Evidence for the Creator: Foxhole Atheists

What a silly backhanded attempt. God never worships His creation. He does desire relationship however. Both male and female display attributes of God in their respective strengths. I find that comforting don't you Daniel? No sexist bait there!

 

It's good to hear that you worship Emily Blunt as well - she really is The One.

 

Who is this Emily? Was she your high school sweetheart?

 

It's always cute when people try to box in an omni-potent God into their little human logic constructs.

 

I . . . Could come around.

 

So is God. Unless you can show us him in person.

A child comes into the world and learns to rely on its mother. There comes a time when most young people gain their own independence and learn to trust themselves. Some are unable to do this and look for help elsewhere. The instinct of independence when maturity arrives comes down from way belong the time of religion. The early goddesses were almost entirely female. And why not? They were the only things to bring creation (life) into the world. The mother of most animals is the one to which the young look. To ignore mother was probably to die. Our ancestors were no different. Since then we are gradually gaining the ability of science even to take over certainly bodily functions in producing young. . In the future we will either kill ourselves or step into a 'godless' world. After all, on the road we are travelling we will soon be able to cure all ills, and even transplant most organs - possibly all of them. We are at the beginning of scientific knowledge, not it's ending.

 

There you have it. The worshipers of science equate humans with animals. No recognition of the differences. So you, a mere human, is promising us "eternal life" at the whims of science. The haughtiness here is unbelievable!

 

. Life as we know it now ends at death. Whether our energy, which never dies but takes another form, turns us into spiritual beings, or, as the Buddists believe, we become part of the universal energy. I have no idea. Neither does science yet. We were once animals, and still are if you look at our nature. In fact, worse than animals in some ways. We kill for the sake of religion, of possessions etc although we are supposed to be intelligent. . Many mammals show a high degree of intelligence. The fact that we have 'evolved' faster than the others of our type is down to varying factors.

All you do is put down science, which is the use of our brains. What use are they if your 'god' didn't expect us to use them. He must be naive if he thought we would limit ourselves.

Above bold.

And yet you claim to know God but can't show him to us. We can show you the progress of science, but you have nothing to offer than faith .

In red

You deny this?

 

What are the differences between humans and animals then?

 

He's talking about extending life spans, not "eternal life" and given that science and medicine has already done that to a degree, it's just a simple statement of fact - not "haughtiness".

Oh, as to equating animals and humans - that may have been an insult to some animals. I know a service dog that was far more helpful and acted more in "God's word" than a number of humans I know.

 

Yes I do. Science is a great tool when not used to promote a religion just as Journalism used to be a great tool until it became a tool for the left. You have faith in science.
We were once animals? If so, what changed that? Prove it! I say we were made in the image of God. We know right from wrong. We don't always choose right. We are accountable. The Buddhists have it right to a degree, but we don't "turn into spiritual beings" We are spiritual beings though the godless are dead in their spirit. That is why they need a "new birth". There is only one way to do that.

 

I have named a few already. We contemplate death, we appreciate art and literature. We care about history. We recognize extended family. Though we abort our children, we don't eat our young. There's just a few for you to contemplate.

 

I agree. A walk in the quiet woods or along a beach in the morning always rekindles my spiritual self. It's like being reborn to
the beauty of the world. Thanks for reminding me.

 

Dolphins and elephants recognize extended family. We kill millions of our fellow human beings - sometimes family members.

 

I am a real dog lover. I don't know if dogs have a capacity to be truly evil. Humans do. But that is because they "choose" to be evil. They can have a capacity to love in a sacrificial way if they choose. While we were yet steeped in sin , Christ died for us. The ultimate example. Don't think dogs ponder on that level. Lot of humans refuse to. Like dogs, they go their own way. In that, they relinquish their capacity to be all they were created for and live as "dogs".

There, I just explained again how we are different from animals.

 

Killer whales they have found are decimating great whites for their livers......so what? Humans have a dreadful capacity to be evil. Difference? They know better. It's a choice.

 

Non of which are biological differences just a different level of consciousness, in science you deal with the biology of man, but if you do not believe me then believe AIG.

So, scientifically speaking, what is an animal? Animals are multicellular organisms that must consume organic matter and breathe oxygen to stay alive and are generally able to move. Animals are also generally able to reproduce sexually, through the combination of gametes (egg and sperm) to form a zygote. An animal zygote then develops into a hollow ball of cells before going on to develop into a more mature form. Humans and hamsters both fall into this “animal” category, whereas apple trees and mushrooms do not. Based on observable biological characteristics only, then, without dependence on evolutionary assumptions, humans could technically be considered animals.

https://answersingenesis.org/are-humans-animals/what-are-humans-animals-mammals-neither/

 

I have been having back problems of my own so I can relate to her situation. You say that you don't have much trust in doctors and scientists but your actions say otherwise. You pay thousands of dollars to doctors in health insurance and out of pocket. You have even told me that you have gone to doctors and other medical staff many times for medical advise. You have also used their services on many occasions. If you didn't trust doctors, you wouldn't have done this.

You also say that you don't trust scientists. But again, your actions say otherwise. You put your life in danger every day by driving a car that is based on scientific principles. You take drugs that are based on scientific principles. You walk into buildings whose design is based on scientific principles. You literally put your life in the hands of the scientists and their theories every single day. Yet you say that you don't hold scientists in high esteem. I doubt that because actions speak louder than words.

The truth is that the human body is very complicated and making discoveries about the natural world is very challenging. Even our brightest and most qualified scientists and doctors are up for a massive challenge every day. This means that doctors will misdiagnose from time to time, and scientists will be wrong from time to time. But most of the time, they are right, especially when there is a consensus and the topic and field are well established and there is a lot of evidence. This is because they base their conclusions on a lot of research, testing, evidence, peer review, and critique. They do their best to be as accurate as possible in very difficult fields and we should respect them for what they do.

However, religious writings don't have this same scientific rigor and so don't deserve the same level of trust. We also see that different religions contradict each other on even the most basic questions which means we should be very skeptical and can't just automatically trust one single religion. If you want to have faith, I can see why you would do it, because it is much more pleasant to be religious than to be non-religious. But lets not pretent that religious faith is superior to trust in experts who base their conclusions on evidence.

 

And you think that intelligent creatures will not evolve in those things as time goes on.

Here are a few things for you to contemplate.

Go back 4000 years and most of the world had not heard of art and literature. There was virtually no history, Some animals recognise extended family and herd together eg. Elephants.. Many animals mourn the loss of their young.. And have you not heard of cannibals. More to the point - mass shootings in the US. Stabbings in the UK. Racism. Anti Islam. Antisemitism. Napalm in Vietnam and atrocities all over. Millions killed by Stalin, Hitler, and others dictators. Oh yes. We're human alright. Christian inquisitions, witches burnt and drowned. There are many things to show that humans are little better than the animals. Where is your god who created such beings?

'Their men young and old I took prisoners. Of some I cut off their feet and hands; of others I cut off the ears noses and lips; of the young men's ears I made a heap; of the old men's heads I made a minaret. I exposed their heads as a trophy in front of their city. The male children and the female children I burned in flames; the city I destroyed, and consumed with fire.' 9th century BCE

 

Do any other animals torture other animals, I really don't know

 

I listen to them and do not always honor their recommendations. They don't always agree with one another.

I just built a building and the engineer (scientist) who designed the trusses made a major flub up on one truss. You must have faith to trust them entirely.

When I study the wisdom built into the Holy scriptures, I see wisdom that NO man can rival. Why is that? They are God inspired. When I introspectively delve into them I have a better understanding of my own nature and the nature of others. Judging character and items that reflect the soul is not a science experiment. Those that worship at the alter of science and technology always say "prove it". Their question never goes further than their alter because they are blind to anything else. Also you can not scientifically verify history. History does tell us there has been "religious inquisitions of all sorts, but they never adhered to the teachings and revelations of Christ.

 

Think that's called "pantheism" or in your case "self deification.

 

Elephants will evolve into "intelligent creatures" that torture, use napalm etc.? That's a new twist. You have made my case. Humans, created in the image of God are capable of doing incredibly evil things. Things animals do not even contemplate. They make laws, they make laws to circumvent those Laws because they have incredibly evil intent. They have lawyers to help them in that endeavor. Why? Because they know what is evil and what is good. They make a choice. Animals just go along and survive. Because God wants relationship. he gave us "choice". We can embrace good or evil. Without choice there would be no relationship or love.

 

And that is reasonable. But it does sound like you have some degree of trust in them, especially if multiple doctors come to a consensus, or else you wouldn't be paying them thousands of dollars. And just like doctors don't all agree with each other, religions don't all agree with each other too. At least doctors near universally agree on the basic science and art of their craft, even though they sometimes misapply it.

It is true that buildings do sometimes fail. This just shows that every human field is prone to error. But we have have a high level of trust in engineers because they have earned that trust by having a really good track record. If buildings collapsed regularly, then that trust would be diminished.

Do you have an example?

I don't think we need proof to verify religion. But I need some kind of evidence that <insert name here> religion is worthy of my trust. Or else, there is no reason for me to have faith. You might have a different standard than I do.

History has a lower standard of evidence because it is a lot easier to to be right with less evidence. With science, it is very easy to be wrong, which is why they have such high standards of evidence and testing. With history, all you need is a record that wasn't a lie, which is not as difficult.

Do you think the standard of evidence for historical and supernatural claims should be the same? Are both just as believable?