The power of God.

[dimreepr]

Assuming one is married and has kids, do the parents solver all the problems of their children or do they let them solve them on their own for the most part?

 

As for me I'm hopelessly in debt to Jesus the Christ. As for astrophysics, we only have to apply Classic physics to the discoveries we see in prototplyds (ProtoPlanetaryDisks) to know that the planets contract and start life long before the star ignites. The power of God is as powerful as the predator primus would be. If His power is based upon the vacuum fluctuation, He is infinitely powerful. If His power is based upon the finite matter in all existence, then His power is limited by that quantity of mass. It doesn't matter. He's still unfathomablt more "everything" than we are.

 

 

As a parent I try to teach my children 2 basic boundaries;

 

1 How to be safe (i.e. don’t jump of that building or run onto a busy road).

 

2 How to interact with other humans (i.e. be sociable)

 

This for me will give them the best chance of living a rich and meaningful life.

 

Why do we need to teach a lot of contradictory rules that can only confuse them? You are perfectly entitled to your beliefs but teaching them without understanding, perfectly, what the bible is trying to teach is just blind faith and as such has no value.

 

 

[mississippichem]

That is just what the Bible says is good. "Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. " Matthew 5:10 NIV

 

So the more you keep laughing, the more of the kingdom of heaven I'll get.

 

It also says in verses 11, and 12 "¹¹ "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. ¹² Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you."" NIV

 

If I started a religion I would write that in my holy book too. "Don't listen to anyone else, don't listen to logic, if you are reading this you are right", don't you think it will help me from losing my followers to other religions or secularism? It's like evolution for religions. Religions that have verses like that in their official scriptures have a defense mechanism against logic. Convenient to say the least.

[Moontanman]

That is just what the Bible says is good. "Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. " Matthew 5:10 NIV

 

So the more you keep laughing, the more of the kingdom of heaven I'll get.

 

It also says in verses 11, and 12 "¹¹ "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. ¹² Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you."" NIV

 

You get the same thing I do when you die, nothing...

 

 

 

I did put evidence. If I didn't then that was in another topic. Tell me if I did put it in another topic.

 

 

If you have evidence you most certainly have not posted it i this thread, i suggest you do so...

 

Yes, I do.

 

I asked for clarification, you have already stated your stance, why do you feel that way? God didn't create the earth? That I would have to agree with...

[John Cuthber]

Does Matthew have anything to say about self righteousness?

 

"I did put evidence. If I didn't then that was in another topic. Tell me if I did put it in another topic."

Stop being all talk and no trousers and cite that evidence (again if you cited it before). Please note that the bible is not evidence.

 

"Good post. I'm not sure how someone could press the minus. "

I worked it out.

Edited February 12, 2012 by John Cuthber

[Tres Juicy]

 

So the more you keep laughing, the more of the kingdom of heaven I'll get.

 

 

Is that why your religion is so laughable?

 

The more people laugh at your ridiculous beliefs, the more you are rewarded?

[swansont]

Klaynos the moderator has referred to another thread I attempted to discuss aspects of the existence of this energy source where he said "you've already got a thread on your idea that "cosmic motion" effects atomic systems:". But before I was able to expand on what, and why, I perceived the currently held scientific viewpoint was inadequate, the thread was closed with strict instructions "Do not reintroduce this subject".

 

That's some revisionist history. People were practically begging you to expand on your claims by introducing evidence, but you did not.

 

Even discussing this here, is risking the wrath of closure of this thread or even personally being banned from the forum.

 

One of the few things you've gotten right in your time here.

[njaohnt]

As a parent I try to teach my children 2 basic boundaries;

 

1 How to be safe (i.e. don’t jump of that building or run onto a busy road).

 

2 How to interact with other humans (i.e. be sociable)

 

This for me will give them the best chance of living a rich and meaningful life.

 

Why do we need to teach a lot of contradictory rules that can only confuse them? You are perfectly entitled to your beliefs but teaching them without understanding, perfectly, what the bible is trying to teach is just blind faith and as such has no value.

So you have said nothing about how God can't exsist (yes His charictaristics, but those are from the Bible), the Bible, yes, but not God Himself.

Yet you choose to teach your children that there is no such thing. Tell me. Where did physics come from? No atheist has ever answered that. If you can't answer it, then why do choose to teach your kids what you can't answer, because then it is not true. Saying there is not enough evidence to prove anything would be better, kind of, and more understandable.

 

Is that why your religion is so laughable?

 

The more people laugh at your ridiculous beliefs, the more you are rewarded?

 

Possibly.

 

Does Matthew have anything to say about self righteousness?

 

"I did put evidence. If I didn't then that was in another topic. Tell me if I did put it in another topic."

Stop being all talk and no trousers and cite that evidence (again if you cited it before). Please note that the bible is not evidence.

 

"Good post. I'm not sure how someone could press the minus. "

I worked it out.

I'm not sure what you mean by self righteousness. Being good to yourself, no. Taking care of your self, yes. Anything else you meant.

 

I asked for clarification, you have already stated your stance, why do you feel that way? God didn't create the earth? That I would have to agree with...

I think creatation has a lot to religion.

 

That's some revisionist history. People were practically begging you to expand on your claims by introducing evidence, but you did not.

 

 

 

One of the few things you've gotten right in your time here.

 

Expand yours. It will give ideas on what to say.

 

If I started a religion I would write that in my holy book too. "Don't listen to anyone else, don't listen to logic, if you are reading this you are right", don't you think it will help me from losing my followers to other religions or secularism? It's like evolution for religions. Religions that have verses like that in their official scriptures have a defense mechanism against logic. Convenient to say the least.

 

Yes, I know, this was to say that I don't care how much you laugh. Not about the Book's trueness.

 

I really think that the moderators are more strict with Christians, just because they believe in it. Think of Atheism as a religion, which it is, it follows all the religious rules to be a religion.

Now all I have said was the things that make me believe. Show me where I haven't done that. So here's what I say…

 

…

 

Dovada, do your reputation a favour, stop posting. They say that you are preaching (even though they're doing the same thing), so stop, you are not going to convince them, unless you get "hard evidence". Therefore, everytime that you find some good evidence, post it in my "Christian evidence" topic, that I will make tomarrow.

 

I shall do the same. Atheists, I recommend making "Athiest evidence" topic.

[mississippichem]

Yes, I know, this was to say that I don't care how much you laugh. Not about the Book's trueness.

 

I really think that the moderators are more strict with Christians, just because they believe in it. Think of Atheism as a religion, which it is, it follows all the religious rules to be a religion.

Now all I have said was the things that make me believe. Show me where I haven't done that. So here's what I say…

 

I'm not laughing at you. What gave you that impression? If anything it saddens me when people keep using a bronze age text as evidence in a science forum. I was trying to point out that the Bible is written such that once you believe in it, it is difficult to let go of by design of its authors. The only evidence you have of God was supposedly written by god in his book. Where does God's book get it's authority? Well evidently from God's book as well. Do you not see the logical error here?

 

Moderators are most certainly more strict with religious posts. This is a science forum and we don't allow proselytizing. You can argue for your faith as much as you want, please do. Just don't be surprised when people demand evidence of your assertions. It is in our forum rules.

 

Dovada, do your reputation a favour, stop posting. They say that you are preaching (even though they're doing the same thing), so stop, you are not going to convince them, unless you get "hard evidence". Therefore, everytime that you find some good evidence, post it in my "Christian evidence" topic, that I will make tomarrow.

 

I shall do the same. Atheists, I recommend making "Athiest evidence" topic.

 

Dovoda has since been banned. He is unable to reply to this.

[999]

One of the few things you've gotten right in your time here.

Why do you say this? Has dovada been banned or something? Strange.

[iNow]

Tell me. Where did physics come from? No atheist has ever answered that.

Hmmm.... Are you sure about that?

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/55278-atheists-and-religious-holidays/page__view__findpost__p__648571

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/55278-atheists-and-religious-holidays/page__view__findpost__p__648579

[mississippichem]

Why do you say this? Has dovada been banned or something? Strange.

 

You're not Dovoda by any chance are you? If your are, then you would be a sockpuppet and the hounds are probably already on their way.

Edited February 13, 2012 by mississippichem

[iNow]

Think of Atheism as a religion, which it is, it follows all the religious rules to be a religion.

If you think of atheism as a religion, then you should also think of bald as a hair color and "not stamp collecting" as a hobby.

[Phi for All]

Why do you say this? Has dovada been banned or something? Strange.

You joined to make this your first post? Hilarious.

[Arete]

I guess there is just a thing against religious people.

 

Your signature directly and deliberately calls out atheists and condemns them to hell. You're the one with the "thing". The forum's problem is your completely unsubstantiated and exclusive claims. I'd expect that the same demands being placed on you would be made of someone claiming that quartz crystals heal spinal injuries, or that cows are alien beings.

 

I did put evidence. If I didn't then that was in another topic. Tell me if I did put it in another topic.

 

Please address the circularity of the Bible - God proof described previously to you as quoted below or provide an independent sources of evidence to support your assertions:

 

"the issue with using the bible as evidence of God is circularity. The authority of the bible comes from God. Proof of God comes from the bible. Without God, the bible is just another book, without the bible, there's no proof of God.

 

Due to their co-dependence, you can't use one as an independent source of information on the other and attempting to do so results in a circular proof."

 

So you have said nothing about how God can't exsist (yes His charictaristics, but those are from the Bible), the Bible, yes, but not God Himself.

Yet you choose to teach your children that there is no such thing. Tell me. Where did physics come from? No atheist has ever answered that. If you can't answer it, then why do choose to teach your kids what you can't answer, because then it is not true. Saying there is not enough evidence to prove anything would be better, kind of, and more understandable.

 

Please address the failure of this line of argument via the principle of Occam's razor, as already stated to you:

 

"You state "Gravity" (although gravitational force simply being a property of matter this translates to matter) cannot "simply exist" or "come into existence". However this results in the presumption that God had to "simply exist" or "come into existence". You can't refute one possibility as having unacceptable assumptions and then simply apply those assumptions to the possibility you have a personal preference for in a logical fashion.

 

It also fails via the application of Occam's razor - despite natural, evidence based theories for the inception of the universe - say we have to accept that at some point, something had to inexplicably, spontaneously just exist. Given we have measurable, positive evidence of the existence of matter but none for God, and it follows axiomatically that if God is a sentient being capable of creating matter he is more complex than the matter itself, there are more unsupported assumptions in the spontaneous existence of God than there are in the spontaneous existence of matter. Therefore, the existence of God is less likely than the existence of matter."

 

As a final note: consistently stating "you don't know" to others does NOTHING to support your assertion that the explanation is God. You could completely disprove evolutionary theory, big bang theory, radioisotope dating, plate tectonics, etc. but with out a shred of positive proof for the assertion that God was responsible, it is unfounded, faith based and therefore scientifically uncompelling

Edited February 13, 2012 by Arete

[Edtharan]

So you have said nothing about how God can't exsist (yes His charictaristics, but those are from the Bible), the Bible, yes, but not God Himself.

However, the Bible is supposed to tell us about God. The beliefs about the bible range from: It was directly created by God, though it was inspired by God, to it was a bunch of people trying to understand God be writing stories that reflected what they though about God.

 

However, what all of these have in common is that it is the only source that we have that is supposed to tell us about God.

 

So, as this is the only source from which we have to know about God, then we should be able to use it to know the properties of God (if God does indeed exist).

 

Yet you choose to teach your children that there is no such thing. Tell me. Where did physics come from? No atheist has ever answered that. If you can't answer it, then why do choose to teach your kids what you can't answer, because then it is not true. Saying there is not enough evidence to prove anything would be better, kind of, and more understandable.

In science, there is the most common phrase used: "we don't know". Science is happy with the fact that we don't know everything. However, from believers in religion, the thing that they all seem to say is that they know everything, or at the very least, that they have some knowledge that we don't have (but seem unwilling to share it - or it is too complex for the uninitiated to understand).

 

think back about this thread, can you see any such behaviours from people who believe in religion on this thread that fits that>

 

That is what those red mod notes were about. It was these people writing that they had "the answer", but then when they were asked for that answer, they became illusive and tried to dodge the question.

 

Sure, we don't know where the laws of physics came from (or if they came form anything in the first place). It is religion that tried to tell children that they have the answer to such questions, and then when people ask about those answer, they are delivered the same illusive responses and told outright that if they ask such questions they will be punished for an eternity.

 

Where as in science, if someone asks such questions, they are told "we don't know, but how about we try and find out together". Science is honest about its knowledge and the limits of that knowledge, it doesn't make up stuff just so it doesn't have to admit that its knowledge is limited.

 

I really think that the moderators are more strict with Christians, just because they believe in it.

No, it is the problem I stated earlier, that the religios (not just christians) say they have the answers, but when they are questioned about them they dodge the question, claim that we could never understand it unless we already believe that they have the answer (and thus they don't have to tell us), say something that does not match with reality, or out right lie.

 

All of these have occurred here on the forums when religious believers are asked what their answer is. It is one of the many the reason that the rules about postings exist (particularly the ones about preaching).

 

Think of Atheism as a religion, which it is, it follows all the religious rules to be a religion.

Then why can't atheists get the tax breaks that other religions do? The reason is that it doesn't full fill those requirements to be a religion.

 

Just because you can make a statement, does not make that statement true. Can you show us a list of what you think something has to have to be a religion (you don't need a source for this, it is just what you think is needed for something to be a religion)?

 

Now all I have said was the things that make me believe. Show me where I haven't done that. So here's what I say…

Opinion is not evidence. Con Artists manipulate people's opinions and beliefs to get what they want. So does the fact that someone believes what the con artist says, or hold an opinions created by the con artist make that belief or opinions true? No of course not. Thus, if something is an opinion or a belief, it doesn't make it true.

 

What has been asked is evidence to support your beliefs. that is, why do you think they are true.

 

this seems to be a common event when religious people are asked why they think their religion is true, they just relate some opinion they have about how the world could not exist without a creator (usually by quoting something from their religious text).

 

Dovada, do your reputation a favour, stop posting. They say that you are preaching (even though they're doing the same thing), so stop, you are not going to convince them, unless you get "hard evidence". Therefore, everytime that you find some good evidence, post it in my "Christian evidence" topic, that I will make tomarrow.

As there is a rule on the forum that each and everyone of us accepted to use this forum that says that preaching is not allowed, then everybody must apply by those rules.

 

it is like driving a car. Driving a car is not a right, it is something granted to you when you agree to abide by the rules of that particular country for driving a car. If you break those laws, you get punished (eg: you licence taken off you - which I suppose is like getting banned from the forum).

 

Now, as I stated earlier, just stating something does not make it true. You have stated (accused actually) of people here Preaching and not being reprimanded for it. If you could point out exactly where this occurred, then the moderators (I am sure) will take these accusations seriously and apply the rules fairly and equally to all.

 

Think of this like in a court. You, by stating that infractions have occurred have made accusations that have consequences. If you have evidence that the rules have been broken, and that you feel that justice must be served, then take this through the proper channels and get action taken on it. If however, this was a poor attempt as trying to ridicule people and to make justify your rejection of the evidence, then you probably wouldn't want to actually pursue it in case you are wrong and embarrass yourself.

 

I shall do the same. Atheists, I recommend making "Athiest evidence" topic.

Ok, if you make that thread I will respond with my evidence. But, the question is, will you reject the evidence because it doesn't agree with you, or will you accept the evidence if it is shown to be correct. In other words, are you here for discussion and learning, or are you here to preach.

[Tres Juicy]

...why do choose to teach your kids what you can't answer, because then it is not true.

 

 

I would rather admit that I don't know the answer than make up a fairy tale

[Moontanman]

 

 

I think creatation has a lot to religion.

 

 

 

 

What does this reply mean njaohnt?

[njaohnt]

It is evidence! Think about its history.

The Bible is said to have been found in scrolls near and in Isreal. There is no way that it has come from different scrolls all over the place, yet don't deny each other, if they weren't God-breathed, so they must have been…

The only arguments to that are.

1. They didn't find the scrolls, they made it up.

Would you write over 770 000 words just for the fun of making people believe false things?

2. They found the scrolls, but they changed it along the way.

Again, would you write out that many words, in hundreds of copies to trick someone, and for no other reason?

 

More evidence? The people translating, and copying the Bible were punished, and often killed. That's worth a trick?

 

Also, though the Bible's many copies almost all got burned, not all ever got burned. That's not God's protection?

 

Maybe you don't believe their history, but that is no better than believing these atheist scientists.

You say that they have evidence, but have you done their experiments? Why believe them? The Earth could be flat, I don't think it is, but I haven't done experiments to figure that out.

 

No, it was in this topic.

 

 

 

[Moontanman]

No, it was in this topic.

 

 

Repeating that stuff doesn't make it true njaohnt, the flaws in all of it have already been pointed out to you many times.

[Tres Juicy]

It is evidence! Think about its history.

The Bible is said to have been found in scrolls near and in Isreal. There is no way that it has come from different scrolls all over the place, yet don't deny each other, if they weren't God-breathed, so they must have been…

The only arguments to that are.

 

This is crap

 

1. They didn't find the scrolls, they made it up.

Would you write over 770 000 words just for the fun of making people believe false things?

 

Power and control. Look at the power it has over you

 

2. They found the scrolls, but they changed it along the way.

Again, would you write out that many words, in hundreds of copies to trick someone, and for no other reason?

 

Power and control

 

More evidence? The people translating, and copying the Bible were punished, and often killed. That's worth a trick?

 

Also, though the Bible's many copies almost all got burned, not all ever got burned. That's not God's protection?

 

Maybe you don't believe their history, but that is no better than believing these atheist scientists.

You say that they have evidence, but have you done their experiments? Why believe them? The Earth could be flat, I don't think it is, but I haven't done experiments to figure that out.

 

 

crap

[Klaynos]

!

Moderator Note

It is not very conducive to a good argument to call something crap without explanation. Even if to you it is self evident. Although I do seem to recall that issues have been brought up with this above. I would propose that the poster who quoted his earlier post review the replies to his original post before further comment.

[Edtharan]

It is evidence! Think about its history.

The Bible is said to have been found in scrolls near and in Isreal. There is no way that it has come from different scrolls all over the place, yet don't deny each other, if they weren't God-breathed, so they must have been…

The only arguments to that are.

1. They didn't find the scrolls, they made it up.

Would you write over 770 000 words just for the fun of making people believe false things?

Me personally, no. My ethics prohibit me from doing such things. However, to give you perspective, the work of fiction known as "Lord of the Rings", has over 500,000 words in it. (There are probably some people who might believe that it is real). If you take all the works of JRR Tolkien then there would be will over 800,000 words he has written.

 

But lets look at yourself. If you wrote on average 1,000 words a day, it would only take you 770 days to reach the amount of words you have used as the example.

 

1,000 words a day might sound like a lot, but in this post I have already written 110 words (not counting numbers) and this only took me around 2 minutes to do. this means 1,000 words should only take me around 20 minutes to write the 1,000 words.

 

Or to put it another way the 770,00 words would only take me around 10 days of continuous work.

 

hmm, only 10 days. not a lot is it. If I wanted to fool people, that is not a lot of effort is it.

 

2. They found the scrolls, but they changed it along the way.

Again, would you write out that many words, in hundreds of copies to trick someone, and for no other reason?

You have made one big logical fallacy here (and above), you have assumed that the only reason that someone would write something that is not true is because they want to fool people. These people believed in what they were writing, but belief does not make something true.

 

If I was to believe you owed me a million dollars, would that be enough to make it true? No. If it did, then you would owe me one million dollars (so if you think just belieing something to be true makes it so, then pay up ).

 

Also, though the Bible's many copies almost all got burned, not all ever got burned. That's not God's protection?

There are books about gods other then the Christian god that have survived for a much longer time, does this mean that these gods are real and that it was the protection of those gods that allowed the documents to survive?

 

Now, if you believe that only the power of a god could allow such delicate documents to survive for such a long time, and that it is evidence for that god, then since these documents pre-date the Christian ones, then this is proof that these are true gods (and where does that leave Christianity that claims only 1 god is real?)

 

So, if you think your claim here is true, then this is evidence against Christianity, however, if you acknowledge that it is possible for documents to survive that long without the need for a god to intervene, then your argument is proven false.

 

In other words, this "evidence" does not support you at all (and at worst, disproves your beliefs).

 

Maybe you don't believe their history, but that is no better than believing these atheist scientists.

No, not at all. Not even in the slightest. Archaeology is a science, and that means that any claim made by archaeologists is subject to being disproved.

 

Science works by people proposing an Hypothesis to explain the current evidence. This hypothesis is then tested to make sure it does explain the current evidence.

 

Next, the peers of the scientists are then tested to see if they predict anything, and that any new data matches these predictions.

 

religion does the opposite. It come with a series of statements (the beliefs of the followers) and they hold these statements to be true regardless of whether or not they match reality (look at Galileo for an example of how Christianity has done this).

 

You say that they have evidence, but have you done their experiments? Why believe them? The Earth could be flat, I don't think it is, but I haven't done experiments to figure that out.

I have does the experiments to determine the Earth is round and not flat. I don't take such things at face value. Of course, I can't do every experiment, but I try to learn the basic principals (and test them if I can), and then work out if the new information fits with these basic principals.

 

I look to see if the theory is, in principal, falsifiable. Also, I look to see if the theories are peer reviewed and that they have had rigorous testing done on them.

 

basically, whoever is making the claim about a particular theory must provide evidence to support that claim, and show that it can stand up to the test of many people (some with a vested interest in disproving the new theory) trying to disprove it.

 

As it was said in the Sherlock Holmes books: When you remove all that is can not be true, what you are left with, no matter how unlikely, must be the truth.

 

This is actually the fundamental reason why science works: They work hard to remove what is not true.

 

Religion, on the other hand punishes those that question the status quo, the ones that try to "remove all that is can not be true".

[imatfaal]

It is evidence! Think about its history.

The Bible is said to have been found in scrolls near and in Isreal. There is no way that it has come from different scrolls all over the place, yet don't deny each other, if they weren't God-breathed, so they must have been…

The only arguments to that are.

1. They didn't find the scrolls, they made it up.

Would you write over 770 000 words just for the fun of making people believe false things?

2. They found the scrolls, but they changed it along the way.

Again, would you write out that many words, in hundreds of copies to trick someone, and for no other reason?

 

More evidence? The people translating, and copying the Bible were punished, and often killed. That's worth a trick?

 

Also, though the Bible's many copies almost all got burned, not all ever got burned. That's not God's protection?

 

Maybe you don't believe their history, but that is no better than believing these atheist scientists.

You say that they have evidence, but have you done their experiments? Why believe them? The Earth could be flat, I don't think it is, but I haven't done experiments to figure that out.

 

To echo Edtharan's point - I have written over 250,000 words trying to persuade people of my point of view on a matter of law which I now no longer think was entirely correct (and which many/most of the members would think was worthless - a post-modernist interpretation of certain areas of law). Now my writing might not have been as poetic as the bible but it was very well referenced and a helluva lot less self-contradictory. 770,000 words, not a problem - especially if I am allowed to tell the same story multiple times. It is quite possible that the original sentiments, the disclaimers, the jokes etc have been lost, misinterpreted, or edited out - but the existence of a large body of work has no bearing on the legitimacy or validity of that work.

 

Your second point raises the question of which translators were killed doing god's work and which doing a false-god's work - because I can assure you it is not just the bible that has lead to problems for translators/publishers etc - in addition to other holy books (what an oxymoron) many secular works have had the same effect on the promulgators. Just out of curiosity when/where have there been mass burning of bibles?

[Tres Juicy]

!

Moderator Note

It is not very conducive to a good argument to call something crap without explanation. Even if to you it is self evident. Although I do seem to recall that issues have been brought up with this above. I would propose that the poster who quoted his earlier post review the replies to his original post before further comment.

 

Sorry, I was pressed for time.

 

I will pick this apart in more detail later

[Moontanman]

I have to ask this, so every time njaohnt drags out his "crap", and I might add the same "crap" every time, we have to go through it point by point to point out how his "crap" isn't evidence? That doesn't seem quite right to me...