Prove there's a god.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#763946 Jul 31, 2014
Lab28 wrote:
Y'know, I know I said the last one was my final post but I made the mistake of looking in... I am discouraged by what I see.
I'm going to set the bible aside for this one, but there's no stopping the spirit burning inside me. I'm going to go off of the idea of subjective reality.
I found this to be dangerous thinking. That all of reality is only relative. That our frame of reference is only based on past and present relationship to the world around us. But let's indulge that concept for a minute.
Etymology for relative early 15c., "having reference," from Middle French relatif and directly from Late Latin relativus (see relative (n.)). Meaning "compared to each other" is from 1590s; that of "depending on a relationship to something else" is from 1610s.
Our relationship to our world determines our reality. Therefore, in the midst of this divisiveness and hatred what kind of reality do I want to live in?
For me, love isn't an indulgence. It isn't a strong emotional persuasion. It isn't a feeling I get. It is actually something I've been commanded to live out. It is a tone that I am obliged to pound into my heart on a daily basis.
What do you think being given such a tall order has done to my subjective reality? What do you think believing the idea that it is possible to love every person on this planet has done to my worldview? Would you believe that it's a bad thing. That it's just a lie I tell myself? That some people don't deserve love or that I should be allowed to pick and choose who I will be indifferent to, who I will hate, who I will love?
I'd like to also add the plagiarized idea that if I knew everything that there is to know, every mystery of this world, but I didn't love; that knowledge would be useless. That if I inherited everything and was given all authority over all of humanity, but didn't know what love was, I would be in misery. That if I was the wealthiest man in the world, but didn't love, I would be worse off than someone in poverty.
For the Christians in this thread you know this commandment and I'd like to promote the idea that it is the most important of them all, far above all the wedge issue garbage you like to argue about.
And for the atheists I'd like you to just consider the possibility of this commandment, and using it in a secular way in order to change your own brain chemistry to a more pleasant reality.
I don't want to get into a huge debate over moral relativism or presuppositional apologetics, but I will say that probably any person in this thread knows this is accurate, whether or not their pride allows it. That being said, carry on, you have always been free to hate.
But you have been set free so that you can love.
"Love" as I know it is an emotional connection requiring a distinct target. One might be able to love all of humanity in a generic sense, but it's not the same as the love one feels for someone they know personally. If you equate the two, you cheapen the personal connection considerably.

What I feel for all humans is not love. It's kinship. It's based on empathy. I can feel it for other kinds of animals too, especially when I can relate to them in some way.

Do you want to live in a world where other thinking agents empathize with you? Allowing this faculty to guide you will contribute to creating such a world. That's reason enough.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#763947 Jul 31, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
Stop repeating yourself and just pony up the evidence for your claim.
You're not the boss of me!

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#763948 Jul 31, 2014
thewordofme wrote:
"I got news for you. Humans did not ''evolve'' from ape like creatures. Apes have always been apes and humans have always been humans."
How would you explain that most people on earth have some percentage of Neanderthal genes/blood in their body? Being related to Neanderthals opens us up to being the modern ancestors of other genus 'Homo's' such as Homo-erectus, Homo-habilis, Homo-heidelbergensis, etc., etc. that roamed the earth for a few million years. Modern humans were noted in the archaeological world as first existing around 200,000 years ago.
These are observable, testable facts....in other words real and true, not a result of lies and mistruths such as Christians, especially fundamentalists, are known for.
http://www.the-scientist.com/...

Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.

I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.

In the peer-reviewed literature, the word "evolution" often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find out, I substituted for "evolution" some other word – "Buddhism," "Aztec cosmology," or even "creationism." I found that the substitution never touched the paper's core. This did not surprise me. From my conversations with leading researchers it had became clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology.

“Seventh son”

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#763949 Jul 31, 2014
dirty white boy- wrote:
you gonna wear it around your leg or head?
I'll work my way into it.

Round the world,....:)>

“Seventh son”

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#763950 Jul 31, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.the-scientist.com/...
Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.
I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.
In the peer-reviewed literature, the word "evolution" often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find out, I substituted for "evolution" some other word – "Buddhism," "Aztec cosmology," or even "creationism." I found that the substitution never touched the paper's core. This did not surprise me. From my conversations with leading researchers it had became clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology.
Twilight zone?
ROCCO

Indio, CA

#763951 Jul 31, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Congrats.
I have a five year anniversary as well: five years of retirement and expatriation. I closed my office July 31, 2009 and left the States a week later.
Thanks, Ain't.

May you have many more decades of fulfillment in your personal happiness.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#763952 Jul 31, 2014
http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/deve...

Upon examination of the horn under a high-powered microscope back at CSUN, Dacus says Armitage was “fascinated” to find soft tissue on the sample – a discovery Bacus said stunned members of the school’s biology department and even some students “because it indicates that dinosaurs roamed the earth only thousands of years in the past rather than going extinct 60 million years ago.”

Maybe, but what’s really interesting to some of us is that finding soft dinosaur tissue doesn’t seem nearly as important at I09 as the question of Armitage’s religious beliefs. Just think of the long-running questions the find, if it holds up, would settle.

A paper on the subject was published in Elsevier peer-reviewed science journal, Acta Histochemica (Latin for “Cell Chemistry News”):

Soft sheets of fibrillar bone from a fossil of the supraorbital horn of the dinosaur Triceratops horridus

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#763953 Jul 31, 2014
RiccardoFire wrote:
Are you saying if I find a non believing couple that abused their kid, it's all on atheism?
No.
What a dumb argument from a person that claims to be an academic.
You claim to be an academic? Really?

You know what that makes me do?
LOL
That's exactly right. It makes me LOL.
http://latest.com/2014/06/arizona-couple-star...

This lovely couple were not Christians, they are just like you.
LOL, again.

They weren't humanists either, just like you.

Christians have this to guide them:

Proverbs 13:24

"Whoever spares the rod hates their children, but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them."

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#763954 Jul 31, 2014
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intellectual-f...

If you knew anything Dr. Meyers, about the microscopy of osteocytes – living osteocytes –(and we are not talking about epithelial cells) you would know that delicate ultrastructure – and I am talking fine filipodia approaching 500nm in width, decay WITHIN DAYS of the death of an organism. We microscopists have to use quick acting preservatives and process bone tissues immediately ON ICE to preserve the kinds of structures you can see on the Triceratops osteocytes in my paper:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/...

The reason we creationists are very excited about this work – the reason you and Jack Horner and Mary Schweitzer are backpedalling FAST on this issue now is because EVERYBODY knows this kind of ultrastructural preservation is MIRACULOUS. Osteocytes do not sit around with these kinds of structures for 10,000 years – let alone 68 million years.

Secondly – you should resist the temptation to comment about things you have not done your homework on. Seriously, you are embarrassing yourself because Mary Schweitzer showed in her 2013 paper that these osteocytes contain HISTONES inside their nucleoli. This is direct evidence that there is MIRACULOUS preservation of autogenous molecules inside these bones – and in my case, inside a highly vascular, mud embedded Triceratops horn (not a deeply buried heavily encased limb bone).

“Seventh son”

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#763955 Jul 31, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
http://www.uncommondescent.com /evolution/developing-story-yo ung-earth-creationist-microsco pist-fired-in-wake-of-finding- soft-tissue-from-dinosaurs-sue s/
Upon examination of the horn under a high-powered microscope back at CSUN, Dacus says Armitage was “fascinated” to find soft tissue on the sample – a discovery Bacus said stunned members of the school’s biology department and even some students “because it indicates that dinosaurs roamed the earth only thousands of years in the past rather than going extinct 60 million years ago.”
Maybe, but what’s really interesting to some of us is that finding soft dinosaur tissue doesn’t seem nearly as important at I09 as the question of Armitage’s religious beliefs. Just think of the long-running questions the find, if it holds up, would settle.
A paper on the subject was published in Elsevier peer-reviewed science journal, Acta Histochemica (Latin for “Cell Chemistry News”):
Soft sheets of fibrillar bone from a fossil of the supraorbital horn of the dinosaur Triceratops horridus
Did you learn that from el-stypidia? Or from dumb and dumber?

Since: Sep 10

Manhattan Beach, CA

#763956 Jul 31, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> The article itself is just news. It is why you post it. To smear Christians. If you had such a strong case, if you were so moral you would not have to resort to name calling.
I would say the Schatz Christians smeared themselves.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's teapot

#763957 Jul 31, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
Genesis? In your wet dreams. Jesus is wrong and your interpretation of science is correct? I will go with Jesus.
http://i1246.photobucket.com/albums/gg601/sca...

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#763958 Jul 31, 2014
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
Then they are not True Satanists ™
hahaha!

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#763959 Jul 31, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> All you have is accusations. You have no reespect for truth. You would have everyone believe Christianity approves of beating children to death. That is beneath contempt. It is just evil. Nothing more than the promotion of hate and it is there for all to see.
<quoted text> I answered that. It is not my problem you ignore and choose to spam. Perhaps you have comprehension problems. If you did not get it the first time, you will not get it again nor do you demonstrate you want to. All you have is attempting to provoke Christians to angry responses. To bring us down to your gutter level. That works sometimes. But we get sick of hanging out with the likes of you in the gutter.
<quoted text> The foundation of my belief is the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ who is the source of all truth. So are we to believe Hiding over Jesus Christ? IANS over Jesus Christ? Topix atheists over Jesus Christ? No and no and no again.
I never made the claim "all Christians beat their kids." This is just you refusing to be rational again, and resorting to deceitful statements.

Additionally, it was you who, against all reason and accountability, linked atheism to violence because of one anecdotal story.

Last, it is you who constantly resorts to intellectual dishonesty and laziness when presenting an opinion. You were at least honest about that when you informed us all that you would pick and choose which science to "believe" in - anything to support whatever twisted belief system you hold.

You're afraid of honesty. You refuse to consider science and history that do not back your claims - and, b/c of that, your religious belief system is built on the shifting sand of falsehoods.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#763960 Jul 31, 2014
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>Are you saying if I find a non believing couple that abused their kid, it's all on atheism? What a dumb argument from a person that claims to be an academic. LOL
http://latest.com/2014/06/arizona-couple-star... This lovely couple were not Christians, they are just like you.
No, I was responding to Lightbeamrider who made that claim using a news story about just that. It's so much easier to find Christians who, b/c of insanity, do horrible things. If I were to use LB's logic, all Christians are then "evil" as he puts it.

I reject such simple logic, though, and fully understand that people of any ideology and belief system can be nasty, for reasons of psychology.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#763961 Jul 31, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
The painful aspect of separation came years before closing the doors. I was psychologically divorced from America first, and that included the business and politics of medicine, so I was relieved to be done with it
I never lost my love for the art and science, however, Still, the transition to retirement and a new culture was a surprisingly easy one, and I've never missed my old life nor regretted my new one. In fact, we got more than we knew we would. It wasn't until we were living here that we really appreciated what we had traded for. We knew about the fair weather, the favorable economy, and the vibrancy of the local culture, but didn't really have a feel for how life would change for us.
We are much more relaxed, we are surrounded by much more interesting people, we are overwhelmed with the number of good restaurant choices, and we are pleased to be walking almost everywhere.
We were pleasantly surprised by the bank interest rates (about 8% for insured bonds) and the low cost of insurance. We are pleased to have reduced our carbon footprint to near zero, are tickled to be removed from the miasma of continual ambient bickering (it's pretty much confined to Topix posting), and are happy to be in what is essentially an all cash economy. We don't use credit cards or write checks. There's not a lot of e-data on us to be trending.
So what's to miss?
Thanks for asking.
Wow, very nice!

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#763962 Jul 31, 2014
sweets2360 wrote:
wrote:
All you had to do was ask, as there are lots of people who will cook for you. Here the local Elks Lodge has a wild country dinner once a year where you can try just about anything you wish, from coon, possum, rattlesnake, gator tail, rabbit and other fare for the people who just don't want to try.
Oh! I would love to try that stuff!

Yum!

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#763963 Jul 31, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Yes, life can only come from life. Prove it wrong. Until then, it is blind faith based.
Not a single one of our sciences incorporates deities in their theories or hypotheses.

If you are going to make the claim that life was started by your particular deity, you had best have extraordinary evidence to back up that ridiculousness.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#763964 Jul 31, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah we are 50% banana.
Neanderthal is modern myth about ancient man and is believable as big foot. Believe it if you want. It is garbage mostly harmless. I detest lying to children and attempting to make the lies more believable by invoking science.
Clearly you don't understand the first thing about genetics.

<shakes head>

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#763965 Jul 31, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> What that student did is perfectly in line with atheistic Darwin evolution. It is a natural consequence. So called Christian parents whipping a child to death is not in line with Christian teachings. That is the difference.
Could you please cite where, in evolution, biological science informs parents to kill their children?

Duuuuuuuuuuuh!

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
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 22 min Rosesz 646,331
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 30 min River Tam 47,918
dried poppy pods (Mar '13) 55 min BobbyReal 32
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 1 hr Judgment Day Watc... 618,609
my cousin touches me when i am asleep and i kin... (Mar '14) 2 hr Lils 42
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 2 hr AussieBobby 281,217
Vote for Euro 2016, free game 2 hr Aaron0562 1
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 4 hr Annaleigh 105,574
Play "end of the word" part 2 (Dec '15) 4 hr WasteWater 2,012
American Soldiers - Duty, Honor, Country (Jun '11) 11 hr oneear69 38,711
More from around the web