Comments
567,861 - 567,880 of 729,880 Comments Last updated 2 min ago
alan

Kansas City, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#597944
Feb 5, 2013
 
Al Garcia wrote:
<quoted text>
"If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences"
-Robert K. Merton.
A self-fulfilling prophecy is a prediction that directly or indirectly causes itself to become true, by the very terms of the prophecy itself, due to positive feedback between belief and behavior
-Wikipedia
Face it. Humanity has had a history of self fulfilling prophecies not related to Religion, but directly related to human psychological needs.
This is what made us rise above the animals if you're into an evolutionary explanation.
We dream about what we want, can be, should be. Our dreams become our driving force. We fulfill.
It's not a religious thing. Religion or lack of it is not the cause or the cure of prophesy. It's simply a human biological issue. It's who we are.
Someone said,"How can there be a more advanced civilization than us, because God created the universe at the same time?" WOW! I'm going to take a sharp instrument and stick it in my jugular! The primitive human animal is clueless!!!!!!!
alan

Kansas City, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#597945
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

karl44 wrote:
<quoted text>
religion is a response to psychological need.
Its nothing more than a learned human behavior......brainwashing at its simplest form.....the herd mentality. Everybody believes it, it must be true....MMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOOO! !!!!!

“Hello Darlings!”

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#597946
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

waaasssuuup wrote:
<quoted text>
you can do your part to stop the evil by accepting Jesus as Lord.
if ya don't submit to God, YOU are the problem!
Your religion is the greatest evil on earth.
siehjin

Puchong, Malaysia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#597949
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

OCB wrote:
<quoted text>I don't see how you can be the result of biological processes- which you are- and also be created by a god which you are not.
You were created by your parents. Any god which might exist had nothing to do with that.
So yes, there is a contradiction- the question is who created you- your parents or the god you believe in?
It can't be both.
as True Truth has explained in a previous post:
True Truth wrote:
<quoted text>It's like if I build a factory and that factory builds robots, and then I go around in the street telling people that I built the robots, they say "Nonsense, these robots come from the factory!", and they can show me all the trademarks and instruction manuals and even the entire engineering of those robots, and they even take me on a tour of the factory.

But despite whatever explanation people give and how knowledgable they are about how the robots were made, it doesn't remove the fact that I built the factory, I built the machines that build the robots and hence I can certainly assert that I built the robots.
just as knowledge about the factory processes through which the robots were made does not prove that True Truth did not build the robots, knowledge about the biological processes through which i was made does not prove that God did not create me.
OCB wrote:
<quoted text>
But let's assume for a moment you are correct. If a god is responsible for the creation of every human being and if a god is all powerful and all knowing- which would include certain knowledge of all that takes place in the future- why would a god have created people such as Adolf Hitler, Charles Manson, Osama bin Laden, etc?
Surely an all powerful god and one who has their hand in the creation of every single living being on this planet would have known what the creations of the likes of Hitler, etc. would have become.
So why would a god create babies that he surely would have known would have grown up to be such heinous human beings?
like 'christianity is EVIL', you have assumed that God is all-powerful and all-knowing. how do you know this? as i said to him, "maybe the Christians are simply mistaken about the attributes of God. maybe He isn't omnipotent, but just immensely powerful - powerful enough to create the universe. maybe He isn't omniscient, but just incredibly intelligent - intelligent enough to design and plan out the creation of our world." if so, your point is moot.

having said that, IF the Christians are right about God, He gave human beings free will. therefore we ought not to blame God for the free choices of men. hitler and etc. chose to be heinous, and as such what they did was not God's fault but theirs. furthermore, God, being omniscient, could very well have good reason for creating them that is beyond our limited knowledge.
OCB wrote:
<quoted text>
BTW, snow flakes are NOT created by any "biological process".
you've misread me. i didn't say that snowflakes are created by biological processes, but rather (following KittenKoder) chemical processes. my exact words were, "you don't seem to get my point - being the result of chemical processes does not mean that they (meaning snowflakes) are not created."
OCB wrote:
<quoted text>
If one believes snowflakes to be "living organisms" then one would have to believe that rain, sleet, hail, fog, etc. are also all "living organisms".

I think it's well beyond fantasy to believe such things and is actually quite delusional.
i agree. that is why i believe no such thing.
siehjin

Puchong, Malaysia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#597950
Feb 5, 2013
 
karl44 wrote:
<quoted text>
you have merely made a claim from ignorance
again the accusation of a claim from ignorance! here's what i wrote to KittenKoder:

"here is an analogy to help you understand my position. let us imagine that the universe is a book. while we have managed to discover many things about our universe through science, there is still much that we do not know. so let us say we have read only the first chapter of the book.

reading that first chapter is sufficient for me to conclude that there was an Author who wrote the book. i am not arguing that there must be an Author because of the chapters we have not read yet (this would be the 'fallacy of ignorance' of which you falsely accuse me). and in fact, reading more chapters (analogically, finding out more about the universe through science) simply reinforces my conclusion that there must be an Author who has written all this.

so to conclude, i contend that the existence of the universe and all that is in it is evidence for the existence of God. science increases our knowledge about the amazing intricacy and mind-boggling complexity of the universe, thus further strengthening my case that it is evidence for the existence of God."

i do hope that, reading the above, you will realize that i am NOT making an argument from ignorance. please, engage with what i am actually saying instead of stubbornly beating straw men!
karl44 wrote:
<quoted text>
that which is advanced without evidence may be dismissed without evidence
dismissed.
the claim advanced is, "there is a God."
the evidence advanced is, "the universe, in all its' beauty and complexity."

so no, you can't just dismiss the evidence. you have to either show that the universe is not beautiful and complex; or that there is a better explanation for it's existence, beauty, and complexity than the existence of God. so far you have utterly failed to do either, resorting instead to mere assertions of your own opinion and ad hominem attacks. therefore, my claim stands.

“I never claimed to be Perfect”

Since: Nov 10

Boss of the Inland Empire

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#597952
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

karl44 wrote:
<quoted text>
I call that cowardice.
someone once said That anyone cynical of others was a coward. Cynicism is a way to hide . Cynics are afraid . So, instead, they pass judgment on anyone who is trying to make a difference. They ridicule the efforts of individuals and organizations that are working hard under incredibly difficult circumstances .
That's cowardice.

“I never claimed to be Perfect”

Since: Nov 10

Boss of the Inland Empire

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#597953
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

karl44 wrote:
<quoted text>
religion is a response to psychological need.
Karl, that it very well may be but it still does not necessarily mean that it's still not God given or inspired. If God made us, then he also made it possible to satisfy our needs.
JOEL

Mumbai, India

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#597954
Feb 5, 2013
 
Hi

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#597955
Feb 5, 2013
 
siehjin

Puchong, Malaysia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#597956
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text> That's fine. Please present your god's knife...
hi Black Thunder, as i explained to Mr. Charrington, "i am speaking metaphorically here... meaning that we can discern the order, complexity and beauty of the universe, and this leads us to the conclusion that there is a Creator."
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text>
oh BTW we will need his personal testimony that that is indeed "his" knife, as we do not have his fingerprints on file.
Genesis 1:1 - "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

also, Quran 51:47 - "We have built the heaven with power, and We are expanding (it)."
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text>
Your attempt to involve another unconnected scenario-whether real or fictitious- is inadmissible as direct evidence involving your deity, as the simple requirement to prove the deity even exists has not been met with any degree if accuracy or preponderance of acceptable evidence. Therefore, any proposition made on behalf of this deity toward involvement or effect in any alleged action must be held invalid until such time as these conditions are met.
Thank you for your time,
This time, until next time.
that is rather unfair; you are begging the question. the very question we are arguing about is whether or not God exists; in effect, you are saying, "God does not exist, and therefore he could not have created the universe." but the question of God's existence has not been proven one way or another, so to assume His nonexistence is to beg the question.

if you want to prove that God did not create the universe, you have to do it some other way. please don't beg the question.
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text>
The very same "mistake" "God Himself" kept making over and over.
are you saying that it was a mistake for God to create human beings in the first place? or a mistake to give them free will?

i, for one, am thankful for the gifts of existence and free will!

“Michin yeoja”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#597963
Feb 6, 2013
 
jason_orange wrote:
my
m mo fan ah lei

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#597964
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

siehjin wrote:
<quoted text>
logically, if God is the One who created all of time and space - in other words, all of material reality - He cannot himself be a material being. thus, your objection that He as an immaterial being cannot cause a material effect, fails.
Logic uses evidence to make determination.
You have based your whole ideas on pure conjecture.
You have not a shred of evidence to support your notion, therefore it is "invalid".

I have come to call this thinking "what if", there are a gazillion what ifs.. they mean nothing but are fancy thinking and unless supported by some kind of evidence you can make anything up and try to sell it as reality. Pure bunk is all it is though.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#597965
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

siehjin wrote:
<quoted text>
logically, if God is the One who created all of time and space - in other words, all of material reality - He cannot himself be a material being. thus, your objection that He as an immaterial being cannot cause a material effect, fails.
one might imagine cyberbeings in a computer simulation insisting that humans could not have created them because humans don't consist of bits and bytes. your position is similar to theirs.
<quoted text>
ah, good!(i mean, good that you accept the validity of logic, not that you think my logic is invalid). in that case, you need to point out the flaw in my logic which renders it invalid. merely stating that you think my logic is invalid is neither here nor there.
here is the argument i am making in its formal logical form:
premise one: the complexity of the universe is either due to chance, mechanistic processes, or the work of a Creator.
premise two: the complexity of the universe cannot be adequately explained by chance and mechanistic processes.
conclusion: the complexity of the universe is the work of a Creator.
if the premisses are true, the conclusion logically and incontrovertibly follows. therefore the only way for you to disprove it is to attack one or both premisses. that is why your comments about God's immateriality and comparing Him with the FSM and IPU have been quite futile.
<quoted text>
look, you are not making sense. by your reasoning, counterfeit $100 bills are proof that real $100 bills don't exist. the existence of counterfeits does not disprove the existence of the original!
Let me put it this way , this approach was taken by PHD level professors (Behe and Dempsky) who used actual evidence and presented it in attempt to prove complexity is the result of a creator. In this case the evidence was the bacterial flagellum motor, which they believed was far too complex to have evolved
from parts of other flagellum.

They made a convincing case and it seemed their premise could be right, but further investigation proved them wrong.
The flagellum had all the parts , just assembled differently in other forms rendering their suggestion null.

Which is a far more credible case constructed in a logical manner with evidence presented other than just your "what if" premise ,but still fails in the idea of complexity proves a creator.

http://www.annualreviews.org/eprint/cDJrS190m... ;

In their case actual evidence was used, not "what if" and it failed under scrutiny.

"""" that is why your comments about God's immateriality and comparing Him with the FSM and IPU have been quite futile.
<quoted text>
look, you are not making sense. by your reasoning, counterfeit $100 bills are proof that real $100 bills don't exist. the existence of counterfeits does not disprove the existence of the """""

Unless I slept right through the announcement that it was proven your god exists , then your god's immateriality and comparing it with the FSM and IPU is far from futile, and all are of equal
stature. "What ifs"

Come back when you can present some evidence composed of something other than a fallacious "what if".

Since: May 11

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#597966
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

siehjin wrote:
<quoted text>
hi Black Thunder, as i explained to Mr. Charrington, "i am speaking metaphorically here... meaning that we can discern the order, complexity and beauty of the universe, and this leads us to the conclusion that there is a Creator."
<quoted text>
Genesis 1:1 - "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
also, Quran 51:47 - "We have built the heaven with power, and We are expanding (it)."
<quoted text>
that is rather unfair; you are begging the question. the very question we are arguing about is whether or not God exists; in effect, you are saying, "God does not exist, and therefore he could not have created the universe." but the question of God's existence has not been proven one way or another, so to assume His nonexistence is to beg the question.
if you want to prove that God did not create the universe, you have to do it some other way. please don't beg the question.
<quoted text>
are you saying that it was a mistake for God to create human beings in the first place? or a mistake to give them free will?
i, for one, am thankful for the gifts of existence and free will!
again you use the premise that everything exists until proven otherwise.

This is nonsense.

I say there is liquid water on the surface of the sun, you cannot visit the sun and disprove my claim so everyone must then accept that there is water on the surface of the sun...using your logic.
Nobody

Dallas, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#597967
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

You know, all you people who say God is not real is true in your own world, because you do not believe and you do not understand. This is not your fault. Question: why hate when you can love one another? This is the beginning. Why would you people condem love?
youtube

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#597968
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

.

**** Rare 2015 "SIGN" ID's WW3 & Final 7 YRS




.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#597969
Feb 6, 2013
 
Al Garcia wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi mac!
I just thought I'd take a shot and see what I got?
How ya doin?!
Mornin', Al!

Pret' good now, thanks. How's by you?

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#597970
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

OCB wrote:
<quoted text>I've heard much information from the medical community that basically states that "negative calorie" foods is more a myth and a legend than anything else.
Also, to limit oneself to only the foods mentioned would not be at all healthy other than for a very short period of time.
The bottom line is that the best and healthiest way to lose weight- and also the best way to keep the weight off is to expend more energy (calories) than what one takes in in energy (calories).
A good rule of thumb is this:
If you want to lose a pound a week, you need to exert 3500 calories more in a week (3500 calories= one pound) than you take in.
So that works out to expending 500 calories a day more than you take in a day to achieve the goal of losing one pound a week.
Fad diets of any kind rarely work in the long term, since losing weight and maintaining that weight loss is due more to one's daily exercise and eating habits in the long run rather than any fad diet or crash diet.
There is no scientific proof but I have never heard them called a myth or legend by a medical professional. I have recently discussed this with several people including a fashion model, 2 nurses, a doctor, an athlete/cyclist (amateur) and a total health nut (protein drinks, supplements and 4 hours exercise a day)

Calculating calorie usage is particularly fraught, different people, different qualities of food etc. Such foods are low calorie and some of those foods take considerable effort to chew and digest but the consensus, off the record is who knows, on record the pros will not commit themselves because they just do not know either way.

Such foods are often included in low calorie diet plans (including NHS (British health service)) and I am told they work effectively when used in such a diet plan. Weight watchers list such foods as free foods

True, that was an example of the effects of such foods and I did say (for a time)

Up to now I have not really needed much dieting (except after the birth of the kids) and a few pounds after the winter break. Plenty of regular exercise 3 kids and good food does the trick for me.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#597971
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Mylan wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry but I have studied nutrition for many years and I can tell you that this has been disproven and is not true, especially for the items in that list. For example; beets. One serving o beets after it is digested and goes through the liver has as much sugar as a candy bar. Your body cannot tell the two apart. Carrots contain both carbohydrates and sugar. The word carbohydrate is an umbrella term for single or multiple sugar molecules. The average carrot has over 2.89 g of sugar. The type of sugar they contain is transformed into blood sugar very rapidly almost as fast as table sugar. The good news about carrots is that they contain a lot of fiber.
It is known that around 25% of the population has a liver condition called 'fatty liver disease' and anyone with it will not lose weight no matter what they eat. Our liver was biologically designed to filter naturally occurring metabolic byproducts out of our blood, but NOT all the chemicals and preservatives we are now eating through processed foods. The liver is the major fat burning organ in the body and regulates fat metabolism by a complicated set of biochemical pathways. The liver can also pump excessive fat out of the body through the bile into the small intestines. If the diet is high in fiber, this unwanted fat will be carried out of the body via the bowel actions. Thus the liver is a remarkable machine for keeping weight under control, being both a fat burning organ and a fat pumping organ. However, those with 'fatty liver disease' cannot lose weight because the liver does not work correctly.
Having just discussed this with several people it seems that it is suggested to be false but not proven there is no scientific evidence either way. Certainly the people I talked to would not commit themselves.

As to the rest of your post, although not a professional in the field I tend to agree

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#597972
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

siehjin wrote:
True Truth has explained in a previous post:
True Truth wrote:
It's like if I build a factory and that factory builds robots, and then I go around in the street telling people that I built the robots, they say "Nonsense, these robots come from the factory!", and they can show me all the trademarks and instruction manuals and even the entire engineering of those robots, and they even take me on a tour of the factory. But despite whatever explanation people give and how knowledgable they are about how the robots were made, it doesn't remove the fact that I built the factory, I built the machines that build the robots and hence I can certainly assert that I built the robots.
Wow, what a retarded way of looking at things. In your fantasy religion this may make sense, but in the REAL world it does not hold up to scrutiny. Let's look at several real world examples shall we;

Tesla Motors today makes incredible electric cars. Not to long ago they purchased the former NUMMI factory in Fremont, California, where it will build the Model S sedan and future Tesla vehicles. Previously this factory was owned by Toyota to produce the Corolla and Tacoma vehicles. Using your not thought out "fantasy" example all Tesla cars are actually made by Toyota. If Toyota was as delusional as your "theory" and they tried to claim Tesla as being under their direction, it would of course be laughed out of court.

Another example would be if the company in China that built the factories where Apple products are built, tried to claim that Apple products are their products. They would of course also be laughed out of court. You people have stayed away from using logic so long that now you seem to think that you can make any thing up and it's real. Maybe you should look up and learn the definition for the word 'manufacture'. I bet if your fantasy world were true then building contractors would love it. LOL...

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••