I will now prove atheists are illogical!

Generalzod isnt real, it is a parody of the Terence Stamp character. Which i am helping to promote for my favourite jokey website.

But as others keep telling you. Your obsession to attack atheists is what gets you into this mess.

Just because people don't believe in god, it does not mean you can go beserk and attack them!

 

Well, what is the point of stating what my beliefs are for you if your ar simply going to ignore them?

I have no problem with atheism, as I have explained.

I have a problem with people, such as you, who run around denouncing other's people's faith, are deliberately miseducated about those faiths, use logical fallacy and silly accusations rather than science and logic, and finally play the victim card - as you do above - when someon disagrees with the behavior.

When someone is acting like a fool, you can indeed call them a fool. And the fact that you claim atheism? It has nothing at all to de with your need to denouce other people to define yourself.

Like every other atheist who behaves like you, unable to back up the denuciation, you resort to steely eyed whining about how disagreement is actually some large anti-atheist conspiracy?

Its silliness, nothing more. Your atheism is not a problem, your denunciation and maligning behavior of everyone else's faith is. This has been explained to you several times, yet you insist that our debate is part of ome larger anti-atheist conspiracy?

No brother, its the result of a weak, fallacious arguement.

 

It has also been proven that laughter is best medicine. The benefits of prayer on the healing process is probably psychological. I would not be surprised that the benefits of laughter and prayer are similar.

There are a number of atheists who are so irrational and angry that they give the worst bible thumping Jesus loving Christians a run for their money. People to tend to do that when their faith is challenged.

 

You say you have no problem with atheism but everytime someone disagree's with your beliefs you call them an atheist.

Folks do not ignore your beliefs as you say.

What they do is challenge you to support your beliefs and when you can't you go into ad hom mode .. calling them atheists, ignorant, and so forth rather than addressing or refuting the challenge.

 

Well, let me know when you can make people in horribly debiliative conditions or extreme pain ... laugh comically. Prayer works just as good, and is something you can do in those circumstances - while maintaining their sanity.

We in the West tend to put a lot of faith in pills and scapels, but there are other methods that are promising but not as scientific as our current medical practices. Its hard for some to accept that, yet the benefits of some, not all, are clear.

Its why the best method is an open mind. Being open to Eastern methods, or tribal methods, when working on cancer, say, well, there is no harm it. I say use everything in the arsenal - and it just improves the cances of defeating the ... er, foe? Not quite sure how else to describe that?

On that brother, we agree completely.

 

I agree, sometimes it's the belief that is what is important, not so much what you believe, for instance, an ordinary sugar pill without belief helps no one, but with belief it can cure your ills and it can be quite the amazing little pill - the magic really comes from within

 

More conspiracy.

I call you an atheist because:

#1 - You have clearly not read the Bible, nor do you attend services (despite your claims, you make too many mistakes for that to be the case, and indeed routinely make claims about what is in the Bible that are simply false - and people who have read the Bible know it).

#2 - You routinely find yourself in agreement with atheists about the faith.

#3 - You advocate things like teh Jesus Myth, support promiscuity, and lash out just like an atheist.

But you CALL yourself Christian? Therefore we should just take it at face value?

Indeed, your response to this, just like atheists, is to lash out rather than address the criticisms.

 

There is so much about ourselves that we do not know. To say that God acted on our behalf when we pray might not be correct. What is to say that God did not include a mechanism for self healing as part of Creation? Why should it be prayer? Meditation could work just as well.

In the medical profession, there is much faith in pills and scalpels. There is much greed there as well. For example, a company cannot patent a herbal remedy that is centuries old but they can patent a less healthier pill that does the same thing. Medical regulations are not entirely there to protect patients. Some are there to prohibit alternatives to the establishment.

 

Did God create 'himself' or has God always existed?

Mass can neither be created nor destroyed; science has never declared that the universe was created out of nothing, so your argument is without merit.

If God created the universe a split second ago with all it's current physical characteristics and an illusion of a past; could anyone beyond God create or destroy the most finite constituents of mass which makeup this created universe?
You see, if the universe was created by God, the physical characteristics of mass provide nothing more than the illusion that it has always existed...... There is without a doubt, zero possibility to prove that mass requires a creator; even if it was created, these are the physical attributes by which it was created.

Your entire argument goes against the only way mass could ever exist; hence, you have proven absolutely nothing beyond your own inability to grasp simple logic and reason.

 

You would be correct ,in fact as is the usual method of science which reveals truth as a continum over time ,each discovery leading to other questions and further discovery thus adding to the Whole body of Knowledge.

unlike ,faith Thunkun which remains static ,explains nothing ,contributes nothing to knowledge of anything,in fact represents an attempt to destroy science so therefore truth as objectively based provable theories and Undisputable Laws.

Yes,the expansion of the universe dosen't put holes in the TBB,it actually further verifies it ,and points to WHAT Existed prior to the BB.

now in its 6000 year history how far has God thunkun Faith Finkin,developed human understanding of the Universe surrounding us ,that would be a great big fat ZERO.

Its understanding of the Universe is DON"T EVEN TRY TO UNDERSTAND ANYTHING.Have faith that God knows everything over all time ????????


Mental Illness has a new definition =religion and Faith Thunkn'.

What they call God is in fact the processes of a self moving and transforming Universe reflected by a non wanting to think brain.could you imagine what a backward stupid place the Earth would be if we actually gave any credence to Creationism into the science and practice of engineering .

Gee,imagine building a bridge on faith thunkun method ,personally I wouldn't get on such a bridge.

 

The only provable reality is our own existence.... Right here, right now!

Look around you and then ask yourself if we are doing so in a sane fashion?

We live in an incredible abundance in order to fulfill any possible expression of the mind..... Yet.... We burn fossil fuels, rape the earth of it's resources, discard potential in the institutionalization of the mind and bury ourselves in landfill from the waste of it all........

If life is a gift, a brilliant reflection of our capacity to prove ourselves, we are squandering it on absurdities.........
Arguing over the existence of God is one of those absurdities.....

Prove yourself..... This is our reality!

 

oh no not again ,sorry to inform you but the universe hasn't waited 15 billion years for you to come along and think about it .For something to be proved requires it to be objectively based thinking not individually based.

Science is NEVER ,individually based thinking by definition ,eg einsteins theory of relativity wasn't just a product of his thinking but the product of the thinking of all physicists before him .

thats how science works as the accumulated knowledge of all Scientists collectively .

Scientific method ,METHOD ,METHOD ,METHOD ,has it sunk in yet .

See sodium atoms and chlorine atoms don't consult with you when they combine as the table salt on your dinner table.do they.?

so you reckon here and now ,that if you don't think it it dosen't exist as reality ,that someway the reality you precieve is different to the UNIVERSAL reality of the UNIVERSE.

yes their is only 1 reality its called the UNIVERSE and it is the same for every human .not just you.

Oh dear did your mum say you were the centre of the world ,guess what she lied.

PS.Even you have a history that you know nothing about.the genetics of your body is a product of 4.5 billion years of evolution on planet earth and a product of a super nova explosion Billions of years in the past ,and a product of a 15 billion year old big bang.


oh sorry the universe only came into existance when you fell out of your mum and opened your eyes about 5 years ago.i wil put your ridiculous proposition in the theory rejected pile .

Then again you maybe refering to the Collective 'our own existance 'of humanity over its history then we may find common ground.excuse me for the defenciveness of the Objective historical basis of scientific thinking .

Science dosen't start from the here and now it predated the here and now ,please show me how time stops to allow a moment of here and now because as soon as you say NOW it is no longer Now if you know what i mean ,Now is a product of all the previous Nows,of history past present and future exist as a Unity of opposites.Each expressed by the other.otherwise time wouldn't exist.

 

That is an unknown nor will it be known because that would require direct interaction with God which is something that is not possible.

There are theories that claim that energy can be converted to mass and vice versa. Given that is considered to be impossible to know the state the universe at t=0, it would not be possible to know with perfect knowledge as to what caused the big bang.

Even if the universe was created by a singularity as some believe, that mass and energy had to come from somewhere. Regardless of whether or not it came from a prior universe collapsing on itself, another universe, or a divine being, it is impossible to know what happened before t=0.

I think that too many people refuse to believe that faith and science are not mutually exclusive. It is possible to have faith in that there is a God and to accept science.

Problems arise when science contradicts long held traditions. Rather than accept the reality of the new found knowledge, many faithful attack the messengers. They should not do that because if you think of it, science is the study of Creation.

 

There are currently several third options available. Cosmologist Max Tegmark at MIT has some various ideas about the multiverse and the origin of our pocket of Space/Time. You can read about them here

Brian Greene, Cosmologist at Columbia also has some interesting hypotheses. here

You might also want to look into M-Theory initially developed by Edward Witten. Good treatments for the layperson of this theory and it's possible implications have been written by Brian Green and Michio Kaku.

If any of these theories and hypotheses are correct than the Big Bang is just a little part of a much grander reality.

 

This really wasn't a serious question for the very obvious reality that in order for God to create 'himself', 'he' would have already had to exist....

Every form of energy has mass.... Energy is mass! So I don't quite understand what you are saying here?

Is this in any way different from what I have already stated?

And here is the problem.... It's also possible to cherry pick those portions of belief that still remain applicable within scientific discoveries and claim these portions to be literal in their interpretive value and then declare all aspects of belief that contradict those discoveries to be metaphorical in value.

 

What exactly are you ranting about, and how exactly is it a response to what I have said?

 

Excuse me allow directness ,history didn't start right here and now ,as "you say" is reality subjective only ? I know it is not. !

lets get the Verbatim shall we ,lets.

"the only provable existance is your own ,right here right now"rubbish!

Dialectical materialism and historical materialism as method says NO ,sorry wrong again.

Reality is everything other then thought.What you I and all Collective humanity for ever and every thought in every human mind is not reality ,reality is Objective\subjectively refected in thought ,REFLECTED on itself Matter and Energy thinking about Matter and energy.

so back to what Reality actually is ,the "Thing in itself" can an idea totally encompass reality.simply I say no.

yet you say it can ,not even collective human conciousness can, let alone one individual human having a shot.

Why because it takes time to think and in that time all reality and you within it has changed ,moved on transformed .The universe doesn't stop haven't you noticed Constant motion and change.

or is Einstein wrong?

that the only constant and truth of existance is Energy transforming to Matter and visa versa at the same time.the source [not god ] of the motion of all things .

 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdnFPbCQy98"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdnFPbCQy98[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ycvb_uaoLxA"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ycvb_uaoLxA[/ame]

 

The history of humanity has proven itself to be rather ridiculous in the way it handles social affairs..... The point being, we have the ability to prove a much more brilliant and exponential growth in potential..... That happens, right here, right now! Your mind, your voice!

If not, we just become a part of the history that we as an expression of humanity will look back upon and simply shake our heads.

 

I had to reread what you wrote a couple of times. Yeah, we're pretty much saying the same thing.

True. When those portions are later proven to be incorrect, one needs to be willing to accept that those beliefs were wrong though.

 

Well gents there is a problem with that: Human Interpretation.

One example is Al Qaeda. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that OBL and company have a rather warpped view of Islam. However, no is claiming that its a rejection of science that is riving their antics. Its an interpretive problem, a rationalization meant to justify their political goals. Nothing more.

The same can be said with Southern Slave owner quoting scripture, the IRA and Protestant forces of Ulster doing the same, etc.

The issue though is that the scripture does not change - our interpretation of it most definitely does. Its the old story, if you feel yourself growing distant from God, who changed?

And example of this would be Genisis of all things. I am certainly no Biblical literalist in all aspects, but I do find that the general sequence of events in Gensis conflats rather well with the sequence of events in science. Let there be light, heaven created, life in oceans before on land, and even a mitochondrial eve. Sure there are errors in detail, but this is something that was supposed to have been given by revelation over 4000 years ago. We would not expect it to be accurate in every detail.

And here is the trick, if you are given a vision of creation from the Big Bang all the way down to man now, but could only use the vocabularly and understandings from 4000 years ago? There would be plenty of errors in detail 4000 years ago. Indeed the main message of the genisis creation narrative is simply, "God did it." The story of Adam and Eve is, "Why God did it."

If one is treating an ancient historical revelation like a modern physics book? Who is in error there?

 

What is the purpose of faith if it only exists until science finds the real answers? Why not just believe in things on the basis of the evidence and admit that we don't know the rest yet? Ie what happened before the big bang (or caused it?) "We don't know" makes a lot more sense as an answer then "god, because you athiests can't disprove it!"

 

What makes you think that OBL and Al Qaeda are misinterpreting Islam? If you're acknowledging that the bible has defects because of it's age, what makes you think that it has any useful insight? If there is a god, and he was willing to hand down the answer 4000 years ago, why won't he do it again now?

 

Because science does not answer all questions does it?

Science cannot tell you who to love, who to befriend, how to handle betrayal, and it has no moral code - indeed, as soon as you inject morality into science you make it subjective rather than objective - and at that point its no longer science is it?

And there is a difference between being able to defintively prove something tue in a scientific sense and something being true.

For example, no valid religion that I have ever seen lacks a rouse to charity. Prove charity is the correct social and personal choice? Those who are NOT charitable will disagree, and in a definitive evidenced based format .... you cannot prove to a reasoned conclusion. Its a judgement call.

 

The fact that I partnered with Muslims to chase down AQ operatives and kill them. The fact that doctrinal figures from the Grand mufti of SA to Dr. Qadri in Pakistan have widely denounced these AQ views.

Who is saying God is not handing down answers now kiddo? You do understand what the role of the Holy Spirit is in out faith do you not? Or, now that your question has been answered, will you pull a General Zod and simply write off the entire thing as mental health?

Which of course, totally invalidates your evidenced based approach to things doesn't it?