11 Mar 13
Originally posted by OdBodObviously he meant 2+2=4.
Is it me, but I don't understand what you are saying in your first sentence.With regard to the rest of your paragraph you cannot have read my previous post.Your next post is also difficult to understand 2+2+4 ?
+ and = occupy the same key.
You're a smart guy. You couldn't figure this out?
11 Mar 13
Originally posted by KellyJayI won't be looking for truth from any human. If a god wants to come down and poke around and show me supernatural stuff, fine, I'll believe. From a human? Forget it.
Your against 2+2+4? Seriously, if you are against truth being truth you are
against knowledge, you are just for the looking for the knowledge. You will
be forever looking for but never finding!
Kelly
Religious humans are nothing but snake oil salesmen and they are totally sincere but they won't be convincing ME any time soon.
11 Mar 13
2 edits
Originally posted by OdBodYou were responding to this. "Once it is determined that a viewpoint is absolute
Is it me, but I don't understand what you are saying in your first sentence.With regard to the rest of your paragraph you cannot have read my previous post.Your next post is also difficult to understand 2+2+4 ?
truth, then why would it be necessary to do anymore investigation?" I took
what you said as you were against anyone's absolute truth, since you seem to
suggest that anyone who has it has closed off their thinking.
Sorry I didn't see I didn't put down 2+2=4, my bad.
Kelly
11 Mar 13
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseYou look for truth from humans all the time, who do you think practices the
I won't be looking for truth from any human. If a god wants to come down and poke around and show me supernatural stuff, fine, I'll believe. From a human? Forget it.
Religious humans are nothing but snake oil salesmen and they are totally sincere but they won't be convincing ME any time soon.
fine arts of the sciences cats and dogs? Supernatural stuff is only stuff you do
not at this time have a natural cause for. If God is part of nature universe than
all He does is natural. You are very selective in your 'truth' you want what you
want and so the rest must be bad, does not matter that billions of people say
otherwise you know better.
Kelly
11 Mar 13
Originally posted by KellyJayOK,fair enough, but you have to admit that there are so many people of "religious" belief who would not give one thought as to the possibility of there being no god. I and most atheists I know question ourselves all the time , if I could rationalise the existence of a god I would change my views ,but I cannot.
You were responding to this. "Once it is determined that a viewpoint is absolute
truth, then why would it be necessary to do anymore investigation?" I took
what you said as you were against anyone's absolute truth, since you seem to
suggest that anyone who has it has closed off their thinking.
Sorry I didn't see I didn't put down 2+2=4, my bad.
Kelly
12 Mar 13
Originally posted by OdBodI admit Thiest believe in God, which is why they are called Thiest if that makes
OK,fair enough, but you have to admit that there are so many people of "religious" belief who would not give one thought as to the possibility of there being no god. I and most atheists I know question ourselves all the time , if I could rationalise the existence of a god I would change my views ,but I cannot.
you feel better. We are talking about faith/beliefs here of course there is the
possibility there isn't a god out there. I believe in God, I believe God turned
my life around from where I was going and changed me. Can I prove that, no.
The Atheist here I will say is a mixed bag of those that say it is possible God
is real and those that just flat out refuse to admit it is even possible. So as
near as I can tell, again your complaints about Thiest are just as valid when
applied to everyone else.
If I were to ask you to look at your last post, you are saying the exact thing,
"I and most atheists I know question ourselves all the time , if I could
rationalise the existence of a god I would change my views ,but I cannot."
You cannot rationalise the existence of God, not that it isn't possible you refuse
to, which is as closed minded as you are claiming those of us who believe in
God are.
Kelly
12 Mar 13
I have rationalized the existence of God as the source of all life and light in the world we live in. The explanation by the scientists seem stupid to me and many others who do believe in God. I ask myself why are there laws of physics and chemistry. I reason there must be a lawgiver that requires some type of order so his creations can operate according to some plan.
The scientists have no rational reason for the existence of something physical instead of nothing. All they can give is speculations or guesses for they have no physical explanation. Therefore I rationalize a spiritual explanation because I have written testimony from One Who claims to have been there at the creation of the universe and has proved His power over life and death by giving up His own life and taking it back again.
Although the Shroud of Turin is referred to as an old scrap of cloth by the skeptics, the scientists are dumbfounded by it. They consider it a mystery of science. The faithful consider it proof provided by the Savior of His resurrection.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin
12 Mar 13
Originally posted by RJHindsWhat you really have rationalized is your own religious brainwashing.
I have rationalized the existence of God as the source of all life and light in the world we live in. The explanation by the scientists seem stupid to me and many others who do believe in God. I ask myself why are there laws of physics and chemistry. I reason there must be a lawgiver that requires some type of order so his creations can operate according ...[text shortened]... roof provided by the Savior of His resurrection.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin
12 Mar 13
Originally posted by KellyJayFor me it is a question of evidence and how you interpret that evidence. Most religious people cite their own personal beliefs and feelings along with some ancient text as proof of the existence of a god. I think ancient texts and subjective feelings are not a reliable sources of information. Any theory regarding the formation and function of our universe from a scientific point of view is subject to far more scrutiny than religious theories,this I think gives them more validity.Religion is on the decline in developed countries and only increasing in developing countries (presumably until they to reach a certain level of development.) I think this demonstrates that in the end the scientific method will prevail.
I admit Thiest believe in God, which is why they are called Thiest if that makes
you feel better. We are talking about faith/beliefs here of course there is the
possibility there isn't a god out there. I believe in God, I believe God turned
my life around from where I was going and changed me. Can I prove that, no.
The Atheist here I will say is a mix ...[text shortened]... o, which is as closed minded as you are claiming those of us who believe in
God are.
Kelly
12 Mar 13
Originally posted by OdBodWell we agree on something as I too believe it is a question of evidence and
For me it is a question of evidence and how you interpret that evidence. Most religious people cite their own personal beliefs and feelings along with some ancient text as proof of the existence of a god. I think ancient texts and subjective feelings are not a reliable sources of information. Any theory regarding the formation and function of our universe fro ...[text shortened]... l of development.) I think this demonstrates that in the end the scientific method will prevail.
how you interpret it. Personal beliefs, religious text, and personal experience
would be what I'd say people of faith have, it isn't just my feelings. I'd also
say that everyone who believes in a godless universe has the same thing going
for them except they don't call their text 'religious' though they can treat it as
such sometimes, and get highly offended if someone disagrees with it.
The trouble you have with science and God is that there isn't anything that can
test for God, you also run into the same issue with the distant past, you either
believe what people tell you or you don't, because no one can prove something
occurred billions of years ago, it must be accepted or rejected on faith. The
same thing is true for a lot of other things people want to accept as the 'truth'
like all life sprang from non-life, or everything came from nothing, or
everything was always here. We are limited in the here and now, and our
demonstrations of what we think proves one thing is true over another may be
nothing more than a math problem done correctly, but our conclusions may
still not be reflecting what actually happen.
Kelly
12 Mar 13
Originally posted by KellyJayAccording to science, "if it can't be demonstrated by repeating it, then it didn't happen that way", however, since many ideas of scientist can't be demonstrated by repeating it, those that wish to believe those ideas have to believe on faith. Evil-lution is one example. 😏
Well we agree on something as I too believe it is a question of evidence and
how you interpret it. Personal beliefs, religious text, and personal experience
would be what I'd say people of faith have, it isn't just my feelings. I'd also
say that everyone who believes in a godless universe has the same thing going
for them except they don't call their te ...[text shortened]... rrectly, but our conclusions may
still not be reflecting what actually happen.
Kelly
12 Mar 13
Originally posted by KellyJayBut there is plenty of observable physical evidence relating to the distant past, you can see it now. Plate tectonics,geological strata,fossil records,genealogy,patterns of life distribution across the planet.The list goes on and on ,what is more,the evidence comes from independent sources.
Well we agree on something as I too believe it is a question of evidence and
how you interpret it. Personal beliefs, religious text, and personal experience
would be what I'd say people of faith have, it isn't just my feelings. I'd also
say that everyone who believes in a godless universe has the same thing going
for them except they don't call their te ...[text shortened]... rrectly, but our conclusions may
still not be reflecting what actually happen.
Kelly
13 Mar 13
Originally posted by OdBodWe know those things happened in the past. However, the scientist do not know when in the past. They just stick some date on it that suits their fancy. 😏
But there is plenty of observable physical evidence relating to the distant past, you can see it now. Plate tectonics,geological strata,fossil records,genealogy,patterns of life distribution across the planet.The list goes on and on ,what is more,the evidence comes from independent sources.