I am an atheist thread 3

[c659smith]

PHOONEY,

I have continually ask you for what your own definition of evidence is as you apparently to not follow modern man’s definition of evidence. As a matter of fact the professor who wrote the definition of evidence we use today you or your cohorts response was he was dellusion and of course you hav no facts to back up that statement.

 

[Armor_of_God]

continued@armour of god

Why would matters of religious faith have different standards of evidence than everything else we can learn about reality? If the standards of evidence for religious faith are better, then why not use them in other areas?

The thing is, much of what we learn of reality today is based on what the people before us have passed down to society at large. This includes observations, records of historical events surrounding said reality, archaeological evidence, eye witness accounts, scientific evidence, theory, philosophy, and other methods of analysis. A has only been asking for scientific, measurable evidence and discounts everything else, giving it no credibility at all. He seems to be not even willing to do any intense research as to the validity of these other means of testing something. Not only is he just looking for scientific evidence, but it also appears he will only find it acceptable if he is the one who discovers it.

I think I’ll pose to you the questions that I put to Little Mary, our local prayer warrior, which she either was unable to answer, didn’t read or thought it would take too long.

If God told you to go and kill somebody, would you do it?

She said she would pray and consult her priest as her methods for determining if this was really god speaking to her, but that this command would be against God’s teaching anyway.

I responded:

"What if you already knew the person was a sinner? If you hold the bible to be historically accurate, it is hardly unprecedented the event of God commanding his followers to kill entire villages (except for the virgin girls of course).

…

I will just tackle this one briefly, as time permits. It’s a very good question, because it does happen. People go out and kill someone, and claim God told them to do it.

I can only answer for myself here, based on my understanding and relationship with God. I would have to say, first of all, that I am a sinner myself, so the fact that the other person is a sinner means nothing. The only case I can think of where I would kill would be if, after a long, spiritual battle, it was evident that this person was actually possessed by the Devil, and God was directing me to halt the further spread of evil and spiritual destruction. With something as serious as that, I also imagine that my life would be in imminent danger from this person, and the killing would be a last resort.

 

[c659smith]

phooney

The Catholic Church entrusts to scientists the tasks of continuing to investigate, to reach answers to the questions connected to this shroud.""

And this answer from the previous Pope does not deny the validity of the Shroud but dares science do refute it’s vality.

science cannot replicate it today never the less check it’s authenticity becuse it is unexplained a miracle.

Science is welcomed to check any of the thousands of physical mysteries of the Catholic Church and have and do you know what they have come up with for answers? They are unexplained “a miracle”

For as I stated before the word University and the first and still many of the Universities today are part of the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church welcomes science and for science however to prove it’s theories not just assume. They still have not found the missing link now have they?

My definition of Ape is sound and what I gave you is fact not dreams.

 

[c659smith]

I have responded 90% of your questions with factual data and definitions. It is just that you do not like the answers.

When I give you personal tesimony or what i know you say I do not have the facts.

When I give and site scientific evidence from the internet you say I have no personal ideas on the subjects.

When I ask you a question to show any type of validity more so than that to which the Catholic Church teaches you give me nothing.

No I have answered all your question other than those that you would have me chasing my ape tail. ha ha

 

[c659smith]

PHOONEY,

you stated the Shroud was proven false I showed you otherwise as what you had was outdated. I proved my point.

Tell me how was it made?

 

[c659smith]

Hi Pax

In other words, god cannot be felt by our five senses. He doesn’t exist.

Sure God can be felt by our 5 senses to those that are open to Him and those He chooses.

 

[c659smith]

Hi 659

Not really just atheist. Women who want control over their own body. People who could be helped by stem cell research. Etc…

I can’t buy booze on sunday because god doesn’t like it. What if they past a law that no one could shop on saturday because Thor didn’t like it. How would you feel about that? Would that be scary??

There is a thread for the questions here you brought up and think I put "A ’ through enough last week with this subject so for "A"s sake this is I will answer to the satement you made here and leave it at that.

When a Woman is pregnant there are two seperate and distinct forms of human life.

Science does not refute this.

What is within her is life and is Human.

U.S. law regards the baby in the womb as a seperate life just ask the thousands of men and women serving life or death sentences for the man slughter or killing of such a life.

The U.S, Military considers the bab in the womb a seperate life. Just try to join if your wife is pregnant with your 3rd child. The baby in the womb is called a dependent.

Undestand the Catholic Church is not aganist stem cell research one of the biggest mis-nomers by the press out there.

Thee Catholic Church is aganist the harvesting of Human Life in embryotic stem cell research.

This is truly a path that even a moral atheist does not want to go down.

Which for the most part is human cloning

 

[c659smith]

it must be nap time out there. ha ha

 

[CTA1967]

Hi, everyone. I think this is an interesting article concerning attacks on religion/atheism: uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/10DumRel.htm

This professor writes in a way that makes it difficult to tell if he’s religious or not (and maybe it’s better that way), but he usually tries to be fair in defending either the religious or unbelievers when illogical statements are made about them. Here’s his main page for “Science, Pseudoscience, and Irrationalism”: uwgb.edu/dutchs/pscindx.htm

 

[lkddav]

If God were to do this you would say it was a natural phenomeon

Hi

You asked me what i would take as evidence. If you pray that god teraforms the moon like earth in six days it should come true because jesus said your prayers would be answered.

If this happened i would not think it was a natural phenomeon. You asked what i would take as evidence and i would take this as evidence.

Of course this is not going to happen because your prayer is not going to come true. You can qoute scripture till the cows come home and it still isn’t evidence.

 

[lkddav]

Just because it’s not necessarily taken literally doesn’t mean it’s wrong. There’s truth there. You don’t just “throw the baby out with the bathwater”… that’s just ridiculous…

Psyche

There is no truth to an invisible man making people out of dirt, talking snakes and such. THIS is ridiculous.

 

[lkddav]

I never said it was a myth. You’re putting words in my mouth. Allegory, symbolism, truth it’s all there with possibly more historical fact than we know… the first part of Genesis is on the creation of the world. An awful lot of info to get into a small book, so it makes sense that the author(s) had to resort to a story we can all understand. Even Jesus used parables to get his point across. The second part of genesis is more historical and geneological. So There will obviously be more use of the 24 hour day as the 24 hour day we all know and are familiar with.

Psyche

There is no truth in genesis. The authors were goat salesmen who thought the earth was flat. If they were inspired by god whey would have got it right.

 

[lkddav]

This is a statement born of absolute ignorance of scripture and how it was written. You have no understanding whatsoever of the modes of middle eastern thought. Superimposing a western thinkers bias(let alone your own personal bias), and doing so with such arrogance is a classic example of blindly rejecting that which you do not understand.

Hi Pax

If god gave us humans the bible as a guidebook, why does it have to be so hard to understand? Why isn’t it simple for the whole world to understand??

 

[_A]

However, the “happiness” that Christians declare are much more deeper than the happiness that we just “feel” – not just physical but whole being (however one believe a person is “composed” of).

Unless you have felt anothers feelings, this is nonsense.

We believe that the happiness promised by our God is much greater than the happiest feeling one mortal can experience in this life. It’s in fact quite ironic because, temporal “happiness” is not important for Christians.

You admit that you are not happy here, but might be after you die. You want me to believe that, but you want me to doubt a woman who says that she is happy.
Your statement would be a lot tougher to believe.

Indeed, happiness is defined by a person – only that person has the authority to experience that. However, the happiness promised to the Christians are beyond the greatest that a person can imagine.

The promise which you believe without evidence. You would stop a womans real happiness now in favour of your promised (but never proven) happiness later.
Very selfish. Why not just accept her word that she is happy and leave it at that?
You can’t know what someone else feels.

 

[CTA1967]

Of course this is not going to happen because your prayer is not going to come true. You can qoute scripture till the cows come home and it still isn’t evidence.

Hold on, you may not think that our evidence is convincing, but that does not justify your statement. Can you prove logically that miracles never happen?

 

[lkddav]

Try reading my posts again. What I said was that the narrative cannot be taken in a “literalist” fashion. When reading any document the reader must look at the intent of the author and do so within the cultural, religious, and social context of the times.

If I tell you that “it was raining cats and dogs at my house yesterday,” you would know that I meant that it was raining extremely hard. If someone were to hear or read the same statement in another culture a thousand years from now they would have to understand the idiom. If they did not they would mistakenly think that dogs and cats were literally falling from the sky.

Just because we are not to take Genesis in a “literalistic” fashion, as illustrated in my idiomatic analogy, does not mean that the fall did not happen. You need to think a lot more about all of this. I can hardly believe that you are making this kind of assertion.

Okay, let’s break this down. What part of genesis do you take literally? Do you believe a talking snake (satan) convinced a woman (made from the rib of a man) to eat a forbidden fruit in a magical garden. She then convinced a man (made from dirt) to eat the fruit, which was a no,no from god. This brought the fall of man.
If you don’t take this literally, how did the fall of man happen???

 

[_A]

Excellent pics, A! The moose and beaver would look great in a nature magazine. Have you thought of doing freelance photography?

I can take and photochop pictures easily, but I have some weird spots which conflict with doing it professionally.
One is that I will not sign ‘intellectual property’ over to someone. If they want to steal it, great! But if they try to make money off it, I would take action.
There are other reasons, but that is one of the biggies. I do like sharing them, though.
I don’t even know if I would like it anymore if there were money attached…

 

[_A]

Excellent pics, A! The moose and beaver would look great in a nature magazine. Have you thought of doing freelance photography?

Oh, and thanks for the compliment. I will pass it on to the photographer (where appropriate).

 

[lkddav]

Read my post again and address it head on. Silly sniping makes no head way with me.

This is not silly sniping. Jesus said he would answer your prayers if you believe. Prayers are not answered. If jesus told the truth, the childrens hospital in louisville wouldn’t be full of dying children.

 

[lkddav]

Now you are just being obnoxious. Should I accuse you or suggest in some way that you are lying?

Pax
I was not trying to be abnoxious. Just a simple question. Was jesus lying when he said a believers prayers would be answered?