What do Religious people say to this?

  • Thread starter Thread starter lemondiesel
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
When the scientists finally dematerialised matter,they failed to see God or report God staring them in the face - twinc
 
twinc said:
When the scientists finally dematerialised matter,they failed to see God or report God staring them in the face - twinc
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, I don’t fully understand what this is supposed to mean?
 
twinc said:
does it matter - it seems that nobody has ever seen matter,nobody has ever handled it and nobody has ever known where to detect its presence.Its existence is a bluff.Matter thus becomes a merely illegitimate entity in our explanation of the world,a fiction that works quite well for the purpose of practical life but becomes meaningless for the purpose of philosophical truth[Dr.Paul Brunton] - twinc
Click to expand...
 
You don’t have to be a skeptic to know that stoning a woman who married without her virginity intact isn’t just wrong, but horrifically so.

Yet, according to you, it was a divinely inspired Law from the creator of the universe. How utterly and tragically bizarre.

I wonder how many real women were stoned to death during that time and all because the Law of God demanded their deaths by stoning?
 
Zatzat said:
You don’t have to be a skeptic to know that stoning a woman who married without her virginity intact isn’t just wrong, but horrifically so.

Yet, according to you, it was a divinely inspired Law from the creator of the universe. How utterly and tragically bizarre.

I wonder how many real women were stoned to death during that time and all because the Law of God demanded their deaths by stoning?
Click to expand...
So you think stoning a non-virgin to death is wrong.

Where does that come from? That notion of wrong I mean. Where does it come from?
 
twinc said:
twinc;6664767:
does it matter - it seems that nobody has ever seen matter,nobody has ever handled it and nobody has ever known where to detect its presence.Its existence is a bluff.Matter thus becomes a merely illegitimate entity in our explanation of the world,a fiction that works quite well for the purpose of practical life but becomes meaningless for the purpose of philosophical truth[Dr.Paul Brunton] - twinc
Click to expand...
To continue the theme of bad puns, I really don’t see what this has to do with the “matter” at hand?

We can be pretty sure that some kind of construct exits, what we call matter. Even if, as you say, it is just an illusion created by forcefields, it still works remarkably well, so what does it matter?
Click to expand...
 
coolduude said:
So you think stoning a non-virgin to death is wrong.

Where does that come from? That notion of wrong I mean. Where does it come from?
Click to expand...
Stick to the subject at hand…a fellow poster in a previous page insisted that Bronzed aged man was enlightened by God.

What kind of enlightened people stone a woman for the sole fact that she wasn’t a virgin when she was married?

I can’t help but notice that you and your fellow Christians are utterly avoiding this position that I’ve put you in.

I’ll also remind you, odd that you’re asking me where a notion of wrong comes from, when it was your God and his people who explicitly codified the killing by stoning of married women who were not virgins.
 
coolduude said:
So you think stoning a non-virgin to death is wrong.

Where does that come from? That notion of wrong I mean. Where does it come from?
Click to expand...
Herd instincts?

Even piranah fish don’t kill members of their own shoal. Do you think this comes from their religious ideals?
 
Moonstruck888 said:
Herd instincts?

Even piranah fish don’t kill members of their own shoal. Do you think this comes from their religious ideals?
Click to expand...
How did this thread manage to degenerate into atheists coming up with the usual out-of-context nonesense at the slightest (on their terms, heretical?) skepticism of the benefits of their beloved scientific progressivism?

Oh - I answered my own question :rolleyes:

Just looked up the little nippers on wikipedia:

“The most common aquarium piranha is Pygocentrus nattereri, the red-bellied piranha. Piranhas can be bought fully grown or as babies, often no larger than a thumbnail. It is important to keep Pygocentrus piranhas alone or in groups of four or more, not in pairs, since aggression among them is common, not allowing the weaker fish to survive, and is distributed more widely when kept in larger groups. It is not rare to find individuals with one eye missing due to a previous attack. If underfed, piranhas are likely to become cannibalistic on others in their group.”

:hmmm: methinks you misrepresent the piranha as being understood to be such an excellently genteel socialite 😛
 
Many atheists should re-take their Intro to Sociology college course and re-study social construction.
 
Mystic_Banana said:
How did this thread manage to degenerate into atheists coming up with the usual out-of-context nonesense at the slightest (on their terms, heretical?) skepticism of the benefits of their beloved scientific progressivism?

Oh - I answered my own question :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I just love the way you people base your concept of faith, hope and charity around snide insinutations and pejorative. Kudos to you. That’s me put in my place.
Just looked up the little nippers on wikipedia:
Click to expand...
“The most common aquarium piranha is Pygocentrus nattereri, the red-bellied piranha. Piranhas can be bought fully grown or as babies, often no larger than a thumbnail. It is important to keep Pygocentrus piranhas alone or in groups of four or more, not in pairs, since aggression among them is common, not allowing the weaker fish to survive, and is distributed more widely when kept in larger groups. It is not rare to find individuals with one eye missing due to a previous attack. If underfed, piranhas are likely to become cannibalistic on others in their group.”
Click to expand...
:hmmm: methinks you misrepresent the piranha as being understood to be such an excellently genteel socialite 😛
Click to expand...
Alright, let me rephrase. Like humans, piranah fish as a rule don’t kill members of their own shoal. Like in human behaviour, incidences do occur, nobody is saying they have a perfect society.

I think you’re making a couple of misrepresentations yourself here, in a rather disingenuous way I might add. For one thing, most animals exhibit aberrant behaviour in captivity, including cannibalism, so this is hardly surprising.

Another interesting fact is that humans exhibit cannibalistic behaviour, usually based on religious practices. It is also not unusual to find humans with bits of themselves missing because of previous attacks. It is also not rare to find humans putting other humans to the sword in the name of God. History is littered with examples of it.

So, again, I put it to you that since human pack behaviour is almost identical to that of dogs, birds, piranahs, the other great apes, it is hardly sensible to take survival traits, slap the label “morality” on them and use them as evidence of God.
 
I know God created vacuums because they exist. Thus, God created them

Who created my God? Nobody, and he is not “my” God, he is everybody’s God. There is no “your” or “my” God, just God.

God is the “first mover”, as Aquinas would say. Everything else stems from him.
 
Marc_Anthony said:
I know God created vacuums because they exist. Thus, God created them

Who created my God? Nobody, and he is not “my” God, he is everybody’s God. There is no “your” or “my” God, just God.

God is the “first mover”, as Aquinas would say. Everything else stems from him.
Click to expand...
You realise that this explains absolutely nothing? If all God is boils down to a first event, to worship that is absurd.
 
When did I say that was all God boiled down to? Never. I merely answered two questions directed at me, one of which was who created God. I responded with nobody, he’s the first mover. That of course is not all He is though!
 
Marc_Anthony said:
When did I say that was all God boiled down to? Never. I merely answered two questions directed at me, one of which was who created God. I responded with nobody, he’s the first mover. That of course is not all He is though!
Click to expand...
So what is he?
 
What does this have to do exactly with the two questions asked of me and the point of the thread, which was scientists “creating” life undermining religion?

You’ve asked an incredibly complex question, so I’ll give a very short answer. He is not an impersonal Creator. We were created to be with Him and do His will, and he loves and wants a personal relationship with us.

This should really have its own thread.
 
lemondiesel said:
I would like to share this article with you guys, and please, do not bash me. I am in no way trying to disprove/prove, argue/agree with any of you. I am just wondering what religious people thoughts are about this.

guardian.co.uk/science/2010/may/20/craig-venter-synthetic-life-form
Please, take the time to read it, because it is actually very, very interesting, and well, historic.
“defining moment in the history of biology and biotechnology”, Mark Bedau, a philosopher at Reed College in Portland, Oregon, told Science.

Could this suggest the Almighty is even less impressive than previously thought.

Maybe the wrong forum to ask, but could this also bring the issue of maybe this is what happened to us?
Click to expand...
Umm… this was done by others back in the 1970’s I think. Venter has not done anything new.
If Ventner had actually gone and created a bacteria from scratch by mixing a collection of dried and purified chemicals like carbon hydrogen nitrogen sulpher etc., etc., then that would be amazing. But he has just taken a living lifeform already created by God and swapped some chemicals in it, in this case dna. It does not advance scientific knowledge at all as that has been done already 40 years ago.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top