Prove there's a god.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#709059 Mar 30, 2014
Scrooge wrote:
<quoted text>
Please rescue Ritchie from the Renaissance era!
Richie's trapped in the Renaissance Fair? Oh, noz!

“True Blue”

Since: Jun 13

Opal-Hearted Land

#709060 Mar 30, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Shoot yall got all kinds of get yas down there, scorpions, spiders, poisonous fish great whites and those big salties. LOL You just a snack for the wildlife.
It's not quite as bad as all that. You'll be pleased to know that those "drop bears" are only a myth we tell tourists, only koalas are real.
:-)

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#709061 Mar 30, 2014
Ghost Writer 2 You wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. If it was written after 70 A.D. the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem would've been described from a historical perspective. None of the gospels report the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D from a historical perspective. A historical account is found in the Old Testament after Babylon destroyed the temple and sent thousands of Jews into Babylon as slaves.
Ho hum.

You are going to lose this fight. Most Bible scholars admit that Mark was the first gospel written (Matthew and Luke are just plagiarized versions) and that it was written around 70 to 75 AD.

No, the gospels are not first hand accounts. No, they were not penned by people that even knew Jesus (supposing that Jesus even existed...there are questions about that).

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#709062 Mar 30, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you seen where creationists are complaining about not being represented on Cosmos?
It's all a matter of fairness, you know, which is why creationists always invite evolutionary scientists to present their perspective in church every Sunday...oh...wait...
The Christian double standard strikes again.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#709063 Mar 30, 2014
Ghost Writer 2 You wrote:
Snipped to reply to the crux of the issue.
<quoted text>
I settle for so little? I'm a historian. Professionally trained. If there's one thing I'm aware of, it's how to evaluate evidence for credibility. I wouldn't be paid for what I do if I didn't know the value of evidence. Please don't assume I settle for lower standards if you don't know what I do and what my job entails. I'm being civil because I like and respect you.
<quoted text>
It's not your comments that frustrate me. I get ignorant comments from museum patrons all the time, and I deal with them in a professional manner. What I find excessive and unreasonable is your standard for evidence. It's unreasonable precisely because it is excessive. Evidence has its limits. Especially historical evidence. Historical evidence is not evaluated with the same scrutiny as criminal justice analysis.
<quoted text>
I would agree, but not for the reasons you mentioned below this reply. I think our differences stem from cultural, ideological, and professional vocational differences. I'm okay with that. Neither can force the other to be correct. ;)
<quoted text>
That's where you're wrong. I was agnostic. I came to believe BECAUSE of the evidence. I did NOT apply evidence to what I already believed. It's the historical evidence for the reliability of the New Testament and the canonical gospels specifically that led me to trust.
<quoted text>
And that's what I do for a living, on a daily basis. You should see the criteria that is applied to determine if a document is historically reliable. I think you'd be pleasantly surprised, if you aren't too cynical going into it at the start.
<quoted text>
Trust is synonymous with faith. Your statement is rhetorically redundant. That seems like a surefire way to keep repeating yourself.:)
You write:
" It's the historical evidence for the reliability of the New Testament and the canonical gospels specifically that led me to trust."

What do you think of Dr.Bart Ehrman's contention that the canonical Gospels were written by anonymous authors?

What do you think of the historical reliability of the Old Testament?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#709064 Mar 31, 2014
Susie D wrote:
<quoted text>The freedon of Worship is in all settings, not what you deem as worthy. No one has to join and it can be done quietly. How about we add a question or two
I am allowed to pray openly and freely in all settings.
A) Yes
B) No
Educational settings can have a moment of silence to honor the dead, use for prayer, or reflection time.
A) Yes
B) No
If you choose B, then my rights have been infringed upon. I have been restricted
I just read these two articles and wanted to share them with you, Susie.

[1] "Texas legislature fails on abortion, passes masturbation bill"
http://tribuneherald.net/2013/06/26/texas-leg...

"Coming down to the final minute as Texas Lt. Governor David Dewhurst forced Sen. Wendy Davis to end her filibuster, the legislature was unable to pass a widely decried abortion bill. The legislature was able to accomplish another aspect of their pro-life agenda though, a ban on male masturbation. One Texas lawmaker joyously announced after the passing of the measure,“this marks a milestone for the pro-life movement! We must protect the unborn any way we can; I’m very proud that my fellow legislators voted to protect life, even in its earliest stages!”

[2] "Alabama Supreme Court Upholds Anti-Masturbation Law"
http://digitaljournal.com/article/280303

Non-Christians don't really care what Christians think Jesus wants, and it's absurd to think that they should be prosecuted by the law for offending Christian sensitivities, but entirely within the Christian mindset to try.

These laws are a taste of what I believe would be the kind of freedom we could expect should zealous Christians ever gain control of the government. As you can see, there is zero respect for non-Christian values and freedoms, something to keep in mind when complaining about Christian rights not being respected.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#709065 Mar 31, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
The author's intent is abundantly clear.
Ghost Writer 2 You wrote:
And what theological background do you have to make that claim?
I'm literate.
It aint necessarily so wrote:
You're reading and approaching Genesis from a scientific position, when Genesis is written from a philosophical/theological perspective. Genesis isn't about scientific claims.
Genesis is about whatever the person reading it thinks it's about. You have no special understanding of it because there is none. The authors are long dead and gone, and there is nothing to speak for their intent apart from the words they left behind. Are you suggesting that I should defer to the opinions of the Christian pharisees (theologians)?
Ghost Writer 2 You wrote:
Faith, as I've said, is synonymous with trust. And that's the way I approach it.
Yes, you've said so. And I told you that I thought that that your definition is incomplete, and facilitates a kind of equivocation fallacy that conflates trust based on evidence with trust based on nothing more than the will to believe.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#709066 Mar 31, 2014
Ghost Writer 2 You wrote:
The non-religious world has a presupposition that faith in a religious context ***always*** means blind faith, which is absolutely wildly inaccurate at best and downright ludicrous and a gross misrepresentation at worst.
Actually, if there's confusion in that area, it's precisely because people fail to be clear about the distinction in just the way we are discussing. If you are interested in clarity, then you should consider not calling two radically different ways of thinking by the same name.
Ghost Writer 2 You wrote:
Just honestly answer the following question without altering the words, sentence structure, or sidestepping the issue. It's "AS IS" and really simple.
Are you confident that the evidence which you currently accept as true indicates that there is no God?
Yes or No?
That's an ambiguous question as written. Are you referring to your god by the use of capitalization, or a god or gods in the general sense? I'll answer both: The Christian god can be ruled out with certainty. Gods in general cannot.

And maybe you should consider the implications of the way you introduced your question. I have never answered any question asked in these threads any other way than honestly - why wouldn't I?- and I have no reason to "sidestep" any issue.Furthermore, if I alter your words, it's because they are unclear, as were here. You seem to want to control the discussion as much as you want to control how scripture is interpreted.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#709067 Mar 31, 2014
Susie D wrote:
<quoted text>That is a foundation used to RAISE money. That money does not come out of his pocket. There is a difference. The man is worth 72 BILLION
Can we assume that you would describe the church with the same language by noting that it is merely an institution that raises money, but doesn't actually give anything of its own to anybody?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#709068 Mar 31, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
I'll give it a shot, but I haven't done one of these in several decades.

The atomic weight of oxygen is 16 g/mole, so the molecular weight of O2 is 32 g/mole. 46.5 g of O2 at 32 g/mole is 46.5 / 32 = 1.43 moles of gas, which is "n" in the Ideal Gas Law PV = nRT.

For P, 760 mm Hg = 1 atm, so 1162 mm Hg = 1662 / 760 = 2.19 atm

R is 0.082 L-atm /°K-mol

Plugging these values into PV = nRT, we get
(2.19 atm)(10.07 L)=(1.43 moles)(0.082 L-atm /°K -mol)(T in °K)

Solving for T
T =(2.19 atm)(10.07 L)/(1.43 moles)(0.082 L-atm /°K-mol)
= 188.1° Kelvin

I hope that's correct.
Susie D wrote:
Nope, 185 :(
Did I make a mistake setting up the problem or an arithmetic error? Does your answer come with a derivation? I've rechecked my work,and can't find a mistake in it, and those answers are pretty close to one another. Might there be a rounding issue? I used 2.19 liters instead of 2.1868, for example.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#709069 Mar 31, 2014
Susie D wrote:
I do not give money to churches. I give it straight to the source.
I strongly support your choice.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#709070 Mar 31, 2014
nanoanomaly wrote:
This "universe" is an abstract, mathematical entity, something that could only have risen from a pre-existing consciousness.
Here are a few terms from psychology relevant to the topic of faith, and the proclivity of some to see a god where others do not:

[1] Need for closure - psychological term that describes an individual's desire for a firm answer to a question and an aversion toward ambiguity.


[2] Primacy effect - that which is heard first has the greatest effect. It is greatest in those with the greatest need for closure (relates to childhood messages about gods) http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Primacy_effe...

[3] Seizing and freezing – latching onto whatever information comes along first and then ignoring contradictory information that comes along later. An extreme manifestation of the need for closure and primacy effect.“The urgency tendency represents an individual's inclination to attain closure as soon as possible, and the permanence tendency represents an individual's inclination to maintain it for as long as possible.”

[4] Belief perseverance - the tendency to cling to ideas even when confronted with evidence to the contrary. http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-belief-persev...

[5] Teleological thinking – hardwired tendency to see things as having a purpose.

[6] Psychological attribution - the tendency to assign reasons and infer the causes of events or behaviors. http://psychology.about.com/od/socialpsycholo...

[7] Patternicity (apophenia and pareidolia)- the experience of seeing meaningful patterns or connections in random or meaningless data. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/pat... .

[8] Agenticity - the belief that things are controlled by a thinking and deciding mind, a type of anthropomophization. http://www.youtube.com/watch...

“True Blue”

Since: Jun 13

Opal-Hearted Land

#709071 Mar 31, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I just read these two articles and wanted to share them with you, Susie.
[1] "Texas legislature fails on abortion, passes masturbation bill"
http://tribuneherald.net/2013/06/26/texas-leg...
"Coming down to the final minute as Texas Lt. Governor David Dewhurst forced Sen. Wendy Davis to end her filibuster, the legislature was unable to pass a widely decried abortion bill. The legislature was able to accomplish another aspect of their pro-life agenda though, a ban on male masturbation. One Texas lawmaker joyously announced after the passing of the measure,“this marks a milestone for the pro-life movement! We must protect the unborn any way we can; I’m very proud that my fellow legislators voted to protect life, even in its earliest stages!”
[2] "Alabama Supreme Court Upholds Anti-Masturbation Law"
http://digitaljournal.com/article/280303
Non-Christians don't really care what Christians think Jesus wants, and it's absurd to think that they should be prosecuted by the law for offending Christian sensitivities, but entirely within the Christian mindset to try.
These laws are a taste of what I believe would be the kind of freedom we could expect should zealous Christians ever gain control of the government. As you can see, there is zero respect for non-Christian values and freedoms, something to keep in mind when complaining about Christian rights not being respected.
Well, that sounds like a real, er...[email protected]

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#709072 Mar 31, 2014
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>The U.S. military has mostly phased out the use of foxholes since it is more of a defensive device and most conflicts we are involved with are aggressive not defensive. Plus, the atheists refuse to jump in them.
xD
The idea that there are no atheists in foxholes underscores the idea that theistic belief is born of fear. It suggests that a rational man who, in a state of calm and over many years has concluded that there is probably no god, can be made to reverse himself when terrified and desperate. That's hardly an endorsement of a god belief.

"[That] there are no atheists in foxholes isn't an argument against atheism. It's an argument against foxholes.”- James Morrow

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#709073 Mar 31, 2014
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TOCO8TE...
Tide with Beach wrote:
Great post.
Thanks.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#709074 Mar 31, 2014
Ghost Writer 2 You wrote:
You really think we believe that God uttered words and by those words the universe and life on Earth just happened to exist? That's ridiculous!!
In my experience, more Christians do than don't. And if you those from the past, the numbers are even more lopsided toward the literal belief that a deity spoke reality into existence.

Let all the earth fear the LORD; Let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of Him. For He spoke, and it was done - Psalm 33

And God said,“Let there be light,” and there was light ... And God said,“Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.”... And God said,“Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so.- Genesis 1
Ghost Writer 2 You wrote:
Of course there was a process, but I don't for a minute believe that God issued a command and "Poof!" there were planets and stars, and animals and plants.
That's your prerogative, but your preference has no more authority than any other.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#709075 Mar 31, 2014
Ghost Writer 2 You wrote:
Let's take a closer look at Genesis. I'll commentate as we go along. My commentary will be in brackets.
Great. I just cited it.
Ghost Writer 2 You wrote:
3 And God said,“Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.[When God said "Let there be light." it indicates an intention to create light. God declared a goal, and then accomplished the goal. What happened and how it happened between those two events doesn't matter.

It doesn't describe any process whatsoever. Agreed?
No, I don't agree. It does describe a process, albeit a magical one. God spoke and matter responded. What happened in between would matter had it actually happened. It is the essence of this discussion. For most believers, nothing else happened. The deity spoke it and it came to pass.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#709076 Mar 31, 2014
Ghost Writer 2 You wrote:
Let's move along. Notice that God separates light from darkness but still no process is described. It only says what He did, and NOT HOW it was done. Therefore, we can use reasoning to infer that the author doesn't care how it was done. Or at least not enough to offer a description.

It's irrelevant.
Not to me. It indicates that the author was unsophisticated. He didn't realize that there would be no light without a source of illumination like the sun, and no darkness without an opaque body like the earth to block it out - two things which hadn't been created yet.
Ghost Writer 2 You wrote:
He doesn't take any pains to describe a process. If it was central to the purpose of the narrative, don't you think it would've been written down? Even if wrong by our own modern understanding of science? I mean really. If such a book as the Bible is so important to humanity, and if the process by which creation occurred is so important, then the process would've been written down. And it wasn't. So all of your debunking is in vain. It's like trying to officiate a baseball game using ice hockey rules.]
What?

Genesis reads like the words of primitive men. I'm sure that they did the best that they could to come up with a plausible story. It simply doesn't curt the mustard any more. You can't make it seem godlike with any number of words.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#709077 Mar 31, 2014
BenAdam wrote:
I make up yard work so I can 'hire' a local couple so they can buy food and diapers for their baby. They won't accept "charity".
That's a good thing to do - direct spending.

And that's what Susie does as well - spends her charitable money directly rather than giving it to an agency or a church. It's the only way to be certain that our charitable dollars are not being wasted or stolen, which is our moral obligation. Big projects far away like disaster relief are better handled by governments, or, if you prefer, by going there yourself and spending your money directly. There is plenty of need right in front of you, and some of it is handled with service rather than spending money.

I had a good day yesterday. I got a dog that was living in a very small space on a very short chain hooked up with a loving home. I was there to see this dog run for what may have been the first time in weeks or months.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#709078 Mar 31, 2014
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
Lol. No prob. Hey, some of my best friends are women. ;)
Honestly, I feel a bit sorry for women. First of all, they have all that complicated plumbing that can really be a drag for some of them. And THEN they have to put up with men, who seem more victimized by their own testosterone than anything else. You have two people who are hormonally thrust together (pun intended) who will often have completely different agendas. If humans were created by a deity, that deity loves practical jokes.
That plumbing can be a drag and so can men, so often profoundly egotestical (correct spelling) but without them there would be no us.

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.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Israel End is Near (Feb '15) 3 min Neville Thompson 388
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 19 min Annaleigh 105,693
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 23 min guest 647,082
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 1 hr Doctor Peace 49,687
*** All Time Favorite Songs *** (Dec '10) 1 hr Classic 3,689
How can I talk my wife into a 3 way with anothe... (Apr '08) 1 hr This worked for me 162
Play "end of the word" part 2 (Dec '15) 1 hr Aussie Kev 2,117
my cousin touches me when i am asleep and i kin... (Mar '14) 4 hr poptropaa 44
topix drops human sexuality forum.......this be... 13 hr Jockfullonutz 28
More from around the web