I am an atheist

[_A]

You are a little misinformed about God and who He is. Besides, the God of the Old Testament was a little more harsh because the people were a little more sinful. He had to show more “tough love,” if you will. When Jesus came along, He tried to soften things up a little and focus more on love of neighbor and self-sacrifice rather than eternal punishment.

I don’t think God normally sends people to Hell for one or two “occurrences.” It matters to Him more what is in a person’s heart and soul. If a person is persistent in his sin and general “rottenness”, then he would be a good candidate for Hell. For those who are struggling to be good who are honestly having a hard time with it, He offers the Holy Sacrament of Reconcilliation. For non-Catholics, I guess they can ask God for forgiveness and hope that it works. Depending on how sorry they are, it may work, but there is no guarantee as in the confessional with a priest.

When you say, “jealous,” you assume that it’s in a bad way. God is jealous in the best way that there is to be jealous. God is jealous in the way that a husband would be jealous if his wife were flirting with another man, or vice versa. He CARES whether or not we care for Him or not. If we start to follow a false god of some sort or start a blatant life of sin, that’s like adultery to Him, as if you were "cheating’ on Him in some way. Wouldn’t it be nice to know that somebody cared about you enough that He didn’t want you to do anything to separate you from His friendship? To you that may seem creepy, but you can get used to it really quick. The nice thing about God is that although He does exert and use His power sometimes, He does not abuse it. Contrast that with every human who has ever been in a position of absolute power (like Hitler). We can’t handle it. That’s why He is in charge because He knows how to use His power very wisely.

I have to go for now, but I’ll be glad to talk to you later.

Tracy

Tracy, if a man is jealous about his wifes behaviour, it is not noble. It is manipulative and controlling and ugly. If a couple are going to be together, I would think that willing sharing would be a much better program. Same goes for Yahweh. Instead of fixing his mistakes, he kills them in floods, or tortures them eternally in hell.
Beneath my moral standards, not to mention the standards of any civilized country today.

 

[notself]

And since we’re making outside references, here is a point-by-point, detailed rebuttal to Miller.

Demski is an employee of the Discovery Institue. He is not a scientist, has done no experimental work, has submitted not papers to scientific journals for peer review. He couldn’t get a job in his major which was Math and Philosophy.

Heck my Uncle George had an opinion on evolution. So what?

Here is a Wiki on this philosopher.

Discovery Institute
During the three years after completing graduate school in 1996 Dembski was unable to secure a university position and so until 1999 he received what he calls “a standard academic salary” of $40,000 a year as a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Discovery Institute’s, Center for Science and Culture (CSC). “I was one of the early beneficiaries of Discovery largess,” says Dembski.[11] Dembski serves now as a senior fellow at the CSC, where he plays a central role in the center’s extensive public and political campaigns advancing the concept of intelligent design and its teaching in public schools through its “Teach the Controversy” campaign as part of the institute’s Wedge strategy.

Peer-review controversy
One of the common objections to intelligent design being accepted as valid science is that ID proponents have published no scientific papers in the peer-reviewed scientific literature in support of their conjectures. The ruling in the Dover trial, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, found that to date, the intelligent design movement has yet to have an article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.[12][13] Despite the Dover trial ruling, the Discovery Institute claims that Dembski’s book The Design Inference has in fact been peer reviewed, and represents it as peer reviewed. [14]. Although the Discovery Institute touts Dembski’s credentials as a mathematician and scientist, he has no peer reviewed scientific publications and no recent mathematical publications.[15] Other biographies refer to him as a theologian.

Computer scientist and number theorist Jeffrey Shallit describes Dembski’s published mathematical output as “extremely small” for a research mathematician, and remarks that "t is very unlikely that his meagre output would merit tenure at any major university."[16] Dembski insists that The Design Inference has in fact been peer reviewed.[17] Dembski states: “this book was published by Cambridge University Press and peer-reviewed as part of a distinguished monograph series, Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction, and Decision Theory”. Wesley R. Elsberry contacted the person in charge of the The Design Inference manuscript at Cambridge University Press, who declined to describe what a normal review process at Cambridge University Press consisted of. [citation needed] In his expert report, Shallit states “I know that book manuscripts typically do not receive the same sort of scrutiny that research articles do. …it is not uncommon for a 10-page paper to receive 5 pages or more of comments whereas a book manuscript of 200 pages often receives about the same number…”(p.4)

The Discovery Institute provided all of the witnesses for the Defense during the Kitzmiller trial, none of their arguements convinced the judge.

Here is a little something on the Wedge Strategy also from Wiki.

The wedge strategy is a political and social action plan authored by the Discovery Institute, the hub of the intelligent design movement. The strategy was put forth in a Discovery Institute manifesto known as the Wedge Document,[1] which describes a broad social, political, and academic agenda whose ultimate goal is to “defeat [scientific] materialism” represented by evolution, “reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions”[2] and to “affirm the reality of God.”[3] Its goal is to “renew” American culture by shaping public policy to reflect conservative Christian, namely evangelical Protestant, values.[4]

I guess you just won’t be happy until science is destoyed and we all living in a Baptist Theocracy.

Sad, really sad.

 

[Jacafamala]

Tracy, if a man is jealous about his wifes behaviour, it is not noble. It is manipulative and controlling and ugly. If a couple are going to be together, I would think that willing sharing would be a much better program. Same goes for Yahweh. Instead of fixing his mistakes, he kills them in floods, or tortures them eternally in hell.
Beneath my moral standards, not to mention the standards of any civilized country today.

No, A. God is merciful, so merciful that He gives us free will. If you read the book of Hosea, in the bible, you’ll see a profit who was married to a woman who became a whore. Hosea tenderly calls her back to himself. Hosea is an image of God.

God is Mercy. He is so merciful, that He allows us to choose. Some would rather be in hell. The dark angels are there because they chose it willingly. God respects the persons He has made. God respects our right to chose so intensely, that if we decide to be separated from Him for eternity, then He’ll allow it. He will always be there, yet He will hide Himself from us to avoid causing us further pain. The pain we experience in hell is self inflicted, because we want it. The pain in hell is not caused by God. God does permit pain in this world, but only if the possibility of a greater good might come from it.

We will *all * die, obviously. We’ll all suffer, not just the persons in the time of the great flood. And by all I’m including God. God Himself has suffered most horribly (on the cross), for our sins. He chose to suffer. Everything that happens in this life is an opportunity for grace: everything, even suffering, even death is an opportunity for grace. God made it that way.

 

[_A]

I cant’ quite agree here. Symmetry can certainly indicate an intelligent design pattern.

No it doesn’t.

 

[BCH]

No it doesn’t.

Are you serious.

If I see a building or housing that gives off a symmetrical (balanced proportions; also : beauty of form arising from balanced proportions.) appearance, cant’ I safely assume that some sort of intelligence is behind the design and construction of these structures?
Could anyone just throw a bunch of building materials high in the air (above a foundation) and ever expect it to form a house when it finally lands?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Ezekiel’s prophecy took place in about 587 BC. The king of Babylon was already planning on punishing Tyre for plotting against him with the Egyptians. …The prophecy could not have been about Alexander the Great, who was Greek, because it specifically says “the king of Babylon”. … I have shown here, I think that it wasn’t an accurate prophesy. …

A:

I understand your objection to be that the prophecy of Ezekiel was only about King Nebuchadnezzar. Since the amazing prediction that the entire coastal city would be thrown into the sea was fulfilled by Alexander the Great, then Ezekiel is shown to be a false prophet and the book that bears his name a fraud.

In response, i ask that you please read the words of Ezekiel more carefully:

“… therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I am against you, O Tyre, and I will bring many nations against you, like the sea casting up its waves. They will destroy the walls of Tyre and pull down her towers; I will scrape away her rubble and make her a bare rock.”(Ezekiel 26, verses 3 and 4, emphasis added) Ezekiel predicts that the Babylonian king will be one of many kings that will siege the mainland city, like waves of the sea crashing against its walls again and again. Nebuchadnezzar was just the first of these kings, one of whom was Alexander the Great. His prediction was that all of the debris of the ruined mainland city would be shoveled into the the Mediterranean, but he does not say which one of the many kings would be the one to accomplish this incredible feat that occurred only once in recorded history. Therefore, the predictions of Ezekiel in chapter 26 did in fact came true.

Does this sound reasonable?

 

[_A]

I’m just curious: Why the question mark?

I was showing that I was patiently attentive(…and arranged another e-mail notification)

Not as effective as I liked

 

[_A]

I cant’ quite agree here. Symmetry can certainly indicate an intelligent design pattern. And, an intelligent design pattern indicates a designer. It may not be evidence for you but I don’t think that it is much of a leap in logic to make that connection.

Where to even start…hmmm…
OK we live in a world which has a spin. This spin is very regular, and makes a light/dark cycle. Because it spins at a steady rate, which it must, it makes a symmetrical light/dark cycle because we are orbiting a star. That explains a lot of symmetry. Also, some kindly sort earlier mentioned that eyes develop on both sides in most creatures because that is the most survivable layout for a two-eyed creature.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I was showing that I was patiently attentive(…and arranged another e-mail notification)

Not as effective as I liked

No problem.

When you have time to ponder my previous post (i.e., 424) let me no what you think. No rush is necessary, though. Just wanted to make sure you did not miss my reply.

Have a good one!

 

[FamilyGuy]

As to the ‘symmetry proves design’ argument, many things are spherical - symmetrical in all directions. That’s because GRAVITY affects them. Is gravity a god now? Snowflakes tend to have symmetry because crystals freeze faster. Asymmetrical snowflakes get left in the clouds or never form in the first place.

When you make these silly ‘design’ arguments, I merely have to ask by what process your God supposedly designs anything. I can talk to the contractor working on my back deck and he’ll show me blueprints, floor plans, invoices to buy wood, nails and glue and the people who are going to take those objects and put them together so that I have a ‘deck’.

Explain how your God makes oxygen, for example. Or the human hand. Or anything. You don’t know, you can’t know, and you’re making an invalid assumption.

As to the reason I personally am an atheist - the world works exactly the same way if there’s an invisible parent in the sky as if there isn’t - and I’m a fan of the simpler explanation.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

A:

Like i said previously, i’m a skeptic. I’ve tried to look at Ezekiel 26 objectively and figure out how the guy could have done it. I mean, it would be easy to guess that Tyre would one day fall (as incredible as that prediction seemed in his day), but how did he know the method of its demise?

How did he know the ruins of the mainland city of Tyre would be dumped into the sea so that nothing, not even the dirt of its streets, would be left on dry land? Alexander the Great could not have told him, for the Greek general would not be born until at least 200 years after Ezekiel was in the grave.

Making such a prediction of an event that happened only once in history more than 200 years prior would be like Benjamin Franklin predicting that flying machines would bring two towering buildings crashing down in New York City. The prediction of Ezekiel was perhaps even more uncanny, for the United States did not fall when the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center fell.

 

[FamilyGuy]

A:

Like i said previously, i’m a skeptic. I’ve tried to look at Ezekiel 26 objectively and figure out how the guy could have done it. I mean, it would be easy to guess that Tyre would one day fall (as incredible as that prediction seemed in his day), but how did he know the method of its demise?

How did he know the ruins of the mainland city of Tyre would be dumped into the sea so that nothing, not even the dirt of its streets, would be left on dry land? Alexander the Great could not have told him, for the Greek general would not be born until at least 200 years after Ezekiel was in the grave.

Making such a prediction of an event that happened only once in history more than 200 years prior would be like Benjamin Franklin predicting that flying machines would bring two towering buildings crashing down in New York City. The prediction of Ezekiel was perhaps even more uncanny, for the United States did not fall when the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center fell.

Would it be like writing a book about an unsinkable ship called the Titan, which ended up sinking because it hit an iceberg? That happened in the 1800s. Coincidences happen.

Jules Verne also knew that we’d rocket to the moon someday. H.G. Wells had some ideas that occurred later in human history. We don’t call these people ‘prophets’, though.

However, a coincidence occurs in your Babble, therefore, it’s prophecy. I get it.

 

[_A]

You’ve attacked the analogy here, but not the concept. “Non-rational” means matter which is not capable of rational thought. Try again.

I didn’t attack the analogy, I dispelled it. It was easy.

would simply throw the example of the eyeball at you and ask you to explain it in the same simple language (without links) that you’ve demanded of me.

I will do what I can, but it would be a disservice to my teacher if I neglected to mention the DVD Growing Up In The Universe
STEP | ADDED SURVIVABILITY
light sensitive cell | can detect night/day cycle
cluster of cells (clump) | can detect a shadow passing
raised ridge beside clump | ridge shadow helps see dir. of light
ridge all around clump | light dir. and better shadow detect
ridge grows to cone | shape of shadow detected
When the cone (think of a volcano over the clump) hole starts to shrink, the hole acts as a pinhole camera (the resolution improves all the way.
Further refinements improve gradually the ‘pinhole camera’ to the current states. It should be noted that more than one type of eye has evolved.

And evidence of sharp bursts of evolution, such as the pre-cambrium period

I can’t even spell precambrian let alone evaluate competently the evidence gathered from long before there was any whisper of Adam and Eve and Yahweh. You asked me to keep it simple, I ask you to remember that I am also a simple man. Not a scientist, just an interested lay person. Same goes for church and bible matters.

…such beautifully “designed” organisms, such as the birds of paradise flower.

You keep claiming design but not demonstrating it. If complexity implies a designer to you, why does your complex ‘designer’ originate. Wouldn’t he require a designer?

…As the creator of physics, time, and space, he is outside of it and has revealed himself as such.

After quoting all that highbrow science stuff you are going to fall back on ‘there are no rules for Yahweh’?

Not only have you displayed, in earlier posts, your ignorance of modern scientific theory with regard to the universe (such as your suggestion of a Big Crunch), but you fail to realize that the modern scientific consensus of a finite universe means the universe came into being. Had it been otherwise, I would concede the point. Anything which comes into being needs a catalyst for its movement and existance. Ultimately there must be a catalyst which, itself, did not come into being because there cannot be an infinite line of finite things. That’s a paradox.

Not being a scientist (as you kindly pointed out), I didn’t know the Big Crunch was out of fashion…This statement about ‘anything that comes into being’ I am not sure I understand. I do know that there is no evidence that god created the universe. The much more likely answer is that it is a natural process.

So … you don’t know much about the incorruptables, I take it. Your example of “Random preserved corpses” ignores the fact that the incorruptables are overwhelmingly Christian and science has thrown up its hands at the cause of the preservation, especially in the cases where everything with the corpse decomposed and lime had been placed to eat at the body.

So did the head of King Charles I. Was he particularly holy? Several of these claims have been proven frauds. How many must be assiduously proven mundane before you will leave give up on the incorruptibles?

Huh?

Your testimony is suspect because the laws which you admit you live by tell you that you are in grave danger if you do not ‘give testimony’.Testimony given under threat or other duress is generally not accepted.That is what I meant.

He came back body, blood, humanity and divinity in the Eucharist.

Isn’t the eucharist something that symbolizes your god? That is not returning, that is many people wishing for a return.

 

[_A]

This and all of the other drivel by Behe was completely refuted during the Kitzmiller v Dover School Board trial in Pennsylvania. Here is the link to the judge’s opinion.

pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf

It is a darn shame that it is against forum rules to post a link to YouTube, but just put in Ken Miller in the search function of YouTube. You will pull up a 1 1/2 hour long discussion of the testimony from the trial. Mr. Miller is a devout Roman Catholic scientist who was the lead witness in the trial. Ken Miller discusses the real science and completely refutes the made up science of Behe regarding the eye and the “motor” of bacterial flagellum being irreducibly complex. Miller also presents many examples of transition fossils.

The Judge, after hearing Behe and others on the ID side, and hearing true science on the plaintiff’s side, ruled that ID was not science but religious faith and as such could not be taught in public schools. By the way, the Judge was nominated for his post by DeLay and was appointed by George W. Bush as one of his most conservative judges. I guess it proves that Conservatives aren’t all brain dead idiots. Who knew?

Intelligent Design is Creationism in a new coat. It is anti-science as well as being anti-intelligence.

Well said.

 

[_A]

In order to save a remnant of people who hadn’t as yet been completely corrupted.

He still hasn’t been able to get rid of that pesky sin, eh…well, so much for being all-powerful.
At least in the OT it seemed that dying was the end. Now, you are threatened with eternal torment.
I don’t see the ‘good’ part.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Would it be like writing a book about an unsinkable ship called the Titan, which ended up sinking because it hit an iceberg? That happened in the 1800s. Coincidences happen.

Jules Verne also knew that we’d rocket to the moon someday. H.G. Wells had some ideas that occurred later in human history. We don’t call these people ‘prophets’, though.

However, a coincidence occurs in your Babble, therefore, it’s prophecy. I get it.

Hey, FG:

If your goal is to imitate the Family Guy on TV by making funny and ridiculous comments, you’ve got me chuckling! If your goal is to objectively and thoughtfully consider the evidence as A is doing, then you are falling short.

What we are considering here are probabilities. What does the science of statistical probability tell us about the chances of Ezekiel getting his prediction right? They are far less than the odds of guessing that some ship somewhere might someday strike an iceberg and sink.

Lets think about it:

1a. In your example, someone writes a book about a ship beginning with the letter T.

1b. In the example of Ezekiel, he gets the entire name of the city correct, not just the first letter.

2a. In your example, some guy guesses that the ship will strike an iceberg and sink (an event that is not common but that has likely happened several times throughout maritime history).

2b. In Ezekiel 26 the author writes that every bit of rubble of the ancient city of Tyre will be scraped into the sea leaving only a bare rock (an event that happened only one time in recorded history).

3a. In your example the author makes no pretense of predicting the future, as he is writing a fictional work.

3b. In Ezekiel’s case he is making the unbelievable claim that he is actually foretelling the future as described to him by his God.

Consider the odds of the two examples and there really is no significant comparison. Don’t you agree?

 

[_A]

No, A. God is merciful

I haven’t seen much of that. There is something about getting a really good deal after death, but I have no reason to believe that yet. I remember a quote from the bible that goes ‘God is vengeful’. Another that he is loving, still another that says he is jealous. These are stories, look around a pediatrics ward in a hospital. If you are singing along with the bible you will notice the gentle caring selfless love shown by the hospital staff. If you stop and look at it another way, lots of innocent children are in pain for no reason. The world is not kind (or unkind).

 

[_A]

Are you serious.

If I see a building or housing that gives off a symmetrical (balanced proportions; also : beauty of form arising from balanced proportions.) appearance, cant’ I safely assume that some sort of intelligence is behind the design and construction of these structures?
Could anyone just throw a bunch of building materials high in the air (above a foundation) and ever expect it to form a house when it finally lands?

You begin with the assertion that everything is designed. That colours your vision, I think. For example, if I show you some naturally formed crystals…
http://z.about.com/d/chemistry/1/7/e/P/coppersulfate.jpg
You may discard my example by saying that your god made it that way.

 

[_A]

A:

I understand your objection to be that the prophecy of Ezekiel was only about King Nebuchadnezzar. Since the amazing prediction that the entire coastal city would be thrown into the sea was fulfilled by Alexander the Great, then Ezekiel is shown to be a false prophet and the book that bears his name a fraud.

In response, i ask that you please read the words of Ezekiel more carefully:

Thank you, but I did already.
n Ezekiel 26:7-12, it is made clear that Nebuchadrezzar would be the one grinding Tyre to dust and looting the city.

26:7 For thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will bring upon Tyrus Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, a king of kings, from the north, with horses, and with chariots, and with horsemen, and companies, and much people.
26:8 He shall slay with the sword thy daughters in the field: and he shall make a fort against thee, and cast a mount against thee, and lift up the buckler against thee.
26:9 And he shall set engines of war against thy walls, and with his axes he shall break down thy towers.
26:10 By reason of the abundance of his horses their dust shall cover thee: thy walls shall shake at the noise of the horsemen, and of the wheels, and of the chariots, when he shall enter into thy gates, as men enter into a city wherein is made a breach.
26:11 With the hoofs of his horses shall he tread down all thy streets: he shall slay thy people by the sword, and thy strong garrisons shall go down to the ground.
26:12 And they shall make a spoil of thy riches, and make a prey of thy merchandise: and they shall break down thy walls, and destroy thy pleasant houses: and they shall lay thy stones and thy timber and thy dust in the midst of the water.

No emphasis added.

Does this sound reasonable?

Not yet, this is still trying to demonstrate that the bible is some kind of authority. Which bible? How would you know which was ‘right’? Which version and which translation?
This makes it pretty complicated for a simple man like myself to decide that one set of dogmas are better than another.

 

[_A]

Making such a prediction of an event that happened only once in history more than 200 years prior would be like Benjamin Franklin predicting that flying machines would bring two towering buildings crashing down in New York City. The prediction of Ezekiel was perhaps even more uncanny, for the United States did not fall when the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center fell.

Los Angeles, California will be dumped into the sea so that nothing, not even the dirt of its streets, will be left on dry land.

If someone in a few hundred years finds this and notices that it has come true, does that make me a prophet or did I just make a lucky guess? If it’s thousands of years before it happens, I will have even more notoriety as a prophet. Or not.