Evolution- A Fairy Tale for Grown-ups

reply to post by Conspiriology


I'm arguing from logic. I have evidence supporting my case. Evidence that is independently verifiable. I have not leapt to any assumptions. Nowhere in my reasoning is any circular self-validating logic.

You, however, have been taught about the bible at some point, and are now trying to shoe-horn it into your view of the world. Believing must mean so much to you, if you are willing to stop being a fully-functioning human being, and to reject that part of your brain that deals with reason.

Trying to say the different sides of this discussion are somehow equal is pathetic. They are not. They are not even close. Just because you can phrase something in the form of a question does not a valid question make. The sooner you realise you are the intellectual discussion's version of Chuck-E-Cheese the better.

Originally posted by dave420


I'm arguing from logic. I have evidence supporting my case. Evidence that is independently verifiable. I have not leapt to any assumptions. Nowhere in my reasoning is any circular self-validating logic.

Logic? You are arguing from logic? You think this so called evidence you have supporting your Atheistic motives for continuing the advancement of your Religion of Atheism is logic has not succumb to your own personal Bias and choosing evidence that has historically been the product of BS BUNK and JUNK Science? Desperate Evolutionists making up more "stuff" more fluff and more lies is what you believe and I don't care what pretty words you dress up your posts with, or how many the numbers or how big the size of the evidence is.

My experience with you Atheists is they allow the most questionably suspicious artifacts as evidence. They allow a lattitude for their evidence that goes beyond any a reasonable scientist would allow, consequently the evidence gets debunked a LOT. From feathers to dinosaurs which has again been found as more bunk to the latest "transitional" forms. Talk about using a shoe horn.

My experience with Atheists is they assume they know more about Science when they do NOT.

My experience with Atheists is they RUN from logic for whenever pure logic is used in the remote probabilities of such constructs of our existence as molecules to man evolution, it just doesn't add up (no pun) and they can't seem to help me with the math.

My experience with Atheists is not to argue with them about religion but just destroy their phony theory. That, thank the lord, has been relatively easy to do and gets easier all the time.

You, however, have been taught about the bible at some point, and are now trying to shoe-horn it into your view of the world.

Yes I have read the Bible and what is so amazing is how damn accurate that bronze age old book is.

Believing must mean so much to you, if you are willing to stop being a fully-functioning human being, and to reject that part of your brain that deals with reason.

Dave I tire of your atheist tactical ad-hom insults whether you read that in a Atheist publication or not it really offers nothing but a reason I shouldn't take you serious. If you must say words to the effect I have chosen some form of self retardation inlieu of a more rational, reasonable explanation, (YOURS) than just say it like you mean it and quit being so timid hiding behind such vague analogies. I would much rather you just say " I choose to think like a retarded idiot than to agree with your staggering intellectually superior access to the human brain.

The sooner you realise you are the intellectual discussion's version of Chuck-E-Cheese the better.

Dave, if I am the Chuck Cheese of the intellectual discussion, than you are the one who can't have an intellectual discussion without calling people names or casting childish adject anecdotal aspersions on others adding so much less to the level of intelligence I have no reason to think I'm even in an intelligent discussion but rather think I am in the presence of some mouthy 5th grade kid I am chaperone to on a field trip at Chucky Cheese.

Just because you can phrase something in the form of a question does not a valid question make.

Well Dave, that's the difference between you and I.

You see I believe their is only one kind of question that can be called "dumb" or "stupid" or "invalid".

That question is the one that goes

un-asked

- Con

I never said that science didn't have a bit of logic behind it, and even some limited legitimate evidence. But it's pretty clear that in comparison to real ancient knowledge(and I'm talking about the knowledge of how the universe works and natural universal principles, not religion, rituals, or the bible. I'm talking about true univeral principles and undeniable facts, things like the name of God, the I Ching, buddhism etc.) that science is little kids stuff. Science is like a blind man poking and prodding around in the dark whereas the ancient people could achieve enlightenment and NDE's, so they had seen all things in the universe, and things way beyond what microscopes or telescopes can see.

It's obvious here though that some people try to make science into an atheistic materialistic worldview rather than use it for what it is, just simply a tool. But a tool is only as useful as the mentality of the person using it.

It's like this, if we want to know the ultimate truth value of an idea, if we truly want to know if an idea is correct, we look at the results it will have. If believing in something has bad effects, we can be sure the idea is not true. If it has good effects, then we know the idea is true. So if you try to use science but are a materialists atheist all your theories will be wrong and all your interpretations of data will always be wrong, you can't get around it.

It's pretty funny also that an atheist would bring up "Shoe horning" , since that's what atheism is, shoe horning scientific data to fit a materialistic worldview. Almost all scientific theories are simply garbage and have been shoe horned to fit with human ideas. A scientific theory is basically by definition, the shoe horning of data into a scientific worldview. Basically scientists should just stick to what they are qualified to do, collect data and nothing more. As soon as the "theorizing" starts, then we're just talking crap and nonsense. An ordinary human is not capable of theorizing, no matter the data.

[edit on 18-6-2008 by Hollywood11]

Creationism is the fairy tale. Evolution has physical facts. Creationism has nothing.

In the end both are equally wrong.

Originally posted by Hollywood11
But it's pretty clear that in comparison to real ancient knowledge(and I'm talking about the knowledge of how the universe works and natural universal principles, not religion, rituals, or the bible. I'm talking about true univeral principles and undeniable facts, things like the name of God, the I Ching, buddhism etc.) that science is little kids stuff.

What is real ancient knowledge? Are we talking about one religions idea of God, or the various theories on how the Egyptians built the pyramids? The concept of Nirvana or the legends of giant people? What knowledge are you claiming to have from being exposed to these religions or schools of thought?

Science may just be kids stuff, but it’s provided you with a means to have this conversation. What has religion or philosophy given us in terms technology? I’m not saying that religion or philosophy hasn’t benefited us in some way, but to just dismiss science as kid’s stuff is absurd. Go live in the outback for a while if you don’t appreciate what science has done for you.

Science is like a blind man poking and prodding around in the dark whereas the ancient people could achieve enlightenment and NDE's, so they had seen all things in the universe, and things way beyond what microscopes or telescopes can see.

Yeah science is like that,so what? It’s called discovery and learning. I much rather admit that I don’t know everything and set out to learn more, than just accept some other dudes claim that he knows everything. Because it never takes long to find out that he doesn’t. If these people were so smart and so advanced, how the hell did we get where we are now?Somewhere along the line people started putting their faith in science and less in God. If they hadn’t, we’d still be living in a world like the one those books were written in. Instead of praying real hard to heal their sick friend, they said hmm maybe we better try and figure this out ourselves because the God of the week is too busy to help out. Instead of making sacrifices to bring favorable weather, they figured out that weather was cyclical and adjusted accordingly. Where religious ideas failed to produce favorable results, science stepped in. Yes, in medieval days, the application of herbs and medicine probably couldn’t be considered science by todays standards. But it laid the groundwork, and was the beginning of science.

.

It's like this, if we want to know the ultimate truth value of an idea, if we truly want to know if an idea is correct, we look at the results it will have. If believing in something has bad effects, we can be sure the idea is not true. If it has good effects, then we know the idea is true.

Hmm so all the religions must be wrong then. In some way, way shape or form those things have all led to “bad effects”.Not to mention, good and bad effects are relative, as is the notion of true and false.

So if you try to use science but are a materialists atheist all your theories will be wrong and all your interpretations of data will always be wrong, you can't get around it.

Wow you’re just gonna come out and tell someone they will always be wrong, because of a belief in something that has nothing to do with science. That’s pretty bold, please share this ancient knowledge that give’s you the confidence to juts make a blanket assertion about millions of people.

It's pretty funny also that an atheist would bring up "Shoe horning" , since that's what atheism is, shoe horning scientific data to fit a materialistic worldview. Almost all scientific theories are simply garbage and have been shoe horned to fit with human ideas. A scientific theory is basically by definition, the shoe horning of data into a scientific worldview. Basically scientists should just stick to what they are qualified to do, collect data and nothing more. As soon as the "theorizing" starts, then we're just talking crap and nonsense. An ordinary human is not capable of theorizing, no matter the data.

Like I said earlier, if you don’t appreciate what all the garbage scientific theories have provided for you, go try hanging out on a deserted island for a while. FYI Atheism has nothing to do with any shoehorning of science. Any Atheist who uses science exclusively to justify his belief is missing the bigger picture. Science can help, but personally it’s not required.

Originally posted by Gigatronix


What has religion or philosophy given us in terms technology? I’m not saying that religion or philosophy hasn’t benefited us in some way, but to just dismiss science as kid’s stuff is absurd. Go live in the outback for a while if you don’t appreciate what science has done for you.

umm religion gave us Science people seem to forget that. They also seem to think because we have a problem Darwinism we have a problem with Science. Darwinism has nothing to do with Science but has a LOT to do with atheism and why you see so many arguments on this subject.

We think Science would get along just fine without TOE. Just look at history Gig,, Hell most of Darwins early supporters till his death were Christians. Science and Religion were always good to each other and many grants other resources many in Science enjoy come from religious organizations. It's when a "movement" of rabid Atheists USING a phoney theory to advance Atheism we have a problem with and we always will as long as their is a Christian left on earth or any pagan that believes we came about as a result of an ET. They too would like to explore that avenue of research without Atheists calling them Christians.

If you notice Wraoth ascendent would side with us many times for that reason and although we had that difference he objected to Atheists calling Darwininian evolution a Science also. It isn't Science shoe horning anything it is Atheists Darwinists the TOE. You can thank western Civilization to Cristianity Gig but I doubt many Atheists would agree. They can come up with all sorts of reasons as I could against Science. Science has brought us so many things that have been bad from the Atomic Bomb to the cancers we get from products Science has brought about.

We take the good with the bad in all things.

You will come to know God Gig

I don't know when but

you will

- Con

Originally posted by Conspiriology

umm religion gave us Science people seem to forget that.

Please elaborate on this one for me Con. And just so you know, I don't consider a Christian scientist to be a form of religion giving us science.The rest of your post is all fine and good,however I don't concern myself with Darwinists or Atheist movements. It's all political maneuvering and I have no use for it. Again, if you can show me something scientific that is a direct result of religious influence I will concede that it is so, however my point still stands, dismissing science as a key component in our progress as humans is absurd.

You will come to know God Gig

I appreciate your thoughtfulness there Con, I know you mean well. My personal feeling is, if I were to come to know God, he would forgive me for not believing. I have been a good person my whole life, been good to my fellow man and good to even my enemies. Not to mention, how could he blame me for not buying into the corrupt shell game that is organized religion? I do not deny the existence of God out of spite or selfishness, only because I have yet to see a theory that is not self serving to human interests and so obviously designed for a an elite few.

Originally posted by Gigatronix

You will come to know God Gig

I appreciate your thoughtfulness there Con, I know you mean well. My personal feeling is, if I were to come to know God, he would forgive me for not believing. I have been a good person my whole life, been good to my fellow man and good to even my enemies. Not to mention, how could he blame me for not buying into the corrupt shell game that is organized religion? I do not deny the existence of God out of spite or selfishness, only because I have yet to see a theory that is not self serving to human interests and so obviously designed for a an elite few.

Wow, Gig,, this is going to be a long one I'm afraid.

So much of what you just said is true and believe me I too know that religion has failed in so many many ways. I expected you to say pretty much what you said regarding you coming to know God one day and I still maintain that you will. Call it intuition call it a gut feeling but I am not alone as a Christian who has said this about you. In fact many of us will not argue with you like other Atheists for that very reason.

It's like someone telling me "Back off that one, I am still working on them" I have even sent u2u's to other Christians telling them to show a little more respect for you just because I think the lord is telling me he wants that one. So if it is important to him, it is important to me and it should be to those I have written too also.

Of course I don't expect you to understand that and am patient that someday you will. If I can be a link in that chain of Christians that assist in that process I am honored to do it. Seems I work alone these days so I am still waiting to find out somethings about my own Christian walk.

Dawkins himself says "that we live in a universe which has no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference"

atheist, Professor William Provine, Cornell University, said,

"There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either"


If my discernment is coming from the holy spirit then I have wasted no time or embarrassment telling you what I think the lord is saying to me regarding you nor would I be offended if you told me I was nuts. It wouldn't be the first time and far be it from the last I'm sure.

I hear you when you say what kind of God would let such bad take place in the world. I know no one suffers more than God, seeing the aweful things man who has chosen a life seprate from God would perpetrate on his crowning creation. You might ask why he doesn't just make us love him or show himself. All very good questions but love doesn't force relationships and God doesn't either. If you were to ask why doesn't he just come here in some form of flesh we can all relate to. I would say he already did in the man Jesus Christ who had performed so many miracles over the laws of physics and nature to prove who he was yet man still did not believe.

Would it really make any difference if he came today?

What kind of tricks would we have him do this time?

What kind of lab rat would he be kept as by the military complex?

Would Atheists change their minds then and would God know they love him because he is God only because he is but not of their choice?

The way to have proof of his existence is explicitly given in the Bible and you do it HIS way or no way or, it's yahweh or the highway. It isn't a lot to ask coming from someone who gave you the life you enjoy now and sent his son to die for you to bridge that gulf between you and God.

Life was given to you free so it doesn't owe anyone a dime much less asking the one who gave it to us to perform stupid pet tricks to prove it.

The moment I felt him after asking for his forgiveness I felt so stupid an ashamed of all the things I thought and said to disparage him before. Even that was quickly forgiven.

One must come as a child without pre-conceived notions or ideas and only ask him to come into your heart and become your lord and savior. The part about coming as a child rather than a skeptic simply means innocent like a child is worthy of love unassuming and without any learned prejudice. I think events in your life will bring you to that point and it is then you will remember this post and that I was right if you chose to accept his invitation.

If the lord didn't want you Gig,, I doubt I'd be wasting my time talking to an atheist like this, as you know they aren't my favorite people.

As for what Christianity has done for the good of mankind?

So why should it matter whether people believe in God or don’t believe in God?

To me, Dawkins seems quite insecure in his stance as he feels the need to convince others to join him. On the other hand, Christians try to convince others of the rightness of the gospel because they believe that people, made in the image of God, have an eternal destiny and without Christ they face a truly bleak future.

Oh, yes, Dawkins, to try to justify his ‘crusade’, does argue that ‘religion’ (i.e. Christianity) is bad for society. But this flies in the face of the history of his own country, which flowered because of the Reformation and the Great Awakening. The latter spared Britain the horrors of Robespièrre’s deism/atheism-inspired bloodbath of the French Revolution, which was hardly ‘humane’ (a word used repeatedly in the Humanist Manifesto III), and engulfed Robespièrre himself. It is also why slavery, a blot on humanity that permeated the entire world, was first abolished by British evangelical Christians like Wilberforce, in the face of pro-slavery opposition that told him to leave religion out of politics.8 Indeed, Dawkins has recently grudgingly implicitly admitted that Christianity has permeated his country’s culture, calling himself a cultural Christian.

We could also mention the 200 million cost in human lives and untold suffering due to the atheism-inspired political movements of the last century: Communism and Nazism. Also, evolutionary ideas inspired the more recent teenage mass murderers such as Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, and Pekka-Eric Auvinen.9 Is Dawkins so ignorant of history that he really thinks we would all be better off if we were all atheists? No, I don’t believe so; he is quite well read.

And what does it matter anyway to a real atheist if we would be better off or worse off? In the end we are only a fluky arrangement of atoms that will end up being plant food!

creationontheweb.com...

Sir Arthur Keith was a British anthropologist, an atheistic evolutionist and an anti-Nazi, but he drew this chilling conclusion:

‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’

We believe their is much more to life than an Atheists blunt world view

Evolution = atheism, no purpose
Dr William B. Provine, Professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell University

‘Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear … There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.’

If their is no ultimate foundation for ethics then what about morality?

It seems what people are learning in Schools today are showing up in their actions as well.

‘If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s the point of trying to modify your behaviour to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing…’

Jeffrey Dahmer, in an interview with Stone Phillips, Dateline NBC, Nov. 29, 1994.

TextHow Christianity helped us think straight

It is something that many secularists really don't want to admit but modern science grew out of Christianity. This is a subject that utterly fascinates me even to the extent of my wanting to research it if ever I get back to university. As a physicist I have been able to appreciate the enormous 'beauty of the spheres'. The derivation of the laws of thermodynamics from the first principals of statistical mechanics beats any poem. Where did these fantastic ideas come from?

The size of the subject precludes a full discussion here so I'll have a look at one very specific point that illustrates the general point.

The question concerns why the ancient Greeks failed to build on the fantastic legacy of Athens and so reach technological take off. And why did the Christian civilization of Western Europe manage it? The Greeks had the time - from Alexander's conquests to the Moslem invasions they were basically undisturbed for a thousand years. They also had the brains. Even if the Hellenistic Greeks produced no Socrates or Plato, the names of Galen, Archimedes and Ptolemy aren't those we associate with dunces. They had the ideas. Whether it is Aristarchus and his heliocentric cosmology, Eratrosthenes getting to within 50 miles of the earth's diameter or the Pre Socratic atomists, the Greeks thought of everything. And they had the mathematics - basically the same maths that Newton had. We know that a primitive steam engine was invented in Alexandria but things went no further.

Why not?

To understand we have to look at the way the Greeks thought. At root they saw the universe as big and alien. The most powerful force was Fortune. Even the gods were subject to Her whims. She was fickle and dangerous and to upset Her was foolish indeed. The greatest sin was 'hubris' or false pride. We would call it tempting fate. If this is the way you think, the experimental method is simply not going to appeal. The idea that the universe ran according to strict mathematical rules was just laughable. To even suggest it would attract the beady eye of Fortune.

There were exceptions. The planets were thought to not be of this world and so did run like clockwork. But all their orbits had to be circles as that was the perfect shape. Mathematics itself was something mystical and beyond comprehension.

Hence the Greeks failed to describe the world. Oriental cultures were also dominated by this idea of inescapable fate. Science once again seemed a pointless and dangerous activity.

Enter the Christians, who after a thousand years of barbarian invasions finally managed to achieve some sort of stable (if rather dynamic) civilization in Europe. They didn't see the world in thrall to fickle fortune but governed by a just God. He had given his Law and he kept to it. He was constant and reliable. He could be trusted not to change his mind. It followed that His universe would be the same. It was now worthwhile to find out what the laws it ran by were.

The Byzantines and Moslems provided these Christians with the cream of Greek thought and their greatest minds set to work. St Thomas Aquinas, in his mammoth Summae, explained how the world around us reflected the perfection of God. Roger Bacon gave us the experimental method. The scene was set.

Whether the individual scientist was actually a Christian (and they all were) was irrelevant. The whole Christian worldview was what counted. If you were brought up in it, it defined the way you thought.

The secularist reply that I have heard to this argument is that science was born of brave men fighting the darkness of superstition and having creating something new and unconnected with the religious society around them. I fear that the secularist would rather commit hara-kiri with a particularly blunt knife than admit anything good has come out of religion.

The greatest non Christian scientist before 1900 was Charles Darwin. He proposed the radical idea of natural selection and once more suggested that nature was blind and capricious. It is very possible that his agnosticism as well as his scientific education significantly helped him reach the conclusions that he did. Now we have gone full circle. Even physics, once the home of determinism and purpose in the universe has embraced the randomness of quantum mechanics.

Fortune is once again taking centre stage.
www.bede.org.uk...

I see it often said and embellished the atrocities done in the name of religion and while any good that is done is said to have been done whether they were Christians or not. This is the example Mims often uses as a double standard for Atheism to take no part in any atrocities saying stalin or what genocides were committed against Christians were not done in the name of atheism regardless of the Atheistic dynamics of those regimes. Secondly he would use Bill and Melinda gates as an example of the good Atheists do for charity even when they did not give in the name of Atheism. I find his using only the bad for Chtistianity while crediting NOT the major influences Christians like Newton have made only to call him a heretic as a means to diminish the claim.

He is not a true Atheist gig, he is a "disbeliever" someone who is actively engaged in disbeliving. Their is a difference. You are an "unbeliever" the genuine article of an Atheist not yet one who has sold his soul and under the compelete influence of Satan using the language so easily recognizable by any who have studied the language of circular semantics the language of legion Satan its author. These are the last generations before the fallen come back and they are the generation that will assist the antichrist and why the Church will not reach many in the last days. They have no heart beat no spiritual heartbeat. When you are born again, your eternal life begins that moment, not after you die but right then. The same goes for those who have sold their soul on the internets blaspheme challenge and their soul is dead BANG! Right then and there. They are the spiritually dead, walking zombies who have taken the term Atheist and have been using it as a method of staying under the radar unable to herd like cats, a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby and all the other slogans and mantras they come up with.

Their motives so passionate like our Christianity is to us. What do they care about Christianity? Just look at the websites Gig and read the passionate hatred spewing from their mouths. It is soooo out of synch with reality this isn't about Science it's about GOD and their angst agression isn't REALLY about some Christian shoving anything down their throats, my god really when they get in my face I tell em to flake off and ya know what??

They do.

This kind of hate is embed by the Fallen one and you don't have it.

Yet.

I pray you never do



- Con











[edit on 19-6-2008 by Conspiriology]

Wooo I'm not even gonna try to chop that post up hehe.

Let me let you in on a little secret. I don't need Dawkins, I don't need Hitchins(although I've read one of his books, I actually enjoyed it), I dont need anyone to support my views. I don't have any heroes that get me pumped about what I believe. The closest thing I have to a personal inspiration for Atheism is Stephen King.I read all of his Dark Tower books growing up, and the idea put forth there was so much more liberating and romantic. Now of course I don't base my belief system on a book(how silly would that be [jk hehe])But it opened me up to a whole new way of looking at the world.

We believe their is much more to life than an Atheists blunt world view

Well again, some Atheists have no imagination. Just because there's no God doesn't mean there's no spirituality or cosmic karma or metaphysical transcendant mumbo jumbo.In fact, when you take the God out of the equation all that other stuff comes into clearer focus. Instead of accepting someone else version of spirituality, I chose to discover it myself. It just so happens what I believe is not popular.

Oh let me tell you my ideas on life and death and spirituality and morals and ethics are not dull or blunt. My father worries sometimes about my beliefs. Mainly because he thinks I don't believe we'll see eachother in heaven or the afterlife. I explain to him that I do believe we'll see each other again after death, just not how he thinks. Suffice it to say he was satisfactorily reassured, and he doesn't worry so much. If he does worry it because his own worldview doesn't make him confident enough.

You're right, there is more. I know there is, and I also know according to what I truly believe, we can both be right.

reply to post by Gigatronix


I think what we know about the universe already is fantastically beautiful without having to write "GOD" over it. I don't care if the moment I die I completely cease to exist, never to see a loved one again, as just being in the world long enough to look around for five minutes with those people by my side is staggering, and more than I could ever hope for.

The ultimate and indeed only truth is objectivity. To engage in baseless speculation about what happens after we die is to miss what's happening to us now. I don't need the Bible or David Icke to tell me what's going to happen to me, or how I should act. It's pretty easy to figure out you shouldn't screw other folks over, that you should be as nice to people as you can be, that you should forgive every bad deed, and that you should love everyone and hate no-one.

Originally posted by dave420



I think what we know about the universe already is fantastically beautiful without having to write "GOD" over it.

Why is that Dave? why must it be necessary for you to exclude God?

I don't care if the moment I die I completely cease to exist, never to see a loved one again, as just being in the world long enough to look around for five minutes with those people by my side is staggering, and more than I could ever hope for.

and I'm afraid so little you're willing to die for.

The ultimate and indeed only truth is objectivity.

If Objectivity is the truth, you have to ask yourself, of all the knowledge that can be gained from the Library of congress, how much of that knowledge do you possess now? 50% No I didnt think so, how about 1%? Perhaps in 10 years you could have that much read but you can see how your Objectivity is relative to your frame of referance. That means their are people on this earth, Many Many people who have much better objectivity than you do. Conversely their are many many that have less (believe it or not) Now if ones Objectivity is ultimate truth, then Truth isn't truth at all. The rule of Law would have no stable datum for Justice for Truth could be argued on the premise of ones own objectivity. If you're like most of us, you think you are pretty smart, or at least above average right? You also think you are a "good person" and saying things like:

"It's pretty easy to figure out you shouldn't screw other folks over, that you should be as nice to people as you can be, that you should forgive every bad deed, and that you should love everyone and hate no-one. "

Might be easy to figure out but it isn't easy to say you haven't been less than nice to others or that you don't know anyone that might tell us that you had screwed them or someone they know, over. Or that you have been demonstrative of your love for others.

I guess it all depends on your objectivity but that is another one we all think we are pretty objective about things.

The problem with your philosophy Dave, is that if life is nothing but a brief but wonderful experience you will never know you ever experienced anyway once your dead, then what's the point? What's the point of being nice to anyone ? Everyones has a much differen't perspective to their objectivity so everyone has their own "truth" and many of them will conflict with yours for what ever the reason, making your truth impossible to fulfill in action what you can ONLY say in words.

The only truth you have Dave,,

is death.


- Con


[edit on 22-6-2008 by Conspiriology]

reply to post by Conspiriology


You don't seem to understand what I'm saying. I'm not saying I have to exclude god any more than you have to exclude the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Shiva. I don't need an unknown entity for the universe to make sense to me, or for it to be beautiful and a place of endless wonder.

If you need the promise of everlasting life to make you a nice person, you're not a nice person - you're simply paying God lip service, and you'll be going straight to hell when you die. It's in the bible.

Originally posted by dave420



You don't seem to understand what I'm saying.

mmm You sure about that Dave?

I'm not saying I have to exclude god

I never said you did Dave so it is YOU who is having a problem. Read My post Dave. I asked why you exclude God, NOT who is making you. The fact is YOU DO and all I wanted to know is why that is with you.

If I knew you HAD to I'd have wondered under what kind of coercion are you being subject to.

If you need the promise of everlasting life to make you a nice person, you're not a nice person

Umm?? Other than my not being a nice person, what the hell is this? What does this have to do with my question? Are you being presumptuous again Dave?

- you're simply paying God lip service, and you'll be going straight to hell when you die. It's in the bible.

Oh Ill have to read that book someday

Thanks for the tip Dave

- Con



[edit on 23-6-2008 by Conspiriology]

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by Hollywood11

 

Of course it's the basis of the thread. Don't insult my intelligence. The only people who oppose evolution are not those who have an actual problem with the actual evidence, but those who challenge it because it contradicts what's written in the bible. Baseless attacks on evolution are the result of anyone who's religion claims some other explanation for the species we see - namely fundamental Christians.

Try again.

this entire thread is not a discussion,it could be.now i belive in god because i have felt god,i have heard god,i have been healed by god.there is no scientific explanation for it,imagine that,on the other hand i have no proof,which is why some wont belive me.fine i dont care...i wont push my beliefs on anyone.but to say its ignorant is a slap in the face,and most people would be offended by this.my point is science has no way to prove something they have no idea how to test.sorry but science is not superior to anything.it has its flaws and you cannot PROVE it doesnt.so could we leave it at that and just "shake hands" as stated earlier in this thread.personally i love science,i also love to read the bible,do i believe every word to be true,hell no id ont,its been around along time and it has been changed.thats my 8 dollars.the price of a thought just went up

I love the end of the video in the OP, it's sweet

reply to post by dave420


I have read through a lot of these threads and have noticed your posts quite a lot. I must say you are one of the most dellutional people I have ever heard of. Are you serious or just winding people up?

Where is the masses of evidence for creatures evolving into different types of creatures? Why has no scientist come out and shown it? From what I can see the official evolutionist line is that the process of evolution can not be observed because it takes millions of years. So no one has ever observed any type of creature evolve into another. Even under lab conditions no one has observed any type of creature evolve into another type of creature. You can cross breed as much as you like but you don't create a different type of creature. All according to their kinds.

No doubt you will come out with the same crap that people don't just dont understand evolution like you do. But you don't understand it either, because you can not explain it, no one can. There is not one unified theory of evolution because there is no real scientific laws to back it up. different evolutionists have different beliefs about how things happened as is evidanced by this forum.

reply to post by pureevil81


There is a scientific explanation for it. Don't assume because you don't know that no-one else does. That's the height of arrogance. It is incredibly ignorant to belive in God without evidence. It's ignorant to believe in anything without evidence. And no, your feelings are not evidence. They are easily flawed. Just look at the God helmet - a device that can stimulate the brain into feeling the presence of God or a deceased loved one. It shows the brain is intrinsically capable of creating the feelings that you attribute to god.

Science is a self-correcting methodology. It is a way to gain an impartial, objective view on the world.

So yes, I'm afraid to say it, you are being ignorant.

Not to mention the incredibly obvious clues in the bible that it was written by man as an early attempt to control people without the presence of a police force or legal system.

I guess your desire to believe is greater than your desire to deny ignorance.

Definitely modern science is in it's infancy when it comes to understanding the nature of feilds of energy and vibration.

Originally posted by Hollywood11
But it's pretty obvious by your comments that you follow the Church of Progress religion of atheism which always likes to claim science supports it's worldview even though it doesn't.

Sorry but the scientific/atheist/materialist worldview that has become popular in the last century or so is anything but "logical". It's a belief system that came about for no reason other than to oppose christianity.

Science doesn't support our 'worldview', it supports the truth. Why are creationists so opposed to science which is proven by it's nature to support the truth? Are you afraid of the truth? What it may imply?

5+5=10

That's math. You could say that math does not support our 'view' of how math should be, but that doesn't matter, because math is the container for us to see the aspects of math. Just as science is the 'container' for the reality we see.

You see, your problem (along with most creationists) is to say that science is wrong. The results of science have been proven again and again to be right, just as 5+5=10 has been proven again and again to be right. You don't really have a leg to stand on.

Originally posted by Hollywood11
Both Creationism and all scientific theories are Fairy Tales

The bottom line is that the human mind cannot concieve of a correct theory unless it has undergone a Near Death Experience. So all scientific theories are wrong.

Say what? So you have to see the white light to know the truth? Ever think of questioning the source of that white light? Ever think of doing some research on NDEs? Ever wonder why all NDEs differ and there isn't a common 'truth'?

Don't you see that this is the problem? We can't trust the 'visions' and dreams we have because they are subject to error.
This is the flaw of creationism, and it's a flaw that science does not share.