"I’m saying GOD doesn’t exist!"

Since: Feb 10

Location hidden

#766 Apr 8, 2013
LGK wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you want to believe in God?
Do you want to know the truth instead?

“ IT'S A CHOICE !!!”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#769 Apr 8, 2013
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
I will not be swayed by any thinking that may be described as wishful.
Fire away, though, if you think you've got something.
Okay, I will ask the same question that I asked 'Angel'...

*Do you believe that certain individuals can be filled with the 'Holy Spirit' and speak in tongues.

Since: Dec 09

Chicago, IL

#770 Apr 8, 2013
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
The Greeks, the Romans, the Celts, the Vikings, the Egyptians all believed in their religious traditions and gods just as sincerely as any Christian believes in his/hers. No culture has ever thought of their religious traditions as myths. They were unable to see their traditions and gods as mythology because they were unable to look at them objectively. You can see the mythology in those religions because you can look at them objectively. You cannot see your religious tradition any more objectively than they could theirs. You have faith just as they did.
The Christian myth starts with the Jewish myth of Adam and Eve. According to the Christian myth all humanity was condemned to eternal damnation because the sin of Adam and Eve. Jewish mythology had also developed the idea of a messiah (anointed one, khristos in Greek, Christ in English) who would come to liberate the Jews from their oppressors (the Romans during the time of Jesus). Of course after Jesus had been crucified by the Romans he could no longer be represented as the messiah who would liberate the Jews from the Romans so he had to be portrayed as the son of god who sacrificed himself to liberate all men from the sin of Adam and Eve if his teaching was to continue.
The Bible is literature, not dogma.~George Santayana
And did I say anything contradicting that? NO.

Since: Dec 09

Chicago, IL

#771 Apr 8, 2013
HighlyEvolved wrote:
<quoted text>
Every single aspect of the NT account of Jesus' life was borrowed from an earlier myth.
Every. Single. One.
Did I say anything contradicting that? NO.

“ IT'S A CHOICE !!!”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#772 Apr 8, 2013
angelfromhell1 wrote:
<quoted text>
yeah, they can be filled with the tooth fairy, easter bunny and spirit of Big Foot.... and you can babble bull$hit all day.....I predicted you could not demonstrate any supernatural....NObel Prize for ignorance is not quite the same...and yes, many people are content with ignorance and stupidity.....physics, chemistry, math and biology take a lot of hard work...
*Filled with the TF,EB,BF? Apparently you and your other demons don't know anything of the the Bible, or Yahweh... Actually I could... I have been blessed with a 'Mighty Gift from God', and for anyone to say otherwise is lying, or they don't know of what they speak of... FYI, I was never taught to believe in Santa Clause, the EB, or the TF. Just Yahweh... Several believers can 'speak in tongues.' Just Because it's foreign to you, doesn't make it 'not' so... I would be very careful to mess with this Daughter of the 'God Almighty.' I'm not asking you to believe my way, just don't knock what I know to be real and true, and we'll be fine... Don't mess with me, and I won't mess with you...
As for the other babble, I have a degree in Science, what it's in your not privy too...:)

Roland_Deschain

“Naturalism - Nature is Enough”

Since: Nov 07

London, UK

#773 Apr 8, 2013
LGK wrote:
<quoted text>
I more than 110% agree that we should investigate the origin of life through science. We know the laws of chemistry & physics, they do not & cannot produce aboutness. If you think they do, please give an example (I know logical reasons why they can't)
Why do you say,“A Rolex is MADE in a factory. It is not a product of nature?”(I have heard this type of reasoning 101 times). The Rolex is subject to the same laws of the universe as biological materials. If biology has special exemptions from laws of nature please tell me, Ive never heard of them.
We know what the rules of the universe are. We know what it takes to create something that has ofness or aboutness e.g. a text message or a functional DNA or protein sequence. It takes a mind. As said above, physics & chemistry alone can’t do this. So, wherever we see it – in biology or in none biology – then we know a mind did it. It logically follows. Why make exceptions for biology? May be you know laws of nature that only apply to biology, please say once again what they are. Otherwise it looks you are just refusing to apply the same rules to biology as does in the rest of the universe. We have to ask why?
"Claim CI410:

Design requires a designer; contrivance requires a contriver.

Source:

Paley, William, 1802. Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity. London: J. Faulder, p. 11.

Response:

Design does not require an anthropomorphized designer. Designs appear in clouds, for example, with no more of a designer than uneven heating, evaporation, and other natural causes.

Even an anthropomorphized designer need not be a deity. The atheistic religion of Raelianism, for example, proposes that humans were created by extraterrestrials (Raelian Movement, n.d.).

Evolution is a designer. Via variation and selection, it serves to favor reproduction and shape things according to environmental conditions.

If the designer does not need a designer to create it, why should other things?"

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI410.h...

“ IT'S A CHOICE !!!”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#774 Apr 8, 2013
HighlyEvolved wrote:
<quoted text>
Victor Stenger and several other physicists have amply demonstrated how the universe arose, and your God had nothing to do with it.
Try reading some of those books before you claim that there is no scientific conclusion of a godless universe. There are several, and more are on the way.
Contrary to what atheist wish to believe, modern science has confirmed what the Bible has taught. As in all things, the Bible is absolutely correct when it teaches about the universe.
In fact, secular scientists once believed that the universe was eternal and unchanging. The idea of an expanding universe would have been considered nonsense to most scientists in the past. When the world believes one thing, and the Bible teaches another, it's always tempting to think that God got it wrong, but God is never wrong. Man is wrong...
...and most astronomers today believe that the universe is expanding. This expansion is a very natural result of the physics that Einstein discovered.(I'm sure your familiar with that one)
The Bible indicates in several places that the universe has been 'stretched out' or expanded. Read, Isaiah 40:22 it teaches that God “stretched out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in." I think this would suggest that the universe has actually 'increased' in size since creation(as the astronomers believe today, as I already stated above) Perhaps Yahweh is still expanding it.
Science and Yahweh, are exciting to me. I would love to debate this in a civil manner, but if that can't be done, we are done...
ps.
*Be careful next time you tell someone to read. It might come back to haunt you...:) Maybe you could try reading some different books before you claim that there is a scientific conclusion of a 'Godless' universe. There are several out there, and more are on the way as well.:)

Roland_Deschain

“Naturalism - Nature is Enough”

Since: Nov 07

London, UK

#775 Apr 8, 2013
LGK wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you say,“A Rolex is MADE in a factory.
Actually a Rolex is a product of many minds. Are you claiming all life on this planet was produced by a committee?

Roland_Deschain

“Naturalism - Nature is Enough”

Since: Nov 07

London, UK

#776 Apr 8, 2013
LGK wrote:
<quoted text>
Why make exceptions for biology? May be you know laws of nature that only apply to biology, please say once again what they are.
Random mutation, inheritance, genetic drift and natural selection.

Roland_Deschain

“Naturalism - Nature is Enough”

Since: Nov 07

London, UK

#777 Apr 9, 2013
Snevaeh legna wrote:
<quoted text>
Contrary to what atheist wish to believe, modern science has confirmed what the Bible has taught. As in all things, the Bible is absolutely correct when it teaches about the universe.
In fact, secular scientists once believed that the universe was eternal and unchanging. The idea of an expanding universe would have been considered nonsense to most scientists in the past. When the world believes one thing, and the Bible teaches another, it's always tempting to think that God got it wrong, but God is never wrong. Man is wrong...
...and most astronomers today believe that the universe is expanding. This expansion is a very natural result of the physics that Einstein discovered.(I'm sure your familiar with that one)
The Bible indicates in several places that the universe has been 'stretched out' or expanded. Read, Isaiah 40:22 it teaches that God “stretched out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in." I think this would suggest that the universe has actually 'increased' in size since creation(as the astronomers believe today, as I already stated above) Perhaps
It was a catholic priest who put forward the theory of an expanding universe - The big Bang Theory. He did so because of the scientific evidence, not the bible. He also persuaded the pope not to use it as a proof of creation because he thought (and rightly so) than science should be kept separate from religious beliefs. The reason scientists changed their views was due to the evidence which came to light. This is how science (and the way we learn) works, by adjusting ones knowledge as new (evidence supported) information becomes available.

"In 1927, Lemaître published in Belgium a virtually unnoticed paper that provided a compelling solution to the equations of General Relativity for the case of an expanding universe. His solution had, in fact, already been derived without his knowledge by the Russian Alexander Friedmann in 1922. But Friedmann was principally interested in the mathematics of a range of idealized solutions (including expanding and contracting universes) and did not pursue the possibility that one of them might actually describe the physical universe. In contrast, Lemaître attacked the problem of cosmology from a thoroughly physical point of view, and realized that his solution predicted the expansion of the real universe of galaxies that observations were only then beginning to suggest."

"A year later, Lemaître explored the logical consequences of an expanding universe and boldly proposed that it must have originated at a finite point in time. If the universe is expanding, he reasoned, it was smaller in the past, and extrapolation back in time should lead to an epoch when all the matter in the universe was packed together in an extremely dense state. Appealing to the new quantum theory of matter, Lemaître argued that the physical universe was initially a single particle—the “primeval atom” as he called it—which disintegrated in an explosion, giving rise to space and time and the expansion of the universe that continues to this day. This idea marked the birth of what we now know as Big Bang cosmology."

"It is tempting to think that Lemaître’s deeply-held religious beliefs might have led him to the notion of a beginning of time. After all, the Judeo-Christian tradition had propagated a similar idea for millennia. Yet Lemaître clearly insisted that there was neither a connection nor a conflict between his religion and his science. Rather he kept them entirely separate, treating them as different, parallel interpretations of the world, both of which he believed with personal conviction. Indeed, when Pope Pius XII referred to the new theory of the origin of the universe as a scientific validation of the Catholic faith, Lemaître was rather alarmed."

http://www.amnh.org/education/resources/rfl/w...

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#778 Apr 9, 2013
HighlyEvolved wrote:
Here's the difference between science and religion: science dictates that we constantly ask questions and demand proof and independent verification of all scientific claims.
Religion, by contrast, dictates that you do NOT question, and you do NOT ask for proof. That would be heresy, and the punishment for heresy is severe.
Had we relied on religion instead of science for medicine, as one example, we'd still be trying to cure bacterial infections by exorcising demons instead of prescribing antibiotics.
Religion has but one purpose: to intoxicate people to the point where they don;t fear their own death.
In every other regard religion is useless.
If we had relied on science to fund science instead of the collection basket we'd still be exorising demons anyway so your point is moot or, as the fundies say, mute.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_Ca...

Pay particular attention to the significant impact of Jesuits in every field of science on account of I went to a Jesuit high school.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#779 Apr 9, 2013
Snevaeh legna wrote:
<quoted text>
Contrary to what atheist wish to believe, modern science has confirmed what the Bible has taught. As in all things, the Bible is absolutely correct when it teaches about the universe.
In fact, secular scientists once believed that the universe was eternal and unchanging. The idea of an expanding universe would have been considered nonsense to most scientists in the past. When the world believes one thing, and the Bible teaches another, it's always tempting to think that God got it wrong, but God is never wrong. Man is wrong...
...and most astronomers today believe that the universe is expanding. This expansion is a very natural result of the physics that Einstein discovered.(I'm sure your familiar with that one)
The Bible indicates in several places that the universe has been 'stretched out' or expanded. Read, Isaiah 40:22 it teaches that God “stretched out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in." I think this would suggest that the universe has actually 'increased' in size since creation(as the astronomers believe today, as I already stated above) Perhaps Yahweh is still expanding it.
Science and Yahweh, are exciting to me. I would love to debate this in a civil manner, but if that can't be done, we are done...
ps.
*Be careful next time you tell someone to read. It might come back to haunt you...:) Maybe you could try reading some different books before you claim that there is a scientific conclusion of a 'Godless' universe. There are several out there, and more are on the way as well.:)
The Earth is not flat and the Bible is not God.

Since: Feb 10

Location hidden

#781 Apr 9, 2013
Genesis 1 says that plants and animals were created before Man.

Genesis 2 says that Man was created, then plants and animals, then Woman.

The first two books of the Bible clearly establish that the Bible is a book of myths, not science.

And for the record, Man was not created from dust or dirt. The chemical compositions of humans and dirt are in no way similar.

You're dead wrong.

Since: Feb 10

Location hidden

#782 Apr 9, 2013
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
If we had relied on science to fund science instead of the collection basket we'd still be exorising demons anyway so your point is moot or, as the fundies say, mute.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_Ca...
Pay particular attention to the significant impact of Jesuits in every field of science on account of I went to a Jesuit high school.
I went to a Jesuit high school as well, and I'm well aware of the Catholic contributions to science.

My battle is with the evangelical Christians, not the moderate and better-educated ones.
Reality

San Diego, CA

#786 Apr 9, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, there is not one shred of evidence that the gospel writers used any of the pagan myths to describe Christ and His work.
Where is the evidence in the original writings of these pagan myths of "[Baal, Melqart, Adonis, Eshmun, Tammuz, Ra the Sun god, Osiris, Jesus, and Dionysus]…" that they rose from the dead? Let's focus on one of them: Osiris. Please show me in the original documents of the Osiris cult that he rose from the dead. I'm sure you also would want to see this so as know with certainty this was indeed the case. Right?
Excerpt from link below:

The karmic similarities between Jesus and the Hindu messiah named Krishna (1200 B.C.) are many. There over one hundred similarities between the Hindu and Christian saviors which could easily fill a volume. Some of these similarities are apocryphal which means their source comes from the extra-canonical scriptures of Hinduism.

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/origen0...
__________

You can buy the Egyptian Book of the Dead (at the bottom of the link below) and read it for yourself..

Excerpt from link below:
Written in 1280 BC the egyptian book of the dead describes a god horus?
horus was the son of the sun god osiris who they worshipped on sundays.

born december 25th

born to a virgin mother

baptized in a river by by Anup

who was later beheaded

horus was tempted alon while wondering a desert

healed the sick

the blind

casted out demons

walked on water

he raised asar from the dead

"asar" translates into lazarus

he had 12 disciples

before being behead he was crucified

3 days later he was "resurrected"

same similarity's can be found with mithra

still think jesus story is Original?

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index...

__________

Excerpt from link below:

Virgin birth
Twelve followers
Killing and resurrection
Miracles
Birthdate on December 25
Morality
Mankind's savior
Known as the Light of the world

Have you ever wondered why December 25th was chosen to celebrate the birth of Christ? If the accounts in the Bible are correct, the time of Jesus birth would have been closer to mid-summer, for this is when shepherds would have been "tending their flocks in the field" and the new lambs were born. Strange enough there is an ancient pagan religion, Mithraism, which >> dates back over 2,800 years << that also celebrated the birth of their "savior" on that date.

http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Religions/irani...
Reality

San Diego, CA

#787 Apr 9, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Where is the proof that "they used Jewish mythology and embellished it"? All you are doing is asserting it. You need facts to prove it.

Here's some facts for you..

There was all kinds of mythology going around in those superstitious times way back then. Here's one recently discovered that refutes your bible story of Judas..It also lets the reader know how a select group of believers picked & chose which versions were allowed in the Bible..

Excerpt from link below:

The Gospel of Judas is a fragmented Coptic (Egyptian)-language text that portrays Judas in a far more sympathetic light than did the gospels that made it into the Bible. In this version of the story, Judas turns Jesus over to the authorities for execution upon Jesus' request, as part of a plan to release his spirit from his body. In the accepted biblical version of the tale, Judas betrays Jesus for 30 pieces of silver.

http://www.livescience.com/28506-gospel-judas...

“Invisible Pink Unicorn”

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#788 Apr 9, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Lets look at rabbits--"the Hebrew phrase for ‘chew the cud’ simply means ‘raising up what has been swallowed’. Coneys and rabbits go through such similar motions to ruminants that Linnaeus, the father of modern classification (and a creationist), at first classified them as ruminants. Also, rabbits and hares practice refection, which is essentially the same principle as rumination, and does indeed ‘raise up what has been swallowed’. The food goes right through the rabbit and is passed out as a special type of dropping. These are re-eaten, and can now nourish the rabbit as they have already been partly digested.
It is not an error of Scripture that ‘chewing the cud’ now has a more restrictive meaning than it did in Moses’ day. Indeed, rabbits and hares do ‘chew the cud’ in an even more specific sense." http://creation.com/do-rabbits-chew-their-cud
No rabbits DO NOT regurgitated from the stomach into the mouth. They may look like they're chewing cud, but they aren't. That is the reason it is the way it is in the bible.They were a simple people that had no idea. Rabbits eating their own shit is not anywhere the same thing. Besides No Christians should not eat rabbits or pigs as both are unclean to you.

So where is your reply in support of satyrs (men with goat) legs,unicorns and cockatrices (rooster-serpents that kill when looked upon) and a race of Giants.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#792 Apr 9, 2013
Snevaeh legna wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, I will ask the same question that I asked 'Angel'...
*Do you believe that certain individuals can be filled with the 'Holy Spirit' and speak in tongues.
Speaking in tongues has been demonstrated to be bullshit. If it were legitimate, the babbling could be translated. Only the speaker ever gives a translation. In fact, there are many instances of the speaker and a listener giving entirely different translations of "speaking in tongues." It's a silly behavior engaged in by people who are victims of peer pressure.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#794 Apr 9, 2013
Snevaeh legna wrote:
<quoted text>
Contrary to what atheist wish to believe, modern science has confirmed what the Bible has taught. As in all things, the Bible is absolutely correct when it teaches about the universe.
In fact, secular scientists once believed that the universe was eternal and unchanging. The idea of an expanding universe would have been considered nonsense to most scientists in the past. When the world believes one thing, and the Bible teaches another, it's always tempting to think that God got it wrong, but God is never wrong. Man is wrong...
...and most astronomers today believe that the universe is expanding. This expansion is a very natural result of the physics that Einstein discovered.(I'm sure your familiar with that one)
The Bible indicates in several places that the universe has been 'stretched out' or expanded. Read, Isaiah 40:22 it teaches that God “stretched out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in." I think this would suggest that the universe has actually 'increased' in size since creation(as the astronomers believe today, as I already stated above) Perhaps Yahweh is still expanding it.
Science and Yahweh, are exciting to me. I would love to debate this in a civil manner, but if that can't be done, we are done...
ps.
*Be careful next time you tell someone to read. It might come back to haunt you...:) Maybe you could try reading some different books before you claim that there is a scientific conclusion of a 'Godless' universe. There are several out there, and more are on the way as well.:)
Modern science has proven that men can live inside of whales/fish for three days underwater?

Modern science has proven that a global year-long miles-deep flood occurred 4500 years ago?

Modern science has proven that man lived with the dinosaurs?

REALLY?
Big Al

Grand Rapids, MN

#795 Apr 9, 2013
janeebee wrote:
<quoted text>
And did I say anything contradicting that? NO.
I beg to differ.
You wrote…
“The New Testament is based on Jesus Christ, not Jewish mythology.”
Clearly the New Testament borrows heavily from the Jewish mythology of the promise of a messiah. The New Testament Greek translation of the Hebrew word messiah (or mashiach), meaning anointed, one to Greek is khristos, Anglicized as Christ.
Also you wrote…
“Oh,... and Lemming? He's talking about God in the context of literature - literary depictions of God.”
David Adams Leeming is the author of numerous books including “The World of Myth”, and “A Dictionary of Creation Myths”.
Definition of literature (n)- body of written works: the body of written works of a culture, language, people, or period of time
Synonyms: writings, works, collected works, texts, books, words, prose, poetry, fiction, nonfiction
The Bible is a collection on of books, texts (including the New Testament) and the stories in it are literature just as much as any other books or texts are literature.
I fully realize that you cannot accept the idea that the stories of the New Testament could be mythological because of your faith, but I don’t think you realize that the Greeks, Romans, Celts, Vikings and Egyptians didn’t think their gods and traditions were mythological either.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Christian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Evidence Against God 8 min Big Al 3,269
Proof that the Bible God is evil 51 min rog 38
Poll Was Paul a False Apostle? (May '08) 3 hr Barnsweb 5,242
+++++++ GOD the FATHER +++++++ 6 hr Morningstargirl 25
WHY GOD does HATE HOMOSEXUALS and LESBIANS????? (Dec '13) 7 hr Morningstargirl 380
Cosmic Evidence Against God 8 hr Morningstargirl 35
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 9 hr WasteWater 18,719
Scientific Proof Of GOD(for dummies) 10 hr Morningstargirl 1,106
More from around the web