|
Joined: Mar 14, 2008
|
Forum Cruiser wrote: <quoted text>
I work along side atheists every day, I know how they think and what makes the wake up it the morning. I really do understand them. My own father was an atheist for most of his life.
Quite simply, you are having a very difficult time accepting the truth. You really should do some introspection as it is clear you are in denial and as a result you are lashing out at people (like myself) that are attempting to shed some light on some very serious issues and potential problems with your belief system. Well, thank you for giving me you Christian view of atheism. You are still displaying a total lack of understanding, but I have learned that it is extremely hard for someone who believes in supernatural explanations to understand the atheistic mindset.(And I resent you arrogance in claiming you do while showing through your posts that you really don't.) Asking for proof of you assertions is not lashing out. You are not shedding light (providing information), you are just making unfounded accusations. You still have not proven any connection between atheism and immoral behavior. You still have not proven that atheism leads to mass killings. Either prove you assertions or retract them.
|
|
Joined: Mar 14, 2008
|
TerryBond wrote: <quoted text>
You still have not proven any connection between atheism and immoral behavior. You still have not proven that atheism leads to mass killings. For the record, most of my friends are Atheists and none of them have killed anyone...that I know of. Yikes! Also, they do charitable works and will be the first to help in a crisis. Just because you don't believe in God does not mean you don't believe in helping your fellow humans.
|
|
Joined: Mar 14, 2008
|
Forum Cruiser wrote: <quoted text>
The experiment was conducted by a very competent neuroscientist and so far even others in the field have not come out and criticized it. But have any other scientists come out to SUPPORT it? If so, please name them. I don't doubt that the numbers are real. There is brain activity there, yes, I see that. The mind is very complex, and we each live in our own little reality within our own little minds. The nuns believe they have been taken over by something larger than them. Okay fine. You can say that about Buddhist monks too. I had a friend who had been practicing Transcendental Meditation for 20 years, and he often "saw" and "felt" something larger than him, but he still didn't believe in God or the afterlife. Dr. Beauregard's own paper states in the first paragraph: "The external reality of 'God' can neither be confirmed nor disconfirmed by delineating the neural correlates of RSMEs (religious/spiritual/mystical experiences)." Even his own paper states the results are inconclusive. Science has not validated the supernatural...yet.
|
|
Joined: Mar 14, 2008
|
Forum Cruiser wrote: <quoted text>
attempting to shed some light on some very serious issues and potential problems with your belief system. What are these "problems", might I ask?
|
|
“Ex nihilo nihil fit”
Joined: Mar 4, 2007
Middle America
|
Dr Sausage wrote: <quoted text>
For the record, most of my friends are Atheists and none of them have killed anyone...that I know of. Yikes! Also, they do charitable works and will be the first to help in a crisis. Just because you don't believe in God does not mean you don't believe in helping your fellow humans. And, I never said that...
|
|
“Ex nihilo nihil fit”
Joined: Mar 4, 2007
Middle America
|
Dr Sausage wrote: <quoted text>
But have any other scientists come out to SUPPORT it? If so, please name them.
I don't doubt that the numbers are real. There is brain activity there, yes, I see that. The mind is very complex, and we each live in our own little reality within our own little minds. The nuns believe they have been taken over by something larger than them. Okay fine. You can say that about Buddhist monks too. I had a friend who had been practicing Transcendental Meditation for 20 years, and he often "saw" and "felt" something larger than him, but he still didn't believe in God or the afterlife.
Dr. Beauregard's own paper states in the first paragraph:
"The external reality of 'God' can neither be confirmed nor disconfirmed by delineating the neural correlates of RSMEs (religious/spiritual/mystical experiences)."
Even his own paper states the results are inconclusive. Science has not validated the supernatural...yet. I also have stated that Dr. Beauregard did not claim his experiment proves God exists. H Clearly his experiment prove God exists especially as we perceive God. The supernatural is not necessarily as we see it. If we actually do have a soul (or spirit) that is a very real part of us and Dr. Beauregard has captured this, then it may no longer be considered supernatural.
|
|
“Ex nihilo nihil fit”
Joined: Mar 4, 2007
Middle America
|
I meant to say above "Clearly his experiment does not prove God exists expecially as we perceive God."
|
|
“Ex nihilo nihil fit”
Joined: Mar 4, 2007
Middle America
|
Dr Sausage wrote: <quoted text>
What are these "problems", might I ask? The potential for the disregard of any set standards or norms that one must live their life by. It is also a problem when atheists attempt to elevate themselves above others as they claim they are just to complicated for the simpleminded to understand. Or possibly that those that refuse to understand them are diabolical. There is very evident narcissism that I find disturbing~~just as disturbing as it would be for a person of faith to be running around here claiming to be morally, ethically, and intellectually superior to everyone that does not hold their world view. I made it very, very clear that I was making what appeared to be blanket statements about atheists but realized they did not apply to all who considered themselves atheists and likely did not apply to those in this forum. Like it or not, Hitler used the concepts inherent in Darwinism to justify his “final solution” and those around him were just as zealous as him to implement his vision of a world where the state was god. In this forum you have read one post after another highlighting this (most not posted by me) and I cannot be held responsible if you just refuse to accept the truth. Obviously, I am not speaking to just you.
|
|
|
|
“Ex nihilo nihil fit”
Joined: Mar 4, 2007
Middle America
|
A good example of atheists in their natural environment: http://members.aol.com/porchnus/dict01.htm http://boards.cannabis.com/spirituality/86919... Then you wonder why I see danger inherent in atheism??
|
|
Joined: Mar 14, 2008
|
Forum Cruiser wrote: <quoted text>
It is also a problem when atheists attempt to elevate themselves above others as they claim they are just to complicated for the simpleminded to understand. Or possibly that those that refuse to understand them are diabolical. There is very evident narcissism that I find disturbing~~just as disturbing as it would be for a person of faith to be running around here claiming to be morally, ethically, and intellectually superior to everyone that does not hold their world view.
I made it very, very clear that I was making what appeared to be blanket statements about atheists but realized they did not apply to all who considered themselves atheists and likely did not apply to those in this forum. 1. No one ever claimed that atheism was complicated. But you have repeatedly displayed that you feel "intellectually superior" and already know more about my position than I do. 2. When you generalize and claim that atheism leads to immorality and killing, you are claiming to be morally and ethically superior. You still have not providd any proof for you blanket accusations that atheists are immoral nor that atheism leads to mass murder. Are you ready to retract those hate statements yet?
|
|
Joined: Mar 14, 2008
|
Forum Cruiser wrote: <quoted text>
I also have stated that Dr. Beauregard did not claim his experiment proves God exists. H
Clearly his experiment prove God exists especially as we perceive God.
The supernatural is not necessarily as we see it. If we actually do have a soul (or spirit) that is a very real part of us and Dr. Beauregard has captured this, then it may no longer be considered supernatural. What then did you hope to gain by showing me this experiment by Dr. Beauregard? What are your interpretations of the experiment? Also, I found an interesting interview with Dr. Beauregard. Here's an excerpt: Q: Are spiritual experiences delusions created by a misfiring brain? A: No. There is no God spot in the brain. Spiritual experiences are complex, like intense experiences with other human beings. There is, however, a mystical state of experience that is not quite the same thing as an emotional state. That does not prove that the mystic contacts something outside herself, but it is consistent with it. http://www.harpercollins.com/author/authorExt...
|
|
Joined: Mar 14, 2008
|
Forum Cruiser wrote: <quoted text>
The potential for the disregard of any set standards or norms that one must live their life by. I think you can easily say that about any person who lives outside your own personal circle of morality.
|
|
Joined: Mar 14, 2008
|
Forum Cruiser wrote: <quoted text>
...Like it or not, Hitler used the concepts inherent in Darwinism to justify his “final solution” and those around him were just as zealous as him to implement his vision of a world where the state was god. In this forum you have read one post after another highlighting this (most not posted by me) and I cannot be held responsible if you just refuse to accept the truth. Obviously, I am not speaking to just you. Eugenics is not now or ever related to natural selection. Eugenics is artificial selection requiring a controlling authority (an intelligent designer), whereas natural selection proves that nature needs no controlling authority. These concepts are at opposite ends of the spectrum. In this forum you have read one post after another highlighting this (most not posted by me) but it seems that you are too close-minded to see the falacy of your argument.
|
|
Alan
|
Judged:
1
1
Stuart Weinstein wrote: <quoted text>
No it is not.
The only thing here that is blind and undirected is your scientifically illiterate mind.
Mutation is random. Selection is not. Standards have hit an all time low when I have to spoon feed a Darwinist about basic principles of their faith. Random mutation is the sole creative force in Darwinian evolution. Random means blind and undirected (unless you believe that an intelligent designer is causing the mutations). Darwinism is fundamentally blind and undirected whether or not the oafish mechanism of natural selection is operating. Go and ask one of your better informed atheist pals if you don't believe me. Stuart Weinstein wrote: Engineers use selection in computer simulations to generate novel solutions to problems that they "intelligent designers" cannot solve.
They use random numbers (mutation) and selection.
More below. The fallacy here is not very deep but it has to be nailed down. Did the computers and software programmes used to solve those difficult problems appear by a blind undirected Darwinian process or were they constructed and meticulously programmed to the last detail with an end purpose in mind by intelligent designers? Did the programme decide what useful result to look for or was it the scientists who decided. When the design phase is complete, will the product manufacture itself in a Darwinian manner, or will it require a factory set up by intelligent human agents. This is an example of Darwinist writing high tech articles to bamboozle their readership with fallacious bullshit. The argument you gave is one for intelligent design, not Darwinism. To be fair though, a lot of people fall for it.
|
|
Wayne
|
TerryBond wrote: <quoted text>
Again, wrong. Atheism is not a claim of "no god". It is a position that belief in invisible supernatural explanations is unreasonable.
Therefore, since you are making the positive claim of existence, it is encumbent on you to provide proof. Ya know something? I don't think YOU even know what atheism is.
|
|
Wayne
|
Dennis2 wrote: <quoted text>
That's why I'm agnostic. I can't say for absolute certain that there is no god of some sort or another. However, YOU have zero evidence that there is one, especially one specifically as YOU choose to imagine it to be. In the unlikely event that there is a god, the odds that it is anything like the one you imagine is essentially nil. Wrong. There IS a God and He reveals Himself in Scripture. ANYONE can read it for themselves. And believe it or not. And don't take mans word for it. If you are an agnostic shut out other peoples opinions and let God Himself guide you through His word.
|
|
Wayne
|
Dennis2 wrote: <quoted text>
That's why I'm agnostic. I can't say for absolute certain that there is no god of some sort or another. However, YOU have zero evidence that there is one, especially one specifically as YOU choose to imagine it to be. In the unlikely event that there is a god, the odds that it is anything like the one you imagine is essentially nil. And don't use the weak argument that the bible is written by man. Of COURSE it is, EVERY BOOK in the WORLD is written by man. Or woman. The difference is, the bible is God Breathed, The Spirit of God INSPIRED man what to write in the pages of the bible.
|
|
Joined: Mar 14, 2008
|
Wayne wrote: <quoted text>
Ya know something? I don't think YOU even know what atheism is. Go read "Why I am Not a Christian" by Bertrand Russell or "Natural Atheism" by David Eller before you comment on things you don't understand.
|
|
“Dor sho gha!”
Joined: Apr 23, 2008
|
Judged:
1
Wayne wrote: <quoted text>
Wrong. There IS a God and He reveals Himself in Scripture. ANYONE can read it for themselves. And believe it or not. And don't take mans word for it. If you are an agnostic shut out other peoples opinions and let God Himself guide you through His word. Give 'em hell, Wayne!
|
|
Joined: Mar 14, 2008
|
Alan wrote: <quoted text>
Standards have hit an all time low when I have to spoon feed a Darwinist about basic principles of their faith.
Random mutation is the sole creative force in Darwinian evolution. Random means blind and undirected (unless you believe that an intelligent designer is causing the mutations).
Darwinism is fundamentally blind and undirected whether or not the oafish mechanism of natural selection is operating. Go and ask one of your better informed atheist pals if you don't believe me.
... 1. Atheism and evolution are not related concepts. Notre Dame and Baylor University have both stated unwavering support for evolutionary biology. 2. Modern evolutionary concepts are not referred to as "Darwinism", although "Neo-Darwinism" is marginally acceptable. 3. Stuart Weinstein is right, Mutation is random. Selection is not. PLEASE read some actual scientific information on evolution and quite trying to parrot creationist's web sites.
|
Judge it!
Most Popular
