered from their sins. > You have to say this because you are a Christian. It limits your spirituality and your humanity. To believe that others, no matter how good they are, will go to your hell for not believing as you do is a form of arrogant hatred. Believing as you do that Christians, no matter how evil they might be, will go to heaven is tribalism pure and simple. > As far as I am concerned, they are wonderful and kind people. How sweet of you. Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 On May 13, 2:49 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: <snip> > Actually, Christianity has really helped me to not fear death. I am > actually looking forward to it. I have had to deal with elderly people > that were near death. Some of them were fearful of death. We have all > heard stories about elderly people that have about a dozen different > serious medical problems and lots of surgeries. They are afraid to die and > are trying their hardest to hang on to life a little while longer. That > will never happen to me. Many people become Christian so they can overcome the fear of death. It may give them comfort to convince themselves that they will not die. If you were terminally ill and about to die then perhaps it would be wrong for me to tell you that God didn't exist and take away your comfort but if you were to ask me if God existed and you wanted me to be honest then I would have to say "No". To me, that is what it is about, namely honesty: if you want to believe in God because it makes you feel better to believe so, that's one thing, but it would be wrong for you to claim that the Bible or the universe or anything is proof of God's existance if, in reality, it is all something you chose to believe so that you could feel better and not come to fear death. > It's my guess that many atheists will decide to > become Christians when they start getting old or develop a serious disease > that could cause them to die--just in case they were wrong and want to > cover all bases. Do you believe that God will accept people who are just "covering all bases" or, if he is truly all knowing as you claim, do you think he'd be able to see through people who claim to truly believe just in case it's true and get into Heaven? The biggest problem with Pascal's wager is that it encourages people to be dishonest. It basically says to atheists that they don't actually have to believe: just go along with the rest of us and SAY you believe and God will let you go to Heaven with the rest of us when you die. That's not the way I was brought up: I was brought up to be honest. I couldn't possibly go around telling people I believe when I really don't. I also feel strongly that people should be honest so I would ask people to reject Pascal's wager at all costs: I would rather go to Hell (if it existed) as an honest man than go to Heaven (if it existed) as a man who had lived a lie. > Related to one of your other points--please note that I rarely respond to > anyone that is disrespective to me. That's probably a good idea, except it is worth pointing out sometimes when people are being disrespectful because it is, itself, a logical falacy known as an "ad hominem". > I believe those people are hoping to > impress other people in this newsgroup and don't really want a response. Not quite. It is actually behaviour that dates back to early primates and can be observed to this day amongst gorillas: the dominent male establishes his position by constantly challenging the lesser males until they cower away in fear. It's as though some people think usenet debate is a kind of boxing match in which attacking the person making the argument is as valid as attacking the argument itself. > I once heard a professor say that when people resort to name calling or > profanity in a debate--it means they have lost the debate since the name > calling and profanity means they have run out of important points. I > learned in a debate class to never lose my temper. Once again, the other Martin isn't me. I would hope people recognize the fact that I RARELY use profanity. (I almost said "never" and then I remembered that one in every thousand of my posts probably does contain profanity.) Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 In article <8duc431csiubbtc9p1pms7tpko0jutn720@4ax.com>, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > 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? Not a problem: Those scripture indicates that all people who don't love God are corrupt people that have committed "abominable deeds". Let's compare it to Romans 3:10 which states: There is none righteous--no not one. There is a doctrine related to the righteousness of God. God (according to that doctrine) is the only one that is truly righteous. Any righteousness that we develop is no different than filty rags (Isaiah 64:6). The goal is to love God and we will be saved and delivered from our sins and gain the righteousness of God. There are wonderful and kind people on this earth that are not Christians or Jews. However, as far as God is concerned, they have sins and are therefore corrupt people. Of course, if those people became Christians--they would be saved and delivered from their sins. As far as I am concerned, they are wonderful and kind people. > > 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 Phipps Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 On May 13, 3:20 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > Not a problem: Those scripture indicates that all people who don't love > God are corrupt people that have committed "abominable deeds". Let's > compare it to Romans 3:10 which states: There is none righteous--no not > one. > > There is a doctrine related to the righteousness of God. God (according to > that doctrine) is the only one that is truly righteous. Any righteousness > that we develop is no different than filty rags (Isaiah 64:6). The goal is > to love God and we will be saved and delivered from our sins and gain the > righteousness of God. > > There are wonderful and kind people on this earth that are not Christians > or Jews. However, as far as God is concerned, they have sins and are > therefore corrupt people. Of course, if those people became > Christians--they would be saved and delivered from their sins. > > As far as I am concerned, they are wonderful and kind people. So God is a bigot but you are not? Do you agree with God or not? Either your God is "righteous" and non-believers are "corrupt" or believers and non-believers alike can be "kind and wonderful people" and God himself is deluded if he thinks otherwise. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 On May 13, 3:28 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1179028878.837214.212...@e51g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > On May 13, 10:43 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <1179016435.560080.46...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@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. > > > > Have you read that book? > > > I asked you first. > > > > I doubt it. It also discusses fossil evidence. > > > Present some. > I read a similar book: "Evolution--The Fossils Still Say No" by D.T. Gish. > I actually saw D.T. Gish debate a professor. Dr. Gish won that debate. Of > course, Dr. Gish was an expert debater and the professor became so > frustrated that he lost his temper. Even the college students who came to > support him stopped clapping for him about half way thru the debate. The > audience was filled with Christians. > > Did you read Gish's book or Lubenow's book--your turn I haven't read either book. The fact remains that you were recommending a book to us that you hadn't read and claiming that it "discussed fossil evidence". The onus is still on you to present some of this evidence. If you never read the book then you can't be sure if any of the arguments Lubenow made were valid. Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 In article <1179028878.837214.212670@e51g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > On May 13, 10:43 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1179016435.560080.46...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@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. > > > > Have you read that book? > > I asked you first. > > > I doubt it. It also discusses fossil evidence. > > Present some. > > Martin Martin, I read a similar book: "Evolution--The Fossils Still Say No" by D.T. Gish. I actually saw D.T. Gish debate a professor. Dr. Gish won that debate. Of course, Dr. Gish was an expert debater and the professor became so frustrated that he lost his temper. Even the college students who came to support him stopped clapping for him about half way thru the debate. The audience was filled with Christians. Did you read Gish's book or Lubenow's book--your turn Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 On May 13, 3:51 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: <snip> > > > > 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. > > > > I'm not sure this is true. Perhaps you could answer this question:; Can > > > scientists determine how tall a person is by measuring the length of > > > certain bones--such as major leg bones? I believe that Neanderthals had > > > bigger bones so it's my guess that they were heavier than Cro-Magnums. > > > Your biology professor supposedly said "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". There's NO way he could > > possibly know that. Consider the fact that skeletons of people from > > different races look identical and yet we can tell when people look > > Chinese, black, Indian, Mexican, etc. I've been in Asia for ten years > > and I always have little kids staring at me: they notice I am > > different even though I am not a neanderthal. I can only hope that > > your teacher was speculating (assuming this story wasn't just > > something you made up). > > My professor was probably not discussing a city in Asia. He was probably > talking about a city like New York where it is common to see people from > all races on the busy streets of that city. Point taken. So you went to college in New York City? He still couldn't be absolutely certain that nobody would have taken notice. I, for one, might have been inclined to take him up on that if he had said such a thing without qualification. > > > I disagree. Many of the advocates of creation science believe that > > > evolution took over after God created many life forms. I read an article > > > in an ICR newsletter that explained how races began--it was mainly because > > > of genetic changes that took place in groups of humans in various > > > locations of the earth. Perhaps, Neanderthals were one of those races but > > > that is my assumption. > > > There is no signifant difference between micro evolution and macro > > evolution: you do not walk a mile without taking individual steps. > > > > > > > > You mentioned in your above post that Neanderthals and Modern man a > > > Have you ever read about one of the so-called cavemen--it may have been > > > Piltdown man or something like that. For many years, evolutionists were of > > > the opinion that that caveman was one of the steps in man's evolution. No > > > bones of that caveman had been found--just one tooth. Many years later, it > > > was determined that tooth came from a pig. That was not really a > > > manipulation of data. Instead, it involved evolutionists that wanted the > > > tooth to be a caveman's tooth so they made the mistake of assuming that it > > > was a caveman's tooth. I call it a an evolution mind set. > > > As opposed to a creationist mind set? > > Do you believe that evolutionists have ever used a tooth as the only > evidence for a caveman and even had an artist draw a painting about what > that caveman looked like based on that tooth? Another evolutionist exposed > the error. Do you think that I am lying? You tell me: I said below "The difference is that it is other scientists who are able find and identify fraudulant data and not creationists." I, myself, gave you the example of the Korean geneticist who falsified data: it does happen. But people who have been found to falsify data lose all credibility as scientists: their career, quite literally, is over. Scientists live by a standard of ultimate truth that creationists, politicians and used car salesmen just simply aren't expected to live by. > > > An evolution > > > mind-set means they do everything they can to make their research efforts > > > support evolution theory. The advocates of creation science do the same > > > thing in relation to data. Regardless of who does it--it's wrong. > > > The difference is that it is other scientists who are able find and > > identify fraudulant data and not creationists. > > > Thank you for admitting that advocates of creation "science" do > > "everything they can to make their research efforts support" > > creationism. > > It's wrong--regardless who does it. And if you claim that a scientist is "manipulating data" then the onus is on you to show that he is, in fact, doing that. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 On May 13, 3:56 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1179027411.828594.125...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > On May 13, 8:20 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <esgc43h06ki5neitn538nm7s4t7bcq8...@4ax.com>, Don Kresch > > > > > >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. > > > You mean Kirk Cameron when he said Einstein believed in God? He did > > not provide that quote. He just said "I didn't say he was > > Christian". He provided no quote to prove that Einstein believed in > > God. In fact, it is not true. > > > "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious > > convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not > > believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have > > expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called > > religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the > > world so far as our science can reveal it." > > Letter to an atheist (1954) as quoted in Albert Einstein: The Human > > Side (1981) edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman > Yes, Kirk Cameron made that statement related to Einstein's watch. I hope > he did not make it up. Are you refering to the part of the debate where he said Einstein believed in god and the crowd groaned (possibly because Einstein himself had dismissed this as "a lie")? He told no such story about Einstein. The debate is still online. Perhaps you should take another look. I'll do likewise. http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3160774 Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 <snip> > Just because the evolutionists believe the offspriong to be infertile > (A) does not mean that they want to believe the offspring are > infertile (B). Being a scientist means coming to believe things that > you don't necessarily want to believe. <snip> > > > > > 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. > > > > I'm not sure this is true. Perhaps you could answer this question:; Can > > scientists determine how tall a person is by measuring the length of > > certain bones--such as major leg bones? I believe that Neanderthals had > > bigger bones so it's my guess that they were heavier than Cro-Magnums. > > Your biology professor supposedly said "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". There's NO way he could > possibly know that. Consider the fact that skeletons of people from > different races look identical and yet we can tell when people look > Chinese, black, Indian, Mexican, etc. I've been in Asia for ten years > and I always have little kids staring at me: they notice I am > different even though I am not a neanderthal. I can only hope that > your teacher was speculating (assuming this story wasn't just > something you made up). My professor was probably not discussing a city in Asia. He was probably talking about a city like New York where it is common to see people from all races on the busy streets of that city. <snip> > > I disagree. Many of the advocates of creation science believe that > > evolution took over after God created many life forms. I read an article > > in an ICR newsletter that explained how races began--it was mainly because > > of genetic changes that took place in groups of humans in various > > locations of the earth. Perhaps, Neanderthals were one of those races but > > that is my assumption. > > There is no signifant difference between micro evolution and macro > evolution: you do not walk a mile without taking individual steps. > > > > > > > You mentioned in your above post that Neanderthals and Modern man a > > Have you ever read about one of the so-called cavemen--it may have been > > Piltdown man or something like that. For many years, evolutionists were of > > the opinion that that caveman was one of the steps in man's evolution. No > > bones of that caveman had been found--just one tooth. Many years later, it > > was determined that tooth came from a pig. That was not really a > > manipulation of data. Instead, it involved evolutionists that wanted the > > tooth to be a caveman's tooth so they made the mistake of assuming that it > > was a caveman's tooth. I call it a an evolution mind set. > > As opposed to a creationist mind set? Do you believe that evolutionists have ever used a tooth as the only evidence for a caveman and even had an artist draw a painting about what that caveman looked like based on that tooth? Another evolutionist exposed the error. Do you think that I am lying? > > > An evolution > > mind-set means they do everything they can to make their research efforts > > support evolution theory. The advocates of creation science do the same > > thing in relation to data. Regardless of who does it--it's wrong. > > The difference is that it is other scientists who are able find and > identify fraudulant data and not creationists. > > Thank you for admitting that advocates of creation "science" do > "everything they can to make their research efforts support" > creationism. It's wrong--regardless who does it. > > <snip> Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 In article <1179027411.828594.125210@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > On May 13, 8:20 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <esgc43h06ki5neitn538nm7s4t7bcq8...@4ax.com>, Don Kresch > > > > >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. > > You mean Kirk Cameron when he said Einstein believed in God? He did > not provide that quote. He just said "I didn't say he was > Christian". He provided no quote to prove that Einstein believed in > God. In fact, it is not true. > > "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious > convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not > believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have > expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called > religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the > world so far as our science can reveal it." > Letter to an atheist (1954) as quoted in Albert Einstein: The Human > Side (1981) edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman > > Martin Martin, Yes, Kirk Cameron made that statement related to Einstein's watch. I hope he did not make it up. jason Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 On May 13, 4:28 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1179033695.644052.208...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, George > > Chen <georgech...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > 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? > > No, but I have heard sermons on that subject that were based on at least > one of those books. That's not the same thing. <snip> > I believe that in most > cases, God lets us live our lives making use of our free will. He rarely > intervenes in the lives of people. Which is interesting because a lot of Christians believe God is intervening all the time: they even pray to God to support their favorite sports team. <snip> Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 In article <1179034223.273130.45400@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, George Chen <georgechen2@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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. I would prefer paradise than to burn in Hell. Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 On May 13, 4:31 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <q45d431vks86e298qn47760v7sln8mh...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Sat, 12 May 2007 21:28:50 -0700, in alt.atheism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-1205072128500...@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. > > >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. > > Are you saying that an omiscient God has no control over it and has to > exercise it every minute of every day. That does not make sense. It's my > opinion that God has absolute control over his powers. No, it means you either know something or you don't. The whole point of Christians feeling guilty about their sins is the idea that God knows what their sins are: there's nothing in Christian mythology that God "chooses" to know certain things; he's supposed to just know. Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 In article <YIqdnfMokb6GFNvbnZ2dnUVZ_gOdnZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > > John, > > Thanks for your post. It has been many years since I have take any college > > science courses and had forgotten that the earliest cells were less > > complex than current cells. Do you believe scientists will ever develop > > the conditions necessary for the evolution of a living cell from non-life. > > I don't believe it (as in have faith that it will happen) > but I wouldn't be very surprised if it happened. Finding > life on another planet would go a long way toward > understanding what it takes for it to happen. Right now, we > have only one example and things have changed so much that > there are quite a few possibilities of exactly what happened > here. A second (and third) independent example would help > eliminate some of the possibilities and help us focus on > what remains. > > > An example would be placing amino acids in the same sort of environment > > that is conductive to cell growth and development? > > Not really my area of expertise, but the research is > interesting to follow. Unfortunately, at this point, I > think the hypotheses are blossoming faster than the > experimental evidence is clearing away unlikely possibilities. > > > Thanks for the book suggestions. > > You are welcome. If you like CSI type TV shows, this book > will hold your interest. It quickly gets complicated, but > goes into enough details (with pictures) to help you follow > the trail of reasoning that leads to the conclusions > reached. I felt like m extended family had gotten a lot > larger by the time I finished it. I like CSI type TV shows. Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 On May 13, 4:33 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1179033081.770202.4...@e51g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, George > > Chen <georgech...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On May 13, 12:54 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <1179026321.174219.148...@e51g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > 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. > > > > 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. > > I would not do that. However, I would reserve judgement on that experiment > until other scientist were able to repeat it. That's reasonable. However, you would be moving the goal posts because you'd be insisting on a lot more than just one experiment. To be honest, I would be concerned about the moral implications of "playing God" and creating life like that. I'd want to be absolutely certain that a viable lifeform created in a test tube couldn't escape and become a danger to life already on the planet: only then would I want scientists to try to repeat the experiment. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 On May 13, 4:39 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > And the people that respond to my posts seem to be impervious to change > their points of view. That's because we know you are right whereas, for you, your beliefs provide you with a way to avoid the fear of death. Martin PS: Is it really a good idea to NOT fear death? If I am on the road then I sure as Hell hope the other drivers have a healthy fear of death! Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 In article <1179033695.644052.208470@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, George Chen <georgechen2@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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? No, but I have heard sermons on that subject that were based on at least one of those books. > > > 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. That's interesting. I can only state my opinion. I believe that in most cases, God lets us live our lives making use of our free will. He rarely intervenes in the lives of people. Occassionly, God does intervene in our lives. I know of one lady that had Parkinson's Disease that was a dedicated Christian. She begged God for several years to heal her. During one day, God spoke to her and told her that he would be healing her the following day. The following day, she asked her pastor to lay his hands on her because this was her day to be healed. Several people were present. God healed her that day. Yes, God can manipulate circumstances so that things turn out the way he wants. I disagree with your last sentence. I believe that in most cases, God allows us to live our lives exercising our free will. He does not intervene unless he feels the need to do so. It's like good parents to a teenage child or even an older child that is now married. The loving father does not intervene unless he feels the need to do so. He is more likely to intervene if the son or daughter asks him for his intervention or help. In fact, God was called "father" by Jesus. The Lord's Prayer begins--"Our Father". I disagree with the poster that indicated that God controls all aspects of everyone's life. That is not true. I have a neighbor that has Lupus. I'm sure she would love it if God intervended in her life and healed her of Lupus. If God controlled all aspects of everyone lives, there would not be any sick people in America. 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.