Proof God exists: Food changes color when ripe

[Iamme]

There are slews of reasons for making a case for God, and many have been posted over the years, here. This one planet Earth for some reaon, is SOOOO just right that we go from no signs of life at all, on hellish places like Venus, to barren cold places like Mars...to even our own moon, which from the distance of the sun should be habitable, but isn't.

And then for some mysterious reason, we not only have just ONE lucky thing of life on this earth...say something like some cellular thing that just exists...but we have an atmosphere, huge body of life-giving water, a rain cycle, buried aquifers, food, buried oil, ingredients for cement and steel and glass and asphalt and clothing, and buried oil (coal also..and other stuff we mine) that for some reason formed in pools that can easily be extracted like you would suck soda out of a can by a straw, etc., etc., etc., to practically infinitum.

And now I have come up with this latest grandest of revelations: Food we eat just so happens to change colors so us and monkeys can tell when the tomato is red(ripe) for eating and the banana is yellow(ripe) for eating. This clinches it (case stated for God's existance). There is no other good reason why these things have to change color. GRASS doesn't change color. Why? Because we dont' eat it! God knew that. He caused apples, tomatoes, berries, bananas...a whole host of things to give 'signs' that they are ready to eat. He even made it so we would know when shrimp and lobster are ready to eat by changing colors when cooked just right!

How much convincing does it take you people to come to the conclusion that some great power out there, or IN there, set this whole thing of life in motion? Hmmmm? There is just WAYY to much stuff going on on this one planet...where it goes from nothing (from the other planets or moons), to EVERYTHING...including that of luxury and pleasure...on this one planet of ours. Every astronaut that has visited space gazes back on Earth and acknowledges the spendor and considers the workings of an all powerful God.

Y0U all can make up all your reasons for saying how it all had to have done it SOMEhow...and as long as there is an explanation, THAT somehow rules out God as being needed to do it? Not so. Just because one can explain that somehow a nail got imbedded in wood and somthing has form...we still know that a carpenter made it, even though we explained HOW it happened, and were able to list the parts. This is the approach the atheists here use in discrediting God. Evolution discredits God? Not so. Even if there is either a full or limited form of evolution...some great power had to nail the nail, so to speak.

All great companies have a CEO. All great kingdoms have a king. There is a final 'being' involved that runs the show. But for some reason, we look at ourselves...or look at the Big Bang as being the end-all to any brains or any direction of leadership behind the entire workings. No. There is some finality to the whole event that was the brains behind the entire thing. There is energy out there with some sort of brain. Plain and simple. Therte is jsut WAYYYYYY to much evidence for this on Earth. And I just pointed out yet some other evidence. (my thread title)

[gentlehorse]

He even made it so we would know when shrimp and lobster are ready to eat by changing colors when cooked just right!


Leviticus--

[chriswl]

And now I have come up with this latest grandest of revelations: Food we eat just so happens to change colors so us and monkeys can tell when the tomato is red(ripe) for eating and the banana is yellow(ripe) for eating. This clinches it (case stated for God's existance). There is no other good reason why these things have to change color. GRASS doesn't change color. Why? Because we dont' eat it! God knew that. He caused apples, tomatoes, berries, bananas...a whole host of things to give 'signs' that they are ready to eat. He even made it so we would know when shrimp and lobster are ready to eat by changing colors when cooked just right!
You're joking, right? No one is this stupid.

[H'ethetheth]

There are slews of reasons for making a case for God, and many have been posted over the years, here. This one planet Earth for some reaon, is SOOOO just right that we go from no signs of life at all, on hellish places like Venus, to barren cold places like Mars...to even our own moon, which from the distance of the sun should be habitable, but isn't.

And then for some mysterious reason, we not only have just ONE lucky thing of life on this earth...say something like some cellular thing that just exists...but we have an atmosphere, huge body of life-giving water, a rain cycle, buried aquifers, food, buried oil, ingredients for cement and steel and glass and asphalt and clothing, and buried oil (coal also..and other stuff we mine) that for some reason formed in pools that can easily be extracted like you would suck soda out of a can by a straw, etc., etc., etc., to practically infinitum.

And now I have come up with this latest grandest of revelations: Food we eat just so happens to change colors so us and monkeys can tell when the tomato is red(ripe) for eating and the banana is yellow(ripe) for eating. This clinches it (case stated for God's existance). There is no other good reason why these things have to change color. GRASS doesn't change color. Why? Because we dont' eat it! God knew that. He caused apples, tomatoes, berries, bananas...a whole host of things to give 'signs' that they are ready to eat. He even made it so we would know when shrimp and lobster are ready to eat by changing colors when cooked just right!

How much convincing does it take you people to come to the conclusion that some great power out there, or IN there, set this whole thing of life in motion? Hmmmm? There is just WAYY to much stuff going on on this one planet...where it goes from nothing (from the other planets or moons), to EVERYTHING...including that of luxury and pleasure...on this one planet of ours. Every astronaut that has visited space gazes back on Earth and acknowledges the spendor and considers the workings of an all powerful God.

Y0U all can make up all your reasons for saying how it all had to have done it SOMEhow...and as long as there is an explanation, THAT somehow rules out God as being needed to do it? Not so. Just because one can explain that somehow a nail got imbedded in wood and somthing has form...we still know that a carpenter made it, even though we explained HOW it happened, and were able to list the parts. This is the approach the atheists here use in discrediting God. Evolution discredits God? Not so. Even if there is either a full or limited form of evolution...some great power had to nail the nail, so to speak.

All great companies have a CEO. All great kingdoms have a king. There is a final 'being' involved that runs the show. But for some reason, we look at ourselves...or look at the Big Bang as being the end-all to any brains or any direction of leadership behind the entire workings. No. There is some finality to the whole event that was the brains behind the entire thing. There is energy out there with some sort of brain. Plain and simple. Therte is jsut WAYYYYYY to much evidence for this on Earth. And I just pointed out yet some other evidence. (my thread title)Actually the fruit is using you to spread its seeds, so it can reproduce more effectively. And it doesn't want to spread seeds that aren't ripe yet, because that would reduce the odds of the seeds surviving.
Grass uses a different strategy to spread seeds, using wind, and therefore has an advantage when it dries the seeds first. It doesn't need to change the colour.
If you'd just read some good books on evolution, you'd see how wonderful and strange life actually is, and how everything, but truly everything is interconnected, and how ingenious the 'genetic rationale' behind all kinds of evolved structures is.

God is no explanation. God is deferring the explanation to a place where none can be found.

[Darat]

Oh dear someone better tell the chef behind this recipe: http://www.bbc.co.uk/food/recipes/database/greentomatochutney_8201.shtml

[Genesius]

There are slews of reasons for making a case for God, and many have been posted over the years, here. This one planet Earth for some reaon, is SOOOO just right that we go from no signs of life at all, on hellish places like Venus, to barren cold places like Mars...to even our own moon, which from the distance of the sun should be habitable, but isn't.


YEAH! If the Moon isn't habitable, that PROVES there MUST be a GOD!

Never mind that whole too small to hold an atmosphere thing. . .

:rolleyes:

[Marquis de Carabas]

My favourite thing God did was when He made a lot of different poisonous berries that use the same vibrant colour trick to let us know when to eat them so we can die. HAHA! That God, what a kidder.

[Spindrift]

I'm sure there are lots of kids who are happy that they don't have to eat broccoli, brussel sprouts and green beans since they don't change colors!

[RenaissanceBiker]

It is true that the probabililty of conditions necessary for life to exist on this planet to occur is extremely unlikely. However, there are many places where it could have occurred so it becomes likely that it would have occured somewhere. Now you have evolved to the point of conciousness and intelligence. You look down and exclaim, "This is so unlikely there must be a God!"

I like this analogy. Imagine that you walk into your backyard and observe a bird flying overhead. The bird defecates in midflight and the defecation falls onto your yard. You then walk over an notice that it is green and lying 2 feet from a dandelion. It is true that it is extremely unlikely that green bird defecation would fall at that particular time and land at that exact spot. However, it is also extremely likely that some color of bird defecation would land somewhere in your backyard, sometime. The bird is not a god, just a natural phenomena. What you are assuming is that a god chose the color of the bird defecation and directed it to that particular place and time. I disagree with that assumption.

[Orangutan]

Hi Iamme, you were pretty responsive last time I suggested a book on cosmology so I have one on biology for you.

"The Selfish Gene" Would be a good book to start with. This book helps you think about these seemingly wonderful boilogical coincedences from a better point of view. As H'ethetheth stated the correct question to ask is "What advantage does the fruit gain by turning a different color when ripe." The answer beeing that the fruits genes are now hoping to use you to spread them around. Most animals would eat the entire fruit and deposit the undigested seeds in a new environment along with a good supply of nutrients to give them a good start. Ever wondered why watermellon seeds seem to come out untouched by the digestive system?

Note It's selfish gene and not the shellfish gene, although there's lots of stuff about animals in there as well. (Sorry couln't resdist!).
:)

[Ducky]

If God was so forward thinking in helping us discern when lobster was finished cooking why is that food forbidden to eat under kosher rules?

[Marquis de Carabas]

Lobster's a fruit?

[ponderingturtle]

It is true that the probabililty of conditions necessary for life to exist on this planet to occur is extremely unlikely. However, there are many places where it could have occurred so it becomes likely that it would have occured somewhere. Now you have evolved to the point of conciousness and intelligence. You look down and exclaim, "This is so unlikely there must be a God!"


I can prove that Zeus exists in the same fashion, I know someone who was struck by lightning, think of the odds of any particular lightning bolt hitting any particular person, that proves there must be a god!

Hail Zeus!

[jimlintott]

GRASS doesn't change color. Why? Because we dont' eat it!

Uh, where do you think bread comes from.

[Marquis de Carabas]

I can prove that Zeus exists in the same fashion, I know someone who was struck by lightning, think of the odds of any particular lightning bolt hitting any particular person, that proves there must be a god!

Hail Zeus!
Right proof, wrong god. That was Thor, infidel scum!

[ponderingturtle]

Uh, where do you think bread comes from.

What you mean those waves of grain are something other than amber at some point? Why would the grasses we eat need to be green?

[RenaissanceBiker]

Well, ponderingturtle and Marquis de Carabus make another point. How do creationists make the illogical leap from these general arguements for the existence of a god to the specific assumption that it proves the existence of their god?

[Marquis de Carabas]

Well, ponderingturtle and Marquis de Carabus make another point. How do creationists make the illogical leap from these general arguements for the existence of a god to the specific assumption that it proves the existence of their god?
It's easy to do if you start with your conclusion and work backwards.

[TheAntiLuddite]

All great companies have a CEO. All great kingdoms have a king. There is a final 'being' involved that runs the show. But for some reason, we look at ourselves...or look at the Big Bang as being the end-all to any brains or any direction of leadership behind the entire workings. No. There is some finality to the whole event that was the brains behind the entire thing. There is energy out there with some sort of brain. Plain and simple. Therte is jsut WAYYYYYY to much evidence for this on Earth. And I just pointed out yet some other evidence. (my thread title)

Assuming this isn't a troll, the above section is particularly odious, as it is the same argument used by the oppressive church during the Middle Ages to justify the existence of divinely-ordained monarchical structures ( especially their own religious hierarchy) and claim dominion over the populace.

This post also reminds me of a video floating around the Internet in which the reborn Kirk Cameron has a discussion with some other wackadoo about how a banana is definitive proof of their particular Christian deity and "the Atheist's Nightmare." I kid you not. Honestly, there's something about theologies that just seem to flip adherents' logic switches to "Dummy Mode" and break them off.

[wollery]

:nope:

[The Black Fox]

My favourite thing God did was when He made a lot of different poisonous berries that use the same vibrant colour trick to let us know when to eat them so we can die. HAHA! That God, what a kidder.

Yeah, he must be one of my all time favourite practical jokers. I'm still waiting for his next "asteroid from space" prank, that one with the dinosaurs was priceless!

[zizzybaluba]

There are slews of reasons for making a case for God, and many have been posted over the years, here. This one planet Earth for some reaon, is SOOOO just right that we go from no signs of life at all, on hellish places like Venus, to barren cold places like Mars...to even our own moon, which from the distance of the sun should be habitable, but isn't.

And then for some mysterious reason, we not only have just ONE lucky thing of life on this earth...say something like some cellular thing that just exists...but we have an atmosphere, huge body of life-giving water, a rain cycle, buried aquifers, food, buried oil, ingredients for cement and steel and glass and asphalt and clothing, and buried oil (coal also..and other stuff we mine) that for some reason formed in pools that can easily be extracted like you would suck soda out of a can by a straw, etc., etc., etc., to practically infinitum.

And now I have come up with this latest grandest of revelations: Food we eat just so happens to change colors so us and monkeys can tell when the tomato is red(ripe) for eating and the banana is yellow(ripe) for eating. This clinches it (case stated for God's existance). There is no other good reason why these things have to change color. GRASS doesn't change color. Why? Because we dont' eat it! God knew that. He caused apples, tomatoes, berries, bananas...a whole host of things to give 'signs' that they are ready to eat. He even made it so we would know when shrimp and lobster are ready to eat by changing colors when cooked just right!

How much convincing does it take you people to come to the conclusion that some great power out there, or IN there, set this whole thing of life in motion? Hmmmm? There is just WAYY to much stuff going on on this one planet...where it goes from nothing (from the other planets or moons), to EVERYTHING...including that of luxury and pleasure...on this one planet of ours. Every astronaut that has visited space gazes back on Earth and acknowledges the spendor and considers the workings of an all powerful God.

Y0U all can make up all your reasons for saying how it all had to have done it SOMEhow...and as long as there is an explanation, THAT somehow rules out God as being needed to do it? Not so. Just because one can explain that somehow a nail got imbedded in wood and somthing has form...we still know that a carpenter made it, even though we explained HOW it happened, and were able to list the parts. This is the approach the atheists here use in discrediting God. Evolution discredits God? Not so. Even if there is either a full or limited form of evolution...some great power had to nail the nail, so to speak.

All great companies have a CEO. All great kingdoms have a king. There is a final 'being' involved that runs the show. But for some reason, we look at ourselves...or look at the Big Bang as being the end-all to any brains or any direction of leadership behind the entire workings. No. There is some finality to the whole event that was the brains behind the entire thing. There is energy out there with some sort of brain. Plain and simple. Therte is jsut WAYYYYYY to much evidence for this on Earth. And I just pointed out yet some other evidence. (my thread title)

Please, somebody tell me this was an attempt at humor. Is anybody really this dumb?

[pgwenthold]

It sounds like Kirk Cameron ("bananas are proof of god")

[grayman]

When the fundies use the "Earth is in a perfect location, that's the proof of God" speech, it makes us sound like we were just wandering around helplessly in space until their benevolent God created this prime prece of real estate for us and no one else.

Why does the possibility that life may have happened here purely by chance because of the conditions of this planet, seem so strange to them.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Please, somebody tell me this was an attempt at humor. Is anybody really this dumb?
Iamme's not so much dumb as willfully ignorant. Not saying that's better, mind, but there it is.

[Rathmann]

Proof that God exists can not be made by seeing the natural world. The natural world makes sense and is governed by laws of physics and biology -- else it would not exist. There is the interesting cosmological question as to why there is anything at all rather than just nothingness, but I'll leave stuff like that to the Stephen Hawkings of the world.

However, I know that I exist, and that my wife exists, and my family and friends. Others I know exist through the media -- which as we all know are often misleading. But we do have other capacities that -- regardless of culture -- cause us to long for God, and in that fashion know of His existence. Regardless of culture we have similar understanding of right and wrong, and know we have transgressed when we break the rules written in our hearts as described in Deuteronomy 30:11-14.

We can conform to these internal, universal rules out of caring for our fellow man and wanting to do unto others as we would be done unto. But a more perfect life can come from adherence to these rules through yielding to the God that gave them to us. By these rules, I know that God exists, in the same way that I know that the love between my wife and family and I exist. Both of these things can not be seen, touched or measured scientifically, but rather are a living, abiding presence that can not be ignored.

There was a time in my life that I was fervently anti-religious, but over time, the Lord worked upon my heart and made me see Him. I continue to grow in His light, while certainly respecting the intellectual freedoms that my Freidenker forefathers cherished.

Charles Rathmann
john4-14.blogspot.com

[Raphael]

By these rules, I know that God exists, in the same way that I know that the love between my wife and family and I exist.


Welcome Rathmann.

May I ask what these rules are, and why they are not a consequence of evolution?

[Ducky]

oh hey, Kurious Kathy brought a friend.

[Terry]

We can conform to these internal, universal rules out of caring for our fellow man and wanting to do unto others as we would be done unto. But a more perfect life can come from adherence to these rules through yielding to the God that gave them to us.

Mmm.... sub-a-licious.

[alfaniner]

... Food we eat just so happens to change colors so us and monkeys can tell when the tomato is red(ripe) for eating and the banana is yellow(ripe) for eating. ...

So wrong.

Everyone knows that bananas are at their best when they start to sport a few freckles.

[gentlehorse]

It is true that the probabililty of conditions necessary for life to exist on this planet to occur is extremely unlikely.

Only if you call 1 extremely unlikely--

[Marquis de Carabas]

Proof that God exists can not be made by seeing the natural world.
Yep.

The natural world makes sense and is governed by laws of physics
Ayuh.

It's all downhill from there.

[RenaissanceBiker]

Only if you call 1 extremely unlikely--


I should have said "It is true that the probabililty of conditions necessary for life to exist on this planet to occur was extremely unlikely." That is, the probability was extremely low before the solar system formed and the Earth developed the way it did. Thanks for pointing out my error. After the green bird defecation hits the yard, that probability is 1 as well.

[Cetecea]

snip

And now I have come up with this latest grandest of revelations: Food we eat just so happens to change colors... snip


Wow, and you should have seen what turned up this morning after the beans and rice and broccoli last night.

I'll call your hypothesis and raise you a cult...

[Mercutio]

Douglas Adams said it better than I could ever hope to: (http://www.biota.org/people/douglasadams/)Where does the idea of God come from? Well, I think we have a very skewed point of view on an awful lot of things, but let's try and see where our point of view comes from. Imagine early man. Early man is, like everything else, an evolved creature and he finds himself in a world that he's begun to take a little charge of; he's begun to be a tool-maker, a changer of his environment with the tools that he's made and he makes tools, when he does, in order to make changes in his environment. To give an example of the way man operates compared to other animals, consider speciation, which, as we know, tends to occur when a small group of animals gets separated from the rest of the herd by some geological upheaval, population pressure, food shortage or whatever and finds itself in a new environment with maybe something different going on. Take a very simple example; maybe a bunch of animals suddenly finds itself in a place where the weather is rather colder. We know that in a few generations those genes which favour a thicker coat will have come to the fore and we'll come and we'll find that the animals have now got thicker coats. Early man, who's a tool maker, doesn't have to do this: he can inhabit an extraordinarily wide range of habitats on earth, from tundra to the Gobi Desert--he even manages to live in New York for heaven's sake--and the reason is that when he arrives in a new environment he doesn't have to wait for several generations; if he arrives in a colder environment and sees an animal that has those genes which favour a thicker coat, he says "I'll have it off him". Tools have enabled us to think intentionally, to make things and to do things to create a world that fits us better. Now imagine an early man surveying his surroundings at the end of a happy day's tool making. He looks around and he sees a world which pleases him mightily: behind him are mountains with caves in--mountains are great because you can go and hide in the caves and you are out of the rain and the bears can't get you; in front of him there's the forest; it's got nuts and berries and delicious food; there's a stream going by, which is full of water--water's delicious to drink, you can float your boats in it and do all sorts of stuff with it; here's cousin Ug and he's caught a mammoth--mammoth's are great, you can eat them, you can wear their coats, you can use their bones to create weapons to catch other mammoths. I mean this is a great world, it's fantastic. But our early man has a moment to reflect and he thinks to himself, 'well, this is an interesting world that I find myself in' and then he asks himself a very treacherous question, a question which is totally meaningless and fallacious, but only comes about because of the nature of the sort of person he is, the sort of person he has evolved into and the sort of person who has thrived because he thinks this particular way. Man the maker looks at his world and says 'So who made this then?' Who made this? You can see why it's a treacherous question. Early man thinks, 'Well, because there's only one sort of being I know about who makes things, whoever made all this must therefore be a much bigger, much more powerful and necessarily invisible, one of me and because I tend to be the strong one who does all the stuff, he's probably male'. And so we have the idea of a god. Then, because when we make things we do it with the intention of doing something with them, early man asks himself , 'If he made it, what did he make it for?' Now the real trap springs, because early man is thinking, 'This world fits me very well. Here are all these things that support me and feed me and look after me; yes, this world fits me nicely' and he reaches the inescapable conclusion that whoever made it, made it for him.

This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in; an interesting hole I find myself in; fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for. We all know that at some point in the future the Universe will come to an end and at some other point, considerably in advance from that but still not immediately pressing, the sun will explode. We feel there's plenty of time to worry about that, but on the other hand that's a very dangerous thing to say. Look at what's supposed to be going to happen on the 1st of January 2000; let's not pretend that we didn't have a warning that the century was going to end! I think that we need to take a larger perspective on who we are and what we are doing here if we are going to survive in the long term.

[Almo]

Do not feed the troll. Well, I suppose it's okay to feed him unripened apples. Maybe.

[Raphael]

Do not feed the troll. Well, I suppose it's okay to feed him unripened apples. Maybe.


If they are Granny Smith apples how are we monkeys to know when they are ripe?

[Marc L]

We can conform to these internal, universal rules out of caring for our fellow man and wanting to do unto others as we would be done unto.


Rathmann, let me ask you a question. Is it right to care for one another because God said so, or is it inherently right to care for one another?

Marc

[pgwenthold]

I know that God exists, in the same way that I know that the love between my wife ... and I exist.

Inappropriate remark removed. Do not personalize the argument and especially leave third parties out of it.

I'm sure there is plenty of empirical evidence that you love your wife, if you actually think a little about it, you will realize that.

[Rathmann]

Raphael --
You asked what these rules are and why they are not the product of evolution.

I had a discussion recently (Wisconsin Public Radio call-in shows are a beautiful thing) with Marc Hauser, who wrote the book "Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong." He is a biologist, and so sees the physical mechanisms that produce the inward sense that it is wrong to kill, steal, lie, etc. Reading his book spells it out pretty well as to what the rules are -- but Raphael you already know what they are, don't you. If this inward sense of right and wrong are the product of evolution, what of it? Moses said of the commandments that they are written in our hearts that we may do them and on our tongues that we may speak them. The fact that theists knew full well what guys like Hauser took another several thousand years to figure out indicates that our relationship with God is as darn good compass by which to live. Science can not tell us how to live -- or help us live in the way that we ought to, which brings me to the next point ...

Marc --
Rathmann, let me ask you a question. Is it right to care for one another because God said so, or is it inherently right to care for one another?

It is inherently right to care for one another. However, human frailties being what they are, yielding the self to a loving God makes one a vessel for a divine form of caring not possible for the secular man. Enlightened self interest will only take one so far towards a truly loving relationship with others. This works as well in a family unit as it does in wider society. When we live for something beyond ourselves -- better than ourselves -- our striving towards that ideal carries us further towards unconditional love. If we center ourselves in this ideal -- AND THEN READ THE SCRIPTURES -- we come away with a very different interpretation than those who use religion to promote intolerance and ignorance.

This truth became evident to me as I delved into Quakerism 20 some years ago. Read the history of Quakers in the Americas and elsewhere and you will see the same pattern that I did. And consider the role of God in the lives of figures like MLK Jr. and Gandhi.

~ Charles Rathmann
john4-14.blogspot.com

[Rathmann]

Raphael --
You asked what these rules are and why they are not the product of evolution.

I had a discussion recently (Wisconsin Public Radio call-in shows are a beautiful thing) with Marc Hauser, who wrote the book "Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong." He is a biologist, and so sees the physical mechanisms that produce the inward sense that it is wrong to kill, steal, lie, etc. Reading his book spells it out pretty well as to what the rules are -- but Raphael you already know what they are, don't you. If this inward sense of right and wrong are the product of evolution, what of it? Moses said of the commandments that they are written in our hearts that we may do them and on our tongues that we may speak them. The fact that theists knew full well what guys like Hauser took another several thousand years to figure out indicates that our relationship with God is as darn good compass by which to live. Science can not tell us how to live -- or help us live in the way that we ought to, which brings me to the next point ...

Marc --
Rathmann, let me ask you a question. Is it right to care for one another because God said so, or is it inherently right to care for one another?

It is inherently right to care for one another. However, human frailties being what they are, yielding the self to a loving God makes one a vessel for a divine form of caring not possible for the secular man. Enlightened self interest will only take one so far towards a truly loving relationship with others. This works as well in a family unit as it does in wider society. When we live for something beyond ourselves -- better than ourselves -- our striving towards that ideal carries us further towards unconditional love. If we center ourselves in this ideal -- AND THEN READ THE SCRIPTURES -- we come away with a very different interpretation than those who use religion to promote intolerance and ignorance.

This truth became evident to me as I delved into Quakerism 20 some years ago. Read the history of Quakers in the Americas and elsewhere and you will see the same pattern that I did. And consider the role of God in the lives of figures like MLK Jr. and Gandhi.

~ Charles Rathmann
john4-14.blogspot.com

[Marquis de Carabas]

Raphael --
You asked what these rules are and why they are not the product of evolution.

I had a discussion recently (Wisconsin Public Radio call-in shows are a beautiful thing) with Marc Hauser, who wrote the book "Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong." He is a biologist, and so sees the physical mechanisms that produce the inward sense that it is wrong to kill, steal, lie, etc. Reading his book spells it out pretty well as to what the rules are -- but Raphael you already know what they are, don't you. If this inward sense of right and wrong are the product of evolution, what of it? Moses said of the commandments that they are written in our hearts that we may do them and on our tongues that we may speak them. The fact that theists knew full well what guys like Hauser took another several thousand years to figure out indicates that our relationship with God is as darn good compass by which to live. Science can not tell us how to live -- or help us live in the way that we ought to, which brings me to the next point ...
The point of Hauser's book was not to spell out what the rules are, but how they got that way. It is the latter that is the bone of contention with theists. One side finds pleasure in trying to figure out how we came to be what we are. The other is content with the imagination-stifling and ultimately vapid answer "God".

[Raphael]

If this inward sense of right and wrong are the product of evolution, what of it?

Well you said "By these rules I know that God exists"
Maybe it should have been "By these rules I know that evolution exists"

[Darth Rotor]

Inappropriate remark removed.

Your meaning is unclear here:

Do you infer that Ratmann's wife engages in oral sex with God ("give him oral sex like your wife does")
or
did you mean "does God moan, as your wife moans, when you(Rathmann) provide oral sex to God?"

Beyond the assumption of Rathmann fellatting or otherwise stimulating God . . .

It seems that your intent was to compare the presumed moaning of Ratmann's wife and God's posited moaning under the oral stimulation of The Divine Genitalia. (This raises the thorny question: does God have genitalia, and if so, are they male, female, both, or neither? )

I smell a bogus scenario, however, as a "true Christian" would not cheat on his wife by having any sort of sex with God. It should follow from the commandments that God would not encourage such adultery. Of course, this leaves us with a puzzle regarding Mary and Joseph, I admit, unless considering exception to reinforce a rule. I hear the Holy Ghost has been scapegoated for some 2000 years on that one . . .)

Any light you could shed on this would be appreciated. :)

DR

[jimlintott]

However, human frailties being what they are, yielding the self to a loving God makes one a vessel for a divine form of caring not possible for the secular man.

As a life long atheist and a secularist I find this statement extremely insulting. Please apologise for it or provide evidence that it is true. It is bordering on bigotry.

[Rathmann]

Jimlintott -- I find it amusing that you consider my post insulting when a few posts above someone has made outrageously insulting remarks about my wife that do not merit a response. I use no pseudonym on this board but apparently that is an ill-advised thing to do in this forum -- and I think that can tell us something of secular nature.

Are my statements contrasting secularism and theism bigoted? Your answer lies in reading the history of religious pacificists -- and comparing the behavior of religious peace activists with those of secular activists. Or come to worship with conservative Quakers some time, and feel the presence in the midst that is almost tangible, extending into the heart, and motivating us to walk a correct, loving path in our daily lives.

I, too, had a long history of secularism, and my friend I will never go back nor will I slander those who have shut themselves off from the Lord. I would hope you would do the same.

The term bigotry, jimlintott, implies a degree of hatred and intolerance that in no way was implied or expressed in any of my posts. Your atheism and secularism of your own free will. A guitar student of mine who by free will does not practice scales and arpeggios will not advance in his or her discipline -- but when I tell them that am I expressing bigotry or stating a fact?

Raphael and Marquis -- the rules exist according to scripture as a way for God to ensure that things go well for us. The mechanism by which this took place is besides the point, and evolution will certainly not help us follow the morally right path. God in fact will help us follow that morally right path if we let him.

~ Charles Rathmann

[ponderingturtle]

This truth became evident to me as I delved into Quakerism 20 some years ago. Read the history of Quakers in the Americas and elsewhere and you will see the same pattern that I did. And consider the role of God in the lives of figures like MLK Jr. and Gandhi.


Why are you ignoreing the role of god in the lives of Osama Bin Laden and Jim Jones? He seemed to play an active roll in their day to day lives as well.

[zizzybaluba]

I use no pseudonym on this board but apparently that is an ill-advised thing to do in this forum -- and I think that can tell us something of secular nature.


Would you like to share what tells you of a secular nature with the rest of us, because I (for one) fail to see any difference from the human race in general.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Jimlintott -- I find it amusing that you consider my post insulting when a few posts above someone has made outrageously insulting remarks about my wife that do not merit a response. I use no pseudonym on this board but apparently that is an ill-advised thing to do in this forum -- and I think that can tell us something of secular nature.
That's a hasty generalisation.

Raphael and Marquis -- the rules exist according to scripture as a way for God to ensure that things go well for us. The mechanism by which this took place is besides the point, and evolution will certainly not help us follow the morally right path. God in fact will help us follow that morally right path if we let him.

~ Charles Rathmann
Examining the mechanism that left us with our moral sense allows us to explore what function that sense serves, and how it serves it. We may also then compare our current environment to that of our ancestors to ask if which bits of our moral sense are still relevant, and which bits are either irrelevant or possibly even harmful today. Merely saying that God gave it to us (particularly without evidence of same) does nothing to enhance our understanding.

[jimlintott]

Jimlintott -- I find it amusing that you consider my post insulting when a few posts above someone has made outrageously insulting remarks about my wife that do not merit a response. I use no pseudonym on this board but apparently that is an ill-advised thing to do in this forum -- and I think that can tell us something of secular nature.

Are my statements contrasting secularism and theism bigoted? Your answer lies in reading the history of religious pacificists -- and comparing the behavior of religious peace activists with those of secular activists. Or come to worship with conservative Quakers some time, and feel the presence in the midst that is almost tangible, extending into the heart, and motivating us to walk a correct, loving path in our daily lives.

I, too, had a long history of secularism, and my friend I will never go back nor will I slander those who have shut themselves off from the Lord. I would hope you would do the same.

The term bigotry, jimlintott, implies a degree of hatred and intolerance that in no way was implied or expressed in any of my posts. Your atheism and secularism of your own free will. A guitar student of mine who by free will does not practice scales and arpeggios will not advance in his or her discipline -- but when I tell them that am I expressing bigotry or stating a fact?

Raphael and Marquis -- the rules exist according to scripture as a way for God to ensure that things go well for us. The mechanism by which this took place is besides the point, and evolution will certainly not help us follow the morally right path. God in fact will help us follow that morally right path if we let him.

~ Charles Rathmann

Did I insult your wife?

I consider telling people that they can't be as caring as someone else because they have a different belief system is exactly, intolerant and ignorant. That is what you said. If that isn't what you meant then an apology should be trivial.

Now, will you apologise for your remark or prove it to be true?

[Raphael]

and I think that can tell us something of secular nature.

Intolerance is endemic to secularism.:rolleyes:
The Inquisition,Islamic Fundamentalism..shall I continue?
You will get sniped at here, but you won't get banned- unless you break the rules that apply to everyone. I was banned at a Christian board for daring to question evidence of the Deity of Christ.

[pgwenthold]

Your meaning is unclear here:

Do you infer that Ratmann's wife engages in oral sex with God ("give him oral sex like your wife does")
or
did you mean "does God moan, as your wife moans, when you(Rathmann) provide oral sex to God?"


I knew I worded that poorly. It was meant as "does God moan when you perform oral sex on him like your wife does when you do it to her?"

It, albeit crude, is NOT inappropriate. He likened the existence of God to the love for his wife. The fact that he has sex with his wife, to the exclusion of all others, and that his wife enjoys it (assuming she does) is empirical evidence that they share the emotion we call love. No, it is not unequivocal proof, but when considered along with the other evidence we could observe, would likely make a very strong case for it.

Now, where is the equivalent empirical evidence for this God?

[Raphael]

Raphael and Marquis -- the rules exist according to scripture as a way for God to ensure that things go well for us. The mechanism by which this took place is besides the point, and evolution will certainly not help us follow the morally right path. God in fact will help us follow that morally right path if we let him.~ Charles Rathmann

This is the part I find interesting. It seems silly that God would create an evolution directed morality if it was ultimately irrelevent, and superceded by divine guided morality.

Do you believe in both?

[Rathmann]

Ponderingturtle --
Excellent response. However, Creation Scientists claim to use the discipline of science to disprove evolution. Care to address that issue? Of course there are those who would abuse both science and religion for their own evil or misguided purposes

Zizzybaluba and Marquis --
The secular nature of man is a state of aloneness and disconnection from God. So is it a hasty generalization to respond to obscene remarks directed at my theism by desribing them as an illustration of that disconnection? I think not. Or is it more of a hasty generalization for one to characterize me as a bigot specifically for being a theist and advocating that we allow God to direct us towards a more moral existence?

And Marquis -- yes, let us examine the mechanism that resulted in our inborn moral sense. But trying to determine whether portions of this moral sense have become irrelevant or harmful, I think, is a challenging task. Treading this path takes us into the realm of science fiction, where the intellect of man is proven to advance more slowly than his moral capacity. Some of my favorite religious studies have been in the area of how religious thinkers dealt with the advent of the atomic bomb. Did they herald it as evidence that the United States was an elect people, chosen by God to wield such power? Or did they see it as an expression of human vanity and sin?

Trying to second-guess God's teachings -- I submit to you Marquis -- supposes that we have knowledge that we can not in fact possess. And we do have evidence of God's involvement in our moral sense. We have the evidence of experience -- which gets to my original point. What we see and experience directly -- be it ourselves, other people or the Divine -- should serve as sufficient evidence of their existence. I shall not say that to discount relgious experience out of hand amounts to bigotry -- but it certainly amounts to a degree of closed-mindedness that does not suit a freethinker.

~ Charles Rathmann

[Marquis de Carabas]

Zizzybaluba and Marquis --
The secular nature of man is a state of aloneness and disconnection from God. So is it a hasty generalization to respond to obscene remarks directed at my theism by desribing them as an illustration of that disconnection? I think not.
You are proffering one instance of obscene remarks by an individual as evidence for the secular nature of all non-theists.

Or is it more of a hasty generalization for one to characterize me as a bigot specifically for being a theist and advocating that we allow God to direct us towards a more moral existence?
jim is proffering one instance of a statement made by you as evidence that you are a bigot, not that theists in general are.

That is why yours is the generalisation, not jim's. Whether either of you are right is, of course, another matter.

And Marquis -- yes, let us examine the mechanism that resulted in our inborn moral sense. But trying to determine whether portions of this moral sense have become irrelevant or harmful, I think, is a challenging task.
Agreed. Which is why I would think it would warrant careful consideration.

Treading this path takes us into the realm of science fiction, where the intellect of man is proven to advance more slowly than his moral capacity.
Where has this been proven?

Trying to second-guess God's teachings -- I submit to you Marquis -- supposes that we have knowledge that we can not in fact possess.
And why can't we? Don't tell me Eve chomped the fruit for nothing.

And we do have evidence of God's involvement in our moral sense. We have the evidence of experience -- which gets to my original point. What we see and experience directly -- be it ourselves, other people or the Divine -- should serve as sufficient evidence of their existence. I shall not say that to discount relgious experience out of hand amounts to bigotry -- but it certainly amounts to a degree of closed-mindedness that does not suit a freethinker.
I have not experienced the divine. I have never heard a convincing account of anyone else experiencing the divine.

[thomps1d]

There are slews of reasons for making a case for God,

Not as many as you might think. In fact, I have yet to hear a single one that doesn't fail under critical inspection. Let's see if you break that trend.

And then for some mysterious reason, we not only have just ONE lucky thing of life on this earth...say something like some cellular thing that just exists...but we have an atmosphere, huge body of life-giving water, a rain cycle, buried aquifers, food, buried oil, ingredients for cement and steel and glass and asphalt and clothing, and buried oil (coal also..and other stuff we mine) that for some reason formed in pools that can easily be extracted like you would suck soda out of a can by a straw, etc., etc., etc., to practically infinitum.

Well, so much for my high hopes. This has always been a type of argument that disappoints me - it's like the proverbial rain puddle thinking that the universe is designed for it, just because the pothole that contains it is perfectly fitted to the puddle's contours. It's a fundamental failure to realize that life adapts to its environment, and that if the environment was one which was fundamentally unsuitable for any kind of life that we just wouldn't be here. It's not a reason to believe in design.

And now I have come up with this latest grandest of revelations: Food we eat just so happens to change colors ...This clinches it (case stated for God's existance)....GRASS doesn't change color. Why? Because we dont' eat it!...shrimp and lobster are ready to eat by changing colors when cooked just right!

Wow. Just...wow. This is an absolutely terrible argument. It's already been mentioned that there are lots of different foods that don't change colour when it's time to eat them, and that many foods that change colour are not safe to eat. And what about fungi like mushrooms which are all basically the same colour, whether they're tasty, magical, or deadly?

Now, if food that was not safe to eat all uniformly changed to a single simple warning colour and all food that was safe to eat changed to a single 'eat me' colour, then you might have an argument with some sort of logical basis.

How much convincing does it take you people to come to the conclusion that some great power out there, or IN there, set this whole thing of life in motion?

A single piece of evidence would be a good start.

Well, maybe we should cut you some slack. Christians have, after all, only had 2000 years to find a little proof? That must not be enough time.

There is just WAYY to much stuff going on on this one planet...where it goes from nothing (from the other planets or moons), to EVERYTHING...including that of luxury and pleasure...on this one planet of ours.

Luxury and pleasure, yes...and also pain, war, famine, sickness, death, unimaginable human cruelty, and boy bands. Selective perception of the benefits of life on this little dirt-ball of ours does not a convincing argument make.

Every astronaut that has visited space gazes back on Earth and acknowledges the spendor and considers the workings of an all powerful God.

Every astronaut? Every last single one? You have a quote from every single astronaut from every single country that has ever broken through the surly bonds of gravity that states that they acknowledge the workings of an all powerful God? Somehow I doubt this is true.

Even if it is true, it's still a logical fallacy.

Evolution discredits God? Not so. Even if there is either a full or limited form of evolution...some great power had to nail the nail, so to speak.

Well, at least we agree that evolution doesn't discredit God. Since evolution doesn't comment on a creator one way or another, it would be hard for it discredit God.

However, the claim that a great power was needed to initiate evolution is lacking any kind of substance. I could state emphatically that aquifers need Morlocks to create them, but that doesn't make it true.

All great companies have a CEO. All great kingdoms have a king.

This is also not true. All great CORPORATIONS have a CEO. Then again, so do all terrible corporations. However, a great company (which is not incorporated) can be run by someone other than a CEO.

And not all great kingdoms have a king, either. I think Queen Elizabeth II would be a little miffed at the thought.

There is a final 'being' involved that runs the show.

Assertion without backing.

There is energy out there with some sort of brain. Plain and simple. Therte is jsut WAYYYYYY to much evidence for this on Earth. And I just pointed out yet some other evidence. (my thread title)

Plain and simple? Hardly. If it were so, you'd be able to put forth a single good, convincing argument. But no theist ever has put forth a single argument for the existence of god that is both conclusive and logically sound.

Sorry. I do so hate bursting bubbles, but it had to be done.

[thomps1d]

Creation Scientists claim to use the discipline of science to disprove evolution. Care to address that issue?

I'll field this one. It's easy to address: they fail to do what they claim. The issue is dealt with at length in many forums, online and off. talkorigins.org has a very extensive index of creationist claims, along with refutations of every single one of them.


The secular nature of man is a state of aloneness and disconnection from God. ...Or is it more of a hasty generalization for one to characterize me as a bigot specifically for being a theist and advocating that we allow God to direct us towards a more moral existence?[/I][/B]

Can you demonstrate in any meaningful way that any sort of God, particularly the one that you follow, exists? If so, then I would say two things:

1) No, you would not be a bigot for advocating that we allow that God to direct us to a more moral existence.

2) In proving the existence of God, you've done something that nobody in the entire history of this planet has ever managed to do. That deserves an attaboy, at the very least.

Now, if you can't prove that God exists...then I still wouldn't say that you're a bigot, just misguided.

[The Atheist]

And we do have evidence of God's involvement in our moral sense. We have the evidence of experience -- which gets to my original point. What we see and experience directly -- be it ourselves, other people or the Divine -- should serve as sufficient evidence of their existence. I shall not say that to discount relgious experience out of hand amounts to bigotry -- but it certainly amounts to a degree of closed-mindedness that does not suit a freethinker.

~ Charles RathmannSorry, Rathman, but that goes straight in here:

Image in breach of Rule 8 removed. Do not use images to circumvent Rule 8.

Evidence? What evidence? If you're trying to say that because we have morals, there's a god, then you should visit a prison or two and ask where the morals of those people are - and surprisingly, you'd find that over 90% of inmates claim to know and understand the same god you delude yourself with. You're an idiot, plain and simple - go talk to Huntster, at least he has the class not to make an idiot out of himself by making completely irrational statements. I can deal with someone who can at least put a case for god, but you don't even try. Did you just split up with Amy Wilson?

The only closed-minded opinions handy are the ridiculously fundamental ones you're promulgating in here. What "religious experience" is anyone discounting? Yours? You used to be non-religious, yet you're now so sure of yourself that you come in here and post your bollocks. You've obviously had a "religious experience" (was it in New York? I know a couple of guys who "found god" in NYC) and expect other people to buy into that. The bad news is, that's verging on the physicality you yourself disdain. Why bother preaching to us if faith is needed? You can't impress us with your chats to god because we all know that they're merely the result of your deluded mind. Maybe you should try a nice fundie forum, they'll all be very impressed.

[Marc L]

Marc --
Rathmann, let me ask you a question. Is it right to care for one another because God said so, or is it inherently right to care for one another?

It is inherently right to care for one another. However, human frailties being what they are, yielding the self to a loving God makes one a vessel for a
divine form of caring not possible for the secular man.

See, the problem I have here is that I've gone the opposite direction as you-from a fundamentalist, who "yield[ed my]self to a loving God" to an "secular man." I've found that in my own life that I am more loving and caring than I was seven years ago. I seriously doubt that I'd have been a good husband to my wife while I was a fundamentalist.

Now, granted, the vast majority of the change (at least in interpersonal relationships) has more to do with general maturity and growing up then it does with me becoming an atheist. I include this here, however, to contrast my experience with your statement.

Exactly how do you feel that I personally am deficient in how I can care for my wife and daughter?


Enlightened self interest will only take one so far towards a truly loving relationship with others. This works as well in a family unit as it does in wider society. When we live for something beyond ourselves -- better than ourselves -- our striving towards that ideal carries us further towards unconditional love.

Ah! Unconditional love. I love you, you beat me, we're a dysfunctional family... No, that wasn't intended as a personal remark, but to show you a logical conclusion of "unconditional" love. Again, I don't see myself (as an atheist) as "living for something beyond myself." I live for my happiness and success. My wife and daughter contribute to that, as I do to theirs. It's not about "enlightened self interest," it's just "self interest."


If we center ourselves in this ideal -- AND THEN READ THE SCRIPTURES -- we come away with a very different interpretation than those who use religion to promote intolerance and ignorance.

The problem is, I have read the scriptures. Including the ones that tell me to stone my daughter should she disrespect me. The other day, she gave me the middle finger*. Should I stone her?


And consider the role of God in the lives of figures like MLK Jr. and Gandhi.

Someone else already mentioned Osama Bin Laden, then there's Crusades, the Inquisition, etc...

*given that she's only 18 months old, I suspect she was just playing with her hands at the moment I looked at her, as opposed to any intended disrespect.

Marc

[Rufo]

I suppose there is little need for me to comment on the OP at this point in the thread. If it was not a joke to begin with, it is now.

Rathmann, just to explain some overly agressive reactions to your posts, I suppose it might be necessary to point out that we get a lot of theists here who do not respect the secular views of the world. Also, quite a lot of them are merely here to preach, not discuss. I hope, and believe, that you are of a different kind.

However, I like many others disagree with your argument that yielding one's self to God would make one capable of a higher form of love/caring otherwise impossible. Although you may have experienced that you gained (or are gaining) the capacity of this love/caring from your religion, what makes you think others can not gain it through other, secular means?

[The Black Fox]

The secular nature of man is a state of aloneness and disconnection from God.

Is it? Are you saying that without God, you would be alone? You have already stated that you have a wife whom you love, and I assume you also have friends and other family. I would not call that a state of aloneness.

[Iamme]

this is a message for imme from ecman when he comes in tomorrow, and posts you all will be begging for Gods mercy, he has composed a list ogf wonders of the Earth that are too fantastic to just be chance.

[Beerina]

Is a god who beats down his political opponents someone deserving of worship?

[Marquis de Carabas]

this is a message for imme from ecman when he comes in tomorrow, and posts you all will be begging for Gods mercy, he has composed a list ogf wonders of the Earth that are too fantastic to just be chance.
It's hard to tell through the sentence structure that appears to have been through several majour hurricanes, but I think I see an admission of multiple users on the Iamme account.

[The Atheist]

this is a message for imme from ecman when he comes in tomorrow, and posts you all will be begging for Gods mercy, he has composed a list ogf wonders of the Earth that are too fantastic to just be chance.HELPPPPPPP!!!

My bag's overflowing... (begging bowl at the ready)

[Raphael]

this is a message for imme from ecman when he comes in tomorrow, and posts you all will be begging for Gods mercy, he has composed a list ogf wonders of the Earth that are too fantastic to just be chance.

overall gut feel? Hey ecman, did you work at Microsoft?Or am I talking to Iamme now?

[thaiboxerken]

Wow. Talk about non-sequitor.

I know, I can play too!! My god exists because sometimes poop is nutty, sometimes it's corny and at other times it burns the butt and that poop really stinks. That's absolute proof that my god exists because if there were no gods, poop would be appetizing for humans, we'd eat it and die of disease.

[bruto]

My question for Rathman is a simple one. Granted that your feeling of connection to God helps you in your life and your love. But do you have any actual evidence that for people in general, religion makes them more loving and caring than those who are not religious or who do not believe in a personal god or a supernatural creator of the universe, as "God" is generally defined? By the way, I hope you do not equate all of the various forms and varieties of godlessness, secularism, deism, etc. with "enlightened self-interest." That would be very shortsighted indeed.

I guess with all the qualifications, the question didn't come out so simple, so here it is again in its simple form: Do you have evidence that people of strong religious faith are more loving and caring than people who lack it or reject it?

[StewartP]

The fact that **** stinks is proof that God exists.

I mean, if it didn't smell we wouldn't know not to eat it, or we might just **** in the kitchen or something and that would be unhygenic.

But in his infinite wisdom and care and concern for his creation he gave poo a horrid smell.

Atheists never flush the toilet.

ETA Aaargh ThaiBoxerken already did this one.

memo to self - read the entire thread before posting.

[StewartP]

In a similar vein, I was reading on a Christian forum about how the devil can take 1 letter and change a words meaning:


Hieroglyphs is the oldest form of writing. The serpent plays tricks with God's word to add or subtract letters to distort one's thinking.

I am starting a list so that members in our body of Christ can add words to the list that the Holy Spirit has revealed to him or her.

Observe that the letter added and/or subtracted will either distort or modify the meaning. State whether either word is a (D) distortion or (M) modification.

Examples:

M Evil + d = Devil
D God + l = Gold
D Word + l = World
D Heaven - h + l = Leaven

ONLY IN ENGLISH!! I wanted to reply, but as a nonbeliever I was locked out of the thread

[Zep]

It sounds like Kirk Cameron ("bananas are proof of god")Kirk Cameron's "Bananas: Proof of God" is proof there is no God. Because no god worthy of the name would allow such a stunningly pathetic proof to be used to prove he exists.

[StewartP]

Since I cocked up on the "Poo stinks" post I have to think of another one now.



God must exist because he made paper so thin. If paper was fat like pancakes imagine how big libraries would get.

He is full of grace and wonder

[merentha]

The fact that **** stinks is proof that God exists.

I mean, if it didn't smell we wouldn't know not to eat it, or we might just **** in the kitchen or something and that would be unhygenic.

But in his infinite wisdom and care and concern for his creation he gave poo a horrid smell.

You have definitely not experienced the wonderful Southeast Asian fruit known as the durian. Smells like ****; tastes like heaven. Somebody once described it as eating ice-cream in a toilet.

[Marc L]

In a similar vein, I was reading on a Christian forum about how the devil can take 1 letter and change a words meaning:

Examples:

M Evil + d = Devil
D God + l = Gold
D Word + l = World
D Heaven - h + l = Leaven


ONLY IN ENGLISH!! I wanted to reply, but as a nonbeliever I was locked out of the thread

Spanish

Dios(God) + A = Adios (Goodbye) :p


Marc

[Iamme]

You're joking, right? No one is this stupid.

The above reply was in response to my thread title.

Too bad you didn't start out by saying "Surely...". That would at least have given us something to talk about.

I was not joking.

I must be that stupid, I guess.

[Ducky]

The above reply was in response to my thread title.

Too bad you didn't start out by saying "Surely...". That would at least have given us something to talk about.

I was not joking.

I must be that stupid, I guess.

The first step is acceptance.

The second step is then learning.

[Iamme]

Actually the fruit is using you to spread its seeds, so it can reproduce more effectively. And it doesn't want to spread seeds that aren't ripe yet, because that would reduce the odds of the seeds surviving.
Grass uses a different strategy to spread seeds, using wind, and therefore has an advantage when it dries the seeds first. It doesn't need to change the colour.
If you'd just read some good books on evolution, you'd see how wonderful and strange life actually is, and how everything, but truly everything is interconnected, and how ingenious the 'genetic rationale' behind all kinds of evolved structures is.

God is no explanation. God is deferring the explanation to a place where none can be found.

Ripe? Yes. I understand. But why the need for it to change color?...unless to show somthing that has eyesight, whyat is going on.

And I find your choice of the word "ingenius" quite interesting in the fact that you chose that word. Yes. Ingenius. Exactly. And that is the point. "Ingenius" just happens by itself, to some point that WE can't even replicate it with our superior brains??? How do yo figure? How come WEEEE can't make skin and bones, eh?? Can anyone answer me that??? And WE have superior intellect and just don't rely on chance. If WEEE can't do it... how did nature do all this by itself?

[StewartP]

Spanish

Dios(God) + A = Adios (Goodbye) :p


Marc
HEY! works in French too! I take it all back!

Dieu (God) + A = Adieu (Goodbye)

Man that Satan is a slick fellow!

[wollery]

Iamme, nature does it very slowly, in almost infinitesimal incremental stages, over a very long period of time. It's called evolution.

Try to pay attention, you've had this explained to you several times before.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Ripe? Yes. I understand. But why the need for it to change color?...unless to show somthing that has eyesight, whyat is going on.
That's precisely the reason. So?

Look up co-evolution sometime.

[Iamme]

God is no explanation. God is deferring the explanation to a place where none can be found.

This alone is worthy of a reply. This is a commonly held belief of atheists. That there is some explanation that we haven't totally figured out yet. And that religious people are deluded into attributing the cause to some God, simply because no other explanation has been discovered yet.

This is what I believe: Yes, there will always wind up being an explanation, in the end, from a scientific standpoint. Just like someone I'm sure can biologically explain why the fruit changes color when ripe.

But I gave the example of something that got constructed and how a carpenter was actually behind the workings. Just because something can be explained doesn't mean there was not some master planner and builder behind those workings. A belief in evolution is no reason to not believe in God. That be like saying you believe in nails and hammers, but not the carpenter who put the object together! Can't you people grasp this?!

[Iamme]

Oh dear someone better tell the chef behind this recipe: http://www.bbc.co.uk/food/recipes/database/greentomatochutney_8201.shtml

Hmmm. Green tomatoes, eh? There are green ripe apples too. There are always exceptions to the rule. Gays are some exception to God's divine plan for populating the earth, yet they exist. And cows 'hump' cows...and they too exist. And criminals exist even though they do not fit into the master plan of harmony, piece, love, sharing, and other attributes of God.

But...nonetheless, I will give this further thought while lying in bed tonight, probably.

[wollery]

This alone is worthy of a reply. This is a commonly held belief of atheists. That there is some explanation that we haven't totally figured out yet. And that religious people are deluded into attributing the cause to some God, simply because no other explanation has been discovered yet.

This is what I believe: Yes, there will always wind up being an explanation, in the end, from a scientific standpoint. Just like someone I'm sure can biologically explain why the fruit changes color when ripe.

But I gave the example of something that got constructed and how a carpenter was actually behind the workings. Just because something can be explained doesn't mean there was not some master planner and builder behind those workings. A belief in evolution is no reason to not believe in God. That be like saying you believe in nails and hammers, but not the carpenter who put the object together! Can't you people grasp this?!Can't you grasp that evolution is nothing like a building. Buildings do not procreate, they have no method for passing on their characteristics. The analogy fails at the most fundamental level.

ETA And offering God as an explanation for things that we simply don't yet understand is another logical fallacy. It's called "God of the gaps" and is intellectually lazy.

[Mr. Scott]

And now I have come up with this latest grandest of revelations: Food we eat just so happens to change colors so us and monkeys can tell when the tomato is red(ripe) for eating and the banana is yellow(ripe) for eating. This clinches it (case stated for God's existance). There is no other good reason why these things have to change color.

Those autumn leaves outside are looking mighty tasty right now. Yum!

Those old slices of bread in my refrigerator have nice big blue spots on them now. Bon appetit!

I like the story of the puddle who remarked how amazing it was that the hole he was in fit him so perfectly, it must have been designed just for him.

Iamme, we evolved into this world. The world was not designed for us. The world came first and we filled it, just like the hole that came before the puddle filled it. Without any design by god.

Sigh...

[Iamme]

YEAH! If the Moon isn't habitable, that PROVES there MUST be a GOD!

Never mind that whole too small to hold an atmosphere thing. . .

:rolleyes:

See here? Yet another explanation again. Yes, there is always SOME excuse as to why something isn't the way it is. But isn't that interesting, that there is this reason for the moon having NOTHING, and there is some weird reason why the Earth has EVERYTHING under the sun?

Ink for the written word
Sonar
Radar
X-rays
Ultrasound
Lasers
Infrared
Ultraviolet
Photography
Tape recordings
Color
Television
Radio
Microwaves
Cell phones
GPS/satellites
Contact lenses
Binoculors-telescopes-microscopes
Fingernail polish-hair spray-hairsetting techniques
Cleaners-solvents-anti-dotes-anti-venoms (how convenient)
Medicines from plants (an accident?)
Things that gather in pools for our taking: Schools of fish, shrimp...to be scooped up in nets to feed the world, coal, oil, and many minerals...water in wells for fresh drinking water even in areas of salt water!
Batteries
Litmus testing
Cars-planes-rockets-boats...even going into space (pretty convenient, eh?)
Amplifiers-hearing aids
Cut diamonds
Musical instruments that go way beyond simply blowing through some hollow tube or blade of grass
Special ambience of love like candlelight, good food, good music, a fireplace
Mathematical formulas that we work with very usefully/engineering
How commercial and industrial jobs run off sophisticated electrical setups
That lightening conveniently knocks out nitrogen for fertilize the earth
Cookies-candy-icecream
Varnish-paints-stains-sealers-coatings for every use, that hold up
Tools that make the job easier and utilization of pneumatics and hydraulics (again...not necessary for our survival...but so convenient..like a gift)
That people all do not desire the same spouse...that "there is someone out there for everyone"
Coffee-beer-cigarettes/cigars-golf courses-bowling alleys (heaven on earth?)
Warm water for soothing baths
Pickling and other food preservation techniques
Reflectors-artificial lighting
Pink Floyd
That all Malado children come out beautiful, as if God is rewarding the humans that show no prejudice!
And conversely we have AIDS, and other afflictions and curses and 'consequences' that man brings on by his wrong doings
Sam Kinneson-Steven Wright- Rodney Dangerfield, etc.,...for Iamme's pleaure, anyway

And more.

Now think of the moon or Mars. Now think of the list above, which many of which have nothing to do with strictly our survival.

The universe survives. What is it's meaning? But here on earth, it is like this gift from God, where there is meaning, pleasure, easy ways to go about things, etc.

Why?

[Marquis de Carabas]

OK, I am going to go way out on a limb here and suggest that perhaps the reason the moon doesn't have those things is that it is not inhabited by intelligent lifeforms capable of producing such. I know that's a stab in the dark, and I would usually shy away from such wild conjecture, but I think it might at least be a step in the right direction.

[Anacoluthon64]

The universe survives. What is it's meaning? But here on earth, it is like this gift from God, where there is meaning, pleasure, easy ways to go about things, etc.

Why?Invent the "meaning" yourself, or invent "god" and attribute to it the "meaning."

Your choice.

'Luthon64

[I less than three logic]

See here? Yet another explanation again. Yes, there is always SOME excuse as to why something isn't the way it is. But isn't that interesting, that there is this reason for the moon having NOTHING, and there is some weird reason why the Earth has EVERYTHING under the sun?
"This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in—an interesting hole I find myself in—fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'" - Douglas Adams

[wollery]

See here? Yet another explanation again. Yes, there is always SOME excuse as to why something isn't the way it is. But isn't that interesting, that there is this reason for the moon having NOTHING, and there is some weird reason why the Earth has EVERYTHING under the sun?

<Long list of human inventions>

Now think of the moon or Mars. Now think of the list above, which many of which have nothing to do with strictly our survival.

The universe survives. What is it's meaning? But here on earth, it is like this gift from God, where there is meaning, pleasure, easy ways to go about things, etc.

Why?Evolution gave us brains, our brains allow us how to make stuff to make our lives easier. And having made our lives easier we no longer have to spend every hour of every day working, which gives us lots of spare time to fill, so our evolution given brains work out ways to keep us entertained whilst we're not working. No God necessary.

Come on Iamme, you're not even trying. You aren't are you?

[supercorgi]

See here? Yet another explanation again. Yes, there is always SOME excuse as to why something isn't the way it is. But isn't that interesting, that there is this reason for the moon having NOTHING, and there is some weird reason why the Earth has EVERYTHING under the sun?

{snipped long list of stuff}

And more.

Now think of the moon or Mars. Now think of the list above, which many of which have nothing to do with strictly our survival.

The universe survives. What is it's meaning? But here on earth, it is like this gift from God, where there is meaning, pleasure, easy ways to go about things, etc.

Why?

There must be a god. If not, why would Iamme post this innanity at the exact moment that I needed reinforcement for my belief that all of Iamme's posts are a waste of time. :rolleyes:

[thaiboxerken]

Iamme, your "logic" is simply retarded. You are looking at anything and everything as "proof" that your god exists. Using that "logic" anything can be used as an explanation for anything and everything.

Fruit changes colors, therefore god exists.
Fruit changes colors, therefore fruit pixies exist.
Fruit changes colors, therefore I am your god.
Fruit changes colors, therefore the universe must be an oil painting.
Fruit changes colors, therefore fruits are gods.
Fruit changes colors, therefore Rip Torn is the best actor in the world.

All of the statements above are logically equivalent.

[Ducky]

Iamme, your "logic" is simply retarded. You are looking at anything and everything as "proof" that your god exists. Using that "logic" anything can be used as an explanation for anything and everything.

Fruit changes colors, therefore god exists.
Fruit changes colors, therefore fruit pixies exist.
Fruit changes colors, therefore I am your god.
Fruit changes colors, therefore the universe must be an oil painting.
Fruit changes colors, therefore fruits are gods.
Fruit changes colors, therefore Rip Torn is the best actor in the world.

All of the statements above are logically equivalent.

Why do you hate Rip Torn? :)

[thaiboxerken]

Rip Torn was awesome in "Dodgeball"

[Tormac]

Hi Iamme,

I’m curious thing about something with your list. Why are so many of the things on your list double-edged. For example, I can sometimes imagine that ice-cream is a blessing from God to show how much he loves me (mmmm mint ice cream), but why then is it full of fat and empty calories?

Is God telling me he wants me to get a heart attack because he loves me?

If God was perfect, he could make something taste as good as chocolate chip mint ice-cream without any fat, and low on calories.

Why does all the food that tastes good (peanut butter cookies, chocolate chip mint ice-cream, bacon, porterhouse stakes grilled over a real fire, whisky, etc.) bad for me, and food that is good for me (salad with no cheese or crotons, broccoli with no cheese sauce, rice cakes, prune juice, spinach) taste terrible?

It really seems like God designed me to die of a heart attack by the time I'm 40. Do you think God made me this way because of the sins of my ancestors? Or is this just God’s will for my life? Am I rebelling against God’s will by riding my bike and trying to loose weight?

In the same light, since according to your list, God made Aids to “afflict” us because of our “wrong doings”, why did he design me to want to do so many things that were “wrong” in the first place (since the prime vector that spreads Aids is sex, why did God make me so horny if he did not want me to have sex, or why did he make me apreciate the beauty of so many women in general, if he expects me to only love one woman?) I understand that lesbian sex acts are the least likely to spread Aids. Does this mean that God wants us to become lesbians?

The more I think about this kind of thing, the more confused I become. I could use some help figuring out the subtle beauty and meaning of the world around me, because when I look hard at things in this kind of light, God seems to be sending me really mixed messages.

[thomps1d]

Iamme, for your reading pleasure, I present: a closer examination of your list.

Ink for the written word


And if there weren't ink, we'd chisel in stone, or derive dyes from vegetation, or use any number of other alternatives. Saying that ink exists specifically for the written word is a little silly.


Sonar

This is a human invention, and therefore quite irrelevant in proving God's existence.


Radar


Ditto.


X-rays


Ditto.

Ultrasound


Lasers

Sharks with frickin' lasers...nevermind. Still human inventions.


Infrared


Still human inventions...maybe you just don't get it.

Ultraviolet

Man-made ultraviolet lights, or the ultraviolet part of the light spectrum? Either way, this is still irrelevant.


Photography


Unless it's a picture of God, then...still irrelevant.

Tape recordings

Unless it's a tape recording of God singing in the shower, you're not helping your case.

Color

I'm not sure where you're going with this. Would the lack of colour prove that God doesn't exist? If so, you might want to talk to the animals that can't perceive colours, or colourblind people. Still irrelevant to proving that God exists.

Television

Is God trying out for American Idol now? If not...you guessed it. Still irrelevant.

Radio
Microwaves
Cell phones
GPS/satellites
Contact lenses
Binoculors-telescopes-microscopes
Fingernail polish-hair spray-hairsetting techniques

Do I even have to say it at this point?

Cleaners-solvents-anti-dotes-anti-venoms (how convenient)

Convenient how?

Medicines from plants (an accident?)

An accident? Maybe. Or maybe just the result of co-evolution. And what does this say about plants that are strictly poisonous? Uh-oh. Looks like we're still in the irrelevant zone.

Things that gather in pools for our taking: Schools of fish, shrimp...to be scooped up in nets to feed the world, coal, oil, and many minerals...water in wells for fresh drinking water even in areas of salt water!

And what about the things that gather in pools/groups to kill us? Stagnant water, mold, sharks with frickin' laser beams...


Batteries

Oh...did Energizer release their all-new Divine Volt Batteries? If not, this is still irrelevant.

You know, I was going to go through the rest of the list, but I'm getting tired of typing the word "irrelevant".

Here it is, Iamme, in no uncertain terms for easy understanding:

Man-made objects/phenomena are not proof that God exists. Saying that all good things exist because God loves us and all bad things exist because man is bad is terribly shoddy reasoning.

I thought you were going to present a list today of things that prove God exists? I'm still waiting.

[StewartP]

I've just realised the OP was serious.

IAMME - I didn't post to mock. I didn't realise you were a believer. I thought the OP was in jest.

My apologies.

regards
Stew

[Marc L]

Iamme, for your reading pleasure, I present: a closer examination of your list.


Originally Posted by Iamme
Sonar

This is a human invention, and therefore quite irrelevant in proving God's existence.



It is? I was under the impression that bats used sonar in order to "see" where they were going. I realize that we created machinery to produce sonar, but we didn't invent it anymore than we did light by creating machinery to produce it.

Marc

[thomps1d]

It is? I was under the impression that bats used sonar in order to "see" where they were going. I realize that we created machinery to produce sonar, but we didn't invent it anymore than we did light by creating machinery to produce it.

Marc

I suppose that's true; I assumed that he was referring to devices we had designed to utilize sonar for our own purposes. However, there is an even stronger argument against God's existence there:

If sonar is something that humans would find so useful that we need to create machines to emulate it, wouldn't a true intelligent designer have incorporated that capacity into humans?

ETA: And let's not even mention the frickin' laser beams for our heads. If I am the end result of an intelligent designer, I want to know where my frickin' laser beam is.

[wollery]

Iamme was undoubtedly referring to the human invention, since every other item on his list was.

[I less than three logic]

It is? I was under the impression that bats used sonar in order to "see" where they were going. I realize that we created machinery to produce sonar, but we didn't invent it anymore than we did light by creating machinery to produce it.

Marc
Don’t give all the credit to bats, several animals use echolocation. :)

Echolocation, also called Biosonar, is the biological sonar used by several mammals such as bats, dolphins and whales. The term was coined by Donald Griffin, who was the first to conclusively demonstrate its existence in bats. Two bird groups also employ this system for navigating through caves, the so called Cave Swiftlets in the genus Aerodramus (formerly Collocalia) and the unrelated Oilbird Steatornis caripensis.
Wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_echolocation)

[thomps1d]

Iamme was undoubtedly referring to the human invention, since every other item on his list was.

That was my thinking in citing it as a human invention.

Don’t give all the credit to bats, several animals use echolocation.

True, but bats come most readily to mind for most people when we think of echolocation.

Personally, I like to pretend that I have echolocation. I walk around the office saying "Ping! Ping! Ping!" Drives the other people batty (tee-hee!).

[jimlintott]

Or is it more of a hasty generalization for one to characterize me as a bigot specifically for being a theist and advocating that we allow God to direct us towards a more moral existence?



I know that I inspired this statement and it bothers me. I should respond to it (though it seems Rathmann has left).

I would never call someone a bigot simply for being a theist. I would call someone a bigot who makes sweeping, negative generalisations about a specific group of people based on their own perceptions.

I also never directly called Rathmann a bigot I said that his statement is bordering on it. This doesn't make Rathmann a bigot it could easily mean that he is simply ignorant.

It is important to point out that there are many theists on this forum that are also secularists.

So, Rathmann if you ever get back here and read this please realise that to say that the non-religious cannot be as caring as the religious is insulting to me , my children and many of my close friends. If the statement was made out of ignorance it will be simple for you to say "I'm sorry. I didn't understand. Today I am a wiser man." If you believe your statement then the bigot shoe fits. Go ahead and wear it.

[bruto]

Why do you hate Rip Torn? :)As a side note of complete thread drift, my stepson some years ago did some summer workshops (Fledgling Films) with the same company that also produced Where the Rivers Flow North, which starred Rip Torn, and he was apparently uniformly disliked by all those who had worked with him.

[bruto]

Hi Iamme,

I’m curious thing about something with your list. Why are so many of the things on your list double-edged. For example, I can sometimes imagine that ice-cream is a blessing from God to show how much he loves me (mmmm mint ice cream), but why then is it full of fat and empty calories?

Is God telling me he wants me to get a heart attack because he loves me?

If God was perfect, he could make something taste as good as chocolate chip mint ice-cream without any fat, and low on calories.

Why does all the food that tastes good (peanut butter cookies, chocolate chip mint ice-cream, bacon, porterhouse stakes grilled over a real fire, whisky, etc.) bad for me, and food that is good for me (salad with no cheese or crotons, broccoli with no cheese sauce, rice cakes, prune juice, spinach) taste terrible?

It really seems like God designed me to die of a heart attack by the time I'm 40. Do you think God made me this way because of the sins of my ancestors? Or is this just God’s will for my life? Am I rebelling against God’s will by riding my bike and trying to loose weight?

In the same light, since according to your list, God made Aids to “afflict” us because of our “wrong doings”, why did he design me to want to do so many things that were “wrong” in the first place (since the prime vector that spreads Aids is sex, why did God make me so horny if he did not want me to have sex, or why did he make me apreciate the beauty of so many women in general, if he expects me to only love one woman?) I understand that lesbian sex acts are the least likely to spread Aids. Does this mean that God wants us to become lesbians?

The more I think about this kind of thing, the more confused I become. I could use some help figuring out the subtle beauty and meaning of the world around me, because when I look hard at things in this kind of light, God seems to be sending me really mixed messages.


There's a perfect and complete answer to all that, the deluxe Swiss Army knife of copouts: "God's plan is beyond our understanding." Gets them off the hook every time.

[Cheesejoff]

GOD EXISTS! PRAISE HIS NOODLY APPENDAGE!


How do you know that God is the same God as the one described in the bible and not in any of the other thousands of world religions, including Pastafarianism?

How do you know that any religion is correct at all? Perhaps God is completely different from anything we could ever think up.

Your entire argument is rather pointless. Even if you can establish that a Deity exists, you cannot know anything about said Deity.

[Marquis de Carabas]

GOD EXISTS! PRAISE HIS NOODLY APPENDAGE!


How do you know that God is the same God as the one described in the bible and not in any of the other thousands of world religions, including Pastafarianism?
As I pointed out elsewhere recently, knowing which God the evidence points toward is really simple as long as you start with your conclusion and work from there.

[thaiboxerken]

I've just realised the OP was serious.

IAMME - I didn't post to mock. I didn't realise you were a believer. I thought the OP was in jest.

My apologies.

regards
Stew

Don't apologize. The fact that he actually is serious gives even more reason to mock.

[thaiboxerken]

Iamme was undoubtedly referring to the human invention, since every other item on his list was.

I notice that believers tend to list "good" items as "proof" of their god. They seem to never mention fecal matter, disease, oppression, hate, genetic deformation, pornography, death, ticks, vultures....etc.

I think it's because these people don't understand what a logical argument is. Appeals to emotion and ignorance ARE perfectly sensible arguments to these people.

[The Atheist]

That be like saying you believe in nails and hammers, but not the carpenter who put the object together! Can't you people grasp this?!Iamme, we have no trouble grasping difficult concepts like that, but what you don't understand that because a nail and hammer have been used, it doesn't mean that Sid's mum didn't knock a couple of nails in to a piece of wood - or heavens above! - that maybe a boilermaker, doctor or lawyer used them.

I have read a few of your posts, Iamme, and I'm sorry to say that you're either a troll or a congenital idiot. (or more likely, both)

[The Atheist]

I understand that lesbian sex acts are the least likely to spread Aids. Does this mean that God wants us to become lesbians?Can I apply to be the first to try that? I'll report back, I swear it on the bible.

[H'ethetheth]

This alone is worthy of a reply. This is a commonly held belief of atheists. That there is some explanation that we haven't totally figured out yet. And that religious people are deluded into attributing the cause to some God, simply because no other explanation has been discovered yet.

This is what I believe: Yes, there will always wind up being an explanation, in the end, from a scientific standpoint. Just like someone I'm sure can biologically explain why the fruit changes color when ripe. If you had bothered to read the rest of my post you'd know why fruit changes colour when ripe. It's not only an explanation, it's one that makes testable predictions, such as the prediction that it is beneficial for the plant that bears the fruit in some way.
God doesn't make for testable predictions, because he can do anything and is therefore utterly boring and unimaginative as an explanation. Can't you people grasp this?!

But I gave the example of something that got constructed and how a carpenter was actually behind the workings. Just because something can be explained doesn't mean there was not some master planner and builder behind those workings.Indeed, but if one puts together the facts that there is an explanation that doesn't involve a designer, and that we have no evidence for a designer other than the design itself, it decreases the likelihood of there actually being a designer.

A belief in evolution is no reason to not believe in God. That be like saying you believe in nails and hammers, but not the carpenter who put the object together! Can't you people grasp this?!A belief in evolution is indeed no reason not to believe in God, but it is a reason not to believe in a God that designed lifeforms (other than perhaps the first one), or guided evolution.

[Marc L]

I notice that believers tend to list "good" items as "proof" of their god. They seem to never mention...pornography

At the risk of a total thread drift, I've noticed that even some atheists tend to lump pornography in with "bad things." I've asked in the past what makes pornography "bad" (as in immoral, not poor quality), but I've yet to receive an answer. Why do you feel pornography is bad?

Marc

[The Atheist]

Now think of the moon or Mars. Now think of the list above, which many of which have nothing to do with strictly our survival.
Have you been to both places to check on that, Iamme?

We know the moon landings were fake, so maybe a race of moon-men live on the dark side of the moon with all of those things you mention. Which god do they worship?

[H'ethetheth]

...
Ink for the written word
Sonar
Radar
X-rays
Ultrasound
Lasers
Infrared
Ultraviolet
Photography
Tape recordings
Color
Television
Radio
Microwaves
Cell phones
GPS/satellites
Contact lenses
Binoculors-telescopes-microscopes
Fingernail polish-hair spray-hairsetting techniques
Cleaners-solvents-anti-dotes-anti-venoms (how convenient)
Medicines from plants (an accident?)
Things that gather in pools for our taking: Schools of fish, shrimp...to be scooped up in nets to feed the world, coal, oil, and many minerals...water in wells for fresh drinking water even in areas of salt water!
Batteries
Litmus testing
Cars-planes-rockets-boats...even going into space (pretty convenient, eh?)
Amplifiers-hearing aids
Cut diamonds
Musical instruments that go way beyond simply blowing through some hollow tube or blade of grass
Special ambience of love like candlelight, good food, good music, a fireplace
Mathematical formulas that we work with very usefully/engineering
How commercial and industrial jobs run off sophisticated electrical setups
That lightening conveniently knocks out nitrogen for fertilize the earth
Cookies-candy-icecream
Varnish-paints-stains-sealers-coatings for every use, that hold up
Tools that make the job easier and utilization of pneumatics and hydraulics (again...not necessary for our survival...but so convenient..like a gift)
That people all do not desire the same spouse...that "there is someone out there for everyone"
Coffee-beer-cigarettes/cigars-golf courses-bowling alleys (heaven on earth?)
Warm water for soothing baths
Pickling and other food preservation techniques
Reflectors-artificial lighting
Pink Floyd
That all Malado children come out beautiful, as if God is rewarding the humans that show no prejudice!
And conversely we have AIDS, and other afflictions and curses and 'consequences' that man brings on by his wrong doings
Sam Kinneson-Steven Wright- Rodney Dangerfield,
...
[fast show]BRILLIAAANT![/fast show]

[thomps1d]

At the risk of a total thread drift, I've noticed that even some atheists tend to lump pornography in with "bad things." I've asked in the past what makes pornography "bad" (as in immoral, not poor quality), but I've yet to receive an answer. Why do you feel pornography is bad?

Marc

I don't know if this counts as threadjacking or not. I think the general reason that an atheist would consider pornography bad or immoral would be the problems encountered in actual practice rather than the theory of pornography.

In theory, two consenting adults both get paid to do what they would like to do naturally - have sex. The only difference between this and any other time they have sex is that there is a video camera present and it's mass-distributed.

The practice of pornography is a different matter entirely. The entire industry is corrupt, and rife with overuse of drugs which can be very damaging physically. There are also question of whether the stars are actually "consenting" or not - primarily because, when you are a junkie looking for your next fix, you'll do anything when someone offers you some money. This seems most likely to happen in lower-end back-room porn companies, which do constitute the majority of the creators/distributors out there.

The users of porn can also be a bit disturbing. I worked at an adult video store for several years (hey, I was an innocent university student and I needed the money ;) ), and although most of the consumers were normally people who were just enjoying their porn, there was a fairly significant portion of them who were...well, for lack of a clinical term, creeps. Now, I don't doubt that they would have been creeps even without the porn, but there's nothing creepier than seeing a man wearing a wedding ring asking if you have any incest videos.

Now that all that has been said, I don't think that pornography is bad - when taken in moderation and created in a legal manner. Heck, I'm sure we've all engaged in some intimate portraiture with our significant others at one time or another...nothing wrong with that. :D

[The Atheist]

At the risk of a total thread drift, I've noticed that even some atheists tend to lump pornography in with "bad things." I've asked in the past what makes pornography "bad" (as in immoral, not poor quality), but I've yet to receive an answer. Why do you feel pornography is bad?

MarcI might just step in here and aid the derail attempt - let's face it, derailing this thread onto pornography is about the kindest thing that could happen to it.

I think the word "pornography" is a bit too broad to class it as all bad. If the said porn is made by consenting adults practising safe sex and people wish to pay to watch it, then how is it bad? And if it involves any kind of coerciaon, then it isn't porn any longer, it's just a crime, like any other sex crime.

Porn is ugly, a turn-off (personally) and unneccesary, but I can't see it needing to be classed in the "sin" column - I'll leave that to christians.

[ponderingturtle]

I might just step in here and aid the derail attempt - let's face it, derailing this thread onto pornography is about the kindest thing that could happen to it.

I think the word "pornography" is a bit too broad to class it as all bad. If the said porn is made by consenting adults practising safe sex and people wish to pay to watch it, then how is it bad? And if it involves any kind of coerciaon, then it isn't porn any longer, it's just a crime, like any other sex crime.

Porn is ugly, a turn-off (personally) and unneccesary, but I can't see it needing to be classed in the "sin" column - I'll leave that to christians.

That is a personal aesthetic taste, it is a bit like calling baseball all those things, does that make baseball a bad thing?

Hmm which industry has more use of performance enhancing drugs?

[Odin]

Iamme-

Can you imagine a world similar to this one that arose naturally?
How close to this world do you imagine a natural version could get?




Do you agree that an event or object which could have a natural explanation is therefore not proof of God (but not disproof either?)

[Rathmann]

Thomps1d:
Indeed, creation scientists don’t do what they say – and Osama bin Laden and Jim Jones are and were respectively not acting at the bequest of God.

Now, if you can't prove that God exists...then I still wouldn't say that you're a bigot, just misguided.

In my initial post, I explained that God can be proven to exist via personal experience.

The Atheist:
Tell me exactly how many prisons you have visited, and tell me of the prisoners you have discussed religion with. I visit prisons regularly, and prisoners I meet with tell me of the alienation from God that results in their criminal acts, and the redemption that can come subsequently. I kindly ask that you apologize for calling me an idiot.

I also take strong exception to you and Marc L. characterizing me as a fundamentalist as I am nothing of the sort. Ask any fundamentalist about Quakers and they will tell you that in no uncertain terms (find a fundamentalist who knows me and you’ll get a real earful on how I am not even a real Christian). Atheist, I take pride in having been KICKED OUT of fundie forums!

Marc L –
I am sorry you were a fundamentalist, and agree that you may not have been a good husband and father when that was the case, but never having been a fundamentalist myself, I can not say first hand. But fundamentalists might as well be atheists as they tend to believe that God stopped speaking when the scriptures were canonized. And while you say you read the scriptures, Marc L, apparently your own literalist beliefs at the time you read them prevented them from opening their meaning to you. A fundamentalist would posit that the scriptures are the word of God – yet the scriptures never claim this for themselves. In fact, Jesus in referring to the scriptures in his arguments with the Pharisees tends to say “it is written that” rather than attributing these statements directly to God. And the Gospels make clear that they are reports of what is being said of Jesus of Nazareth – not divine dictation taken by the anonymous author! Moreover, right from the start of Genesis we see a description of God speaking to create the universe, and later Moses says that the commandments are not the written word but what is written in our hearts and on our tongues (see my original post). God's word is not the scriptures ...

And Bruto – excellent point.

The challenge with answering it is that outward forms of religion are often completely disconnected from the idea or practice of a relationship with the divine. Quakers hold that since the early days of Christianity, the sect has fallen into a state of apostasy as creeds and ritual have come to replace the inward experience of the paraclete -- or the Holy Spirit. While several passages in Hebrews makes clear that the priesthood was to be abandoned, and while other passages made clear that ministers were not to be paid (freely ye shall received, now freely ye shall give) a paid ministry and priesthood arose to enforce orthodoxy. As Christianity became a state religion and was used as a lever for governance, misguided policies like that of the “just war” came into parlance. Roman Catholicism imposed a church hierarchy on believesr, and in response Martin Luther came up with a creed that one must agree to in order to be “justified to God.” But to be justified means simply to become … just. Robert Barclay described how his own experience helped him how his Quakerism helped him accomplish this justification:

“When I came into the silent assemblies of God’s people, I felt a secret power among them, which touched my heart; and as I gave way unto it, I found the evil weakening in me, and the good raised up; and so I became thus knit and united unto them, hungering more and more after the increase of this power and life, whereby I might feel myself perfectly redeemed.”

Read Galations 5:6 and Romans 2:29 and Deuteronomy 30:6 for a deeper understanding of how religion should really work. We are not made just either by customs like circumcision or by accepting doctrine or by the letter of the scripture – but by a circumcision of the heart.

Those of us who see the scripture not as literal history but as a spiritual history can see a wonderful progression in scripture of people’s understanding of God, a progression from a God who demands obedience and requires sacrifice to one who sacrifices on our behalf. And when we read the scripture in this light, it takes on a different meaning than if we accept the misguided doctrine that it is the word of God!

This correct understanding of God and of scripture leaves our heart free to experience Him while also leaving our mind unhindered to inquire and think.

Have that cake and eat it too, man. Why not?

~ Charles Rathmann

[thomps1d]

Thomps1d:
In my initial post, I explained that God can be proven to exist via personal experience.

Unfortunately, that's not proof...that's subjective experience. There are paranoid schizophrenics who quite sincerely believe that their personal experience is proof that the world is run by a New World Order composed of 12-foot tall shapechanging, Satanic, baby eating lizard aliens. That doesn't mean that it's true, no matter how sincerely it may be believed.

In like fashion, no matter how sincere your belief that your personal experience proves that God exists, it does not. It proves that you have had an experience which you interpret as God's existence, but one does not equal the other.

I've known a lot of people who claim to have personally experienced God - some who even claimed a "personal relationship with Jesus Christ". That doesn't make it true, even if they absolutely, 100% believe it.

[zizzybaluba]

Indeed, creation scientists don’t do what they say – and Osama bin Laden and Jim Jones are and were respectively not acting at the bequest of God.


(Apologies to Claus)
Evidence?

[Tormac]

There's a perfect and complete answer to all that, the deluxe Swiss Army knife of copouts: "God's plan is beyond our understanding." Gets them off the hook every time.

Well I expect you're right about some trying to use that claim bruto, but then I can only wonder, if God's plan is beyond our understanding, how am I exspected to take seriously what anyone says about any of it?

If someone can't explain to me something small like why bacon tastes so good, and yet is so bad for me, how am I to realy take them seriously when they try to explain what all of eternity is like? Bacon seems like a softball compared to an eternal afterlife.

After all, if a man can't change a flat tire on a car, I'm not going to pay him to put a new head gasket on mine.

[Tormac]

Can I apply to be the first to try that? I'll report back, I swear it on the bible.

I'd love to hear how this works out for you Atheist.

[JackPT]

... And now I have come up with this latest grandest of revelations: Food we eat just so happens to change colors so us and monkeys can tell when the tomato is red(ripe) for eating and the banana is yellow(ripe) for eating. This clinches it (case stated for God's existance). There is no other good reason why these things have to change color. GRASS doesn't change color. Why? Because we dont' eat it! God knew that. He caused apples, tomatoes, berries, bananas...a whole host of things to give 'signs' that they are ready to eat. He even made it so we would know when shrimp and lobster are ready to eat by changing colors when cooked just right! ...

I disagree. Not least because most fruit we eat today has undergone thousands of years of selective breeding by man. Most wild varieties of fruit have poor yields and often look unattractive. If there was a designer there would be no need for thousands of years of selective breeding to increase yields and improve the colours of fruit. A few thousand years ago if you ate the wrong variety of tomato you could end up with a stomach ache. The changing of colours of ripening fruit happens for many reasons, but fruit is essentially about plants spreading their seeds.

[The Atheist]

That is a personal aesthetic taste, it is a bit like calling baseball all those things, does that make baseball a bad thing?

Hmm which industry has more use of performance enhancing drugs?

Does Viagra count as "performance-enhancing"?:D

[The Atheist]

I'd love to hear how this works out for you Atheist.Yes, I've often thought I was a lesbian trapped in a man's body!

[Rathmann]

Thompson1d said: Unfortunately, that's not proof...that's subjective experience. There are paranoid schizophrenics who quite sincerely believe that their personal experience is proof that the world is run by a New World Order composed of 12-foot tall shapechanging, Satanic, baby eating lizard aliens. That doesn't mean that it's true, no matter how sincerely it may be believed.

Well Thompson, are you suggesting that the enormous number of people who have religious experiences are all schizophrenic, or shall I assume that your argument is a specious one? Why not, as suggested in my initial post, call all of those who claim that their wives or families love them schizophrenics? That love can be measured or quantified no more than can God, yet it exists and is a powerful force in their lives.

And Zizzybaluba wants evidence that bin Laden and Jones were not doing the bidding of God.
Well Ziz, if I can call you in the familiar, let’s first take a look at the Koran …
“…Each time they kindle the fire of war, Allah extinguishes it. They rush about the earth corrupting it. Allah does not love corrupters.” (Surat al-Ma'ida: 64)
“You who believe! Show integrity for the sake of God, bearing witness with justice. Do not let hatred for a people incite you into not being just. Be just. That is closer to heedfulness. Heed God (alone). God is aware of what you do. (Surat al-Ma'ida: 8)”

This is harder with Jones because he was not really kind of off on his own little power trip, and not really operating within a particular religious tradition – not that the presence of a tradition should matter that much. But let us assume for a moment that Jones were to pass himself off as a Christian. Thou shalt not kill – a law that is written on each of our hearts – comes to mind. Jones killed his followers – and a delegation from the US on the airport tarmac – because his kingdom was about to crash down around his shoulders. But read what Jesus said about His kingdom at John 18.

When Pilate asked Jesus if his followers would fight on His behalf, Jesus said:
“My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but as it happens My kingdom is not here.”

Once again, the above scriptural notations do not represent the Word of God, but rather the understanding of Theists of various backgrounds. But still, anyone who suggests that God advocates murder, hatred, etc. is not to be trusted.

Get serious Ziz. Your arguments are almost as specious as Thompson1d’s. I would encourage anyone who wants to criticize theism and Christianity in general read Robert Barclay's The Apology for the True Christian Divinity. In the words of that immortal bard Bob Dylan, don't criticize what you can't understand.

~ Charles Rathmann

[JackPT]

Well Thompson, are you suggesting that the enormous number of people who have religious experiences are all schizophrenic, or shall I assume that your argument is a specious one? Why not, as suggested in my initial post, call all of those who claim that their wives or families love them schizophrenics? That love can be measured or quantified no more than can God, yet it exists and is a powerful force in their lives.

I don't think the vast number of people that have religious experiences are ill, rather that they ascribe these experiences to religion. Plenty of other people have what could be described as religious experiences, but don't believe in a religion. The brain is an amazing thing. The same is true of things like sleep paralysis, a well known condition, some people associate it with an alien abduction because it's terryfying. It's not an alien abduction, it's our brain doing strange things.
This is harder with Jones because he was not really kind of off on his own little power trip, and not really operating within a particular religious tradition – not that the presence of a tradition should matter that much. But let us assume for a moment that Jones were to pass himself off as a Christian. Thou shalt not kill – a law that is written on each of our hearts – comes to mind. Jones killed his followers – and a delegation from the US on the airport tarmac – because his kingdom was about to crash down around his shoulders. But read what Jesus said about His kingdom at John 18.

When Pilate asked Jesus if his followers would fight on His behalf, Jesus said:
“My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but as it happens My kingdom is not here.”

I think you make rather a good point here. That selectively quoting holy books can be used to justify things, because they are by definition holy. It is easy to take quotes from the Bible or Koran and interpret them to fit a particular ideology. That is the inherent problem with regarding anything as holy or based upon faith.

[I less than three logic]

Well Thompson, are you suggesting that the enormous number of people who have religious experiences are all schizophrenic, or shall I assume that your argument is a specious one? Why not, as suggested in my initial post, call all of those who claim that their wives or families love them schizophrenics? That love can be measured or quantified no more than can God, yet it exists and is a powerful force in their lives.
Nope, all they're all schizos, and those ranting on about love, they're suffering from a chemical dependency. ;)

[thomps1d]

Well Thompson, are you suggesting that the enormous number of people who have religious experiences are all schizophrenic, or shall I assume that your argument is a specious one? Why not, as suggested in my initial post, call all of those who claim that their wives or families love them schizophrenics? That love can be measured or quantified no more than can God, yet it exists and is a powerful force in their lives.

You're saying my arguments are specious? Are you really sure you want to go there? I've been taking it easy on you since it's pretty clear you're a lightweight.

Well, let's get to it, shall we?

"Are all people who have religious experiences schizophrenic?"

No. Some are liars. Some want to be "popular". Remember that kid in school who always said that he had actually visited Oz, or flown like Superman, or met the Ninja Turtles?

That kid just wanted to fit in, so he told people a story that he thought would make them like him. It's the same with many people who have religious experiences - they want to be part of their church, and even the center of attention, so they make up a little story. Maybe they tell it enough that they start believing it.

Some people who have religious experiences misinterpret normal physiological phenomena. When I was younger, I got really dizzy in my bedroom and fell down. When I looked up, I saw a Star Trek poster that I had sitting on the wall - the Enterprise was surrounded by a heavenly halo, and I could see the stars in the background rotating. I was well versed enough in biology to know that this was a normal reaction to this sort of thing. But if I didn't know that, and had seen a picture of Jesus with a halo over his head instead of the Enterprise...well, I just might be inclined to think that I'd been "touched by the divine", and had a personal experience of God. I might even have been foolish enough to believe that was "proof" of God's existence.

"Do people who claim to love other people suffer from schizophrenia?"

This is what is referred to as a "straw man fallacy". I never made any such claim.

But since you want to go there...

There's a big difference between a person who believes that they have personally experienced God's existence and someone who believes that they have personally experienced the love of a significant other:

The person who thinks he is in love can at least prove his significant other exists.

When I tell my co-workers about my fiancee, who I love dearly, I can prove that she exists by bringing her along to an after-work dinner with my co-workers.

I can also show that she loves me by virtue of the actions she performs towards me, and vice versa. If I'm willing to shut off my X-Box and talk to her, there's a bit of proof right there that she means more to me than the average person.

Now, if you can convince God to quit playing his cosmic X-Box and come have a conversation with the whole planet, then you'll have a point.

The facts of the situation are this: no one, in the entire recorded history of humankind, has ever demonstrated so much as one single shred of evidence that any sort of deity exists, has ever existed, or ever will exist.

Think about that. We have written histories (some fragmentary, some fairly complete) covering over five thousand years of history. We have artwork demonstrating man's search for something more than human that dates back roughly 30,000 years. In all that time, not one single piece of evidence has surfaced.

If you think that you have a piece of evidence that has been overlooked throughout all of recorded history, by all means bring it forward. If you can prove that the Christian god exists, you would have a means of ending all religious wars (and even non-religious ones, I'd wager) and bring peace to this planet. You'd have the power to end human cruelty and finally make all the little ape-men on this ball of dirt cooperate.

Think about all of that, and then come back and tell me that you can prove that God exists.

And think about all of that before you try to call my arguments specious.

[bruto]

Well I expect you're right about some trying to use that claim bruto, but then I can only wonder, if God's plan is beyond our understanding, how am I exspected to take seriously what anyone says about any of it?

If someone can't explain to me something small like why bacon tastes so good, and yet is so bad for me, how am I to realy take them seriously when they try to explain what all of eternity is like? Bacon seems like a softball compared to an eternal afterlife.

After all, if a man can't change a flat tire on a car, I'm not going to pay him to put a new head gasket on mine.

Oh ye of little faith! I could change the tire but I won't. It's a test of your faith. Hand me that torque wrench and stand back.

[CapelDodger]

Most wild varieties of fruit have poor yields and often look unattractive.
No problem with your post, but from experience wild strawberries look nice and taste utterly delicious. Not much yield though, so if you find a patch don't tell anybody! And control yourself :) . The same strictures apply to magic mushrooms.

There's a hypermarket where I used to gather wild strawberries as a child :( . Progress sucks.

[CapelDodger]

If someone can't explain to me something small like why bacon tastes so good, and yet is so bad for me, how am I to realy take them seriously when they try to explain what all of eternity is like?
In our natural environment fats, proteins, sugar and salt are in relatively short supply. We've evolved to binge when we find them, ergo good taste, and cooked bacon has all of them. In our modern developed society we have plenty of them all and they're cheap, so that's what the supply chain offers us. "What's it to be, kids, bacon or broccoli?" We know the answer :) .

We aren't as evolved as our society is developed, not by a long way.

[CapelDodger]

You're saying my arguments are specious? Are you really sure you want to go there? I've been taking it easy on you since it's pretty clear you're a lightweight.
Good for you. That's what I call a moral stance. I find bullying deeply unattractive, especially when I fall to temptation myself.

Some people who have religious experiences misinterpret normal physiological phenomena. When I was younger, I got really dizzy in my bedroom and fell down. When I looked up, I saw a Star Trek poster that I had sitting on the wall - the Enterprise was surrounded by a heavenly halo, and I could see the stars in the background rotating. I was well versed enough in biology to know that this was a normal reaction to this sort of thing.
Fasting features in a few religions I know of, and that can get you into an odd head-state. Low sugar and various breakdown products of fat in the blood, as I understand it. Other religions go straight to drugs, such as psilocybin, but it's the same strategy.

[zizzybaluba]

And Zizzybaluba wants evidence that bin Laden and Jones were not doing the bidding of God.
Well Ziz, if I can call you in the familiar, let’s first take a look at the Koran …
“…Each time they kindle the fire of war, Allah extinguishes it. They rush about the earth corrupting it. Allah does not love corrupters.” (Surat al-Ma'ida: 64)
“You who believe! Show integrity for the sake of God, bearing witness with justice. Do not let hatred for a people incite you into not being just. Be just. That is closer to heedfulness. Heed God (alone). God is aware of what you do. (Surat al-Ma'ida: 8)”

This is harder with Jones because he was not really kind of off on his own little power trip, and not really operating within a particular religious tradition – not that the presence of a tradition should matter that much. But let us assume for a moment that Jones were to pass himself off as a Christian. Thou shalt not kill – a law that is written on each of our hearts – comes to mind. Jones killed his followers – and a delegation from the US on the airport tarmac – because his kingdom was about to crash down around his shoulders. But read what Jesus said about His kingdom at John 18.

When Pilate asked Jesus if his followers would fight on His behalf, Jesus said:
“My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but as it happens My kingdom is not here.”

Once again, the above scriptural notations do not represent the Word of God, but rather the understanding of Theists of various backgrounds. But still, anyone who suggests that God advocates murder, hatred, etc. is not to be trusted.

Get serious Ziz. Your arguments are almost as specious as Thompson1d’s. I would encourage anyone who wants to criticize theism and Christianity in general read Robert Barclay's The Apology for the True Christian Divinity. In the words of that immortal bard Bob Dylan, don't criticize what you can't understand.

~ Charles Rathmann

All that assumes that the words in the Koran or Bible are the true word of god. Where's your evidence of that?

My point is:
Jim Jones didn't know god's will,
OBL doesn't know god's will,
Just like you don't know god's will
Because there is no god (or if there is, he keeps his mouth shut).

[JackPT]

Fasting features in a few religions I know of, and that can get you into an odd head-state. Low sugar and various breakdown products of fat in the blood, as I understand it. Other religions go straight to drugs, such as psilocybin, but it's the same strategy.

Things like temporal lobe seizures, lucid dreaming, and other abnormal states happen of their own accord too. Everytime I read about someone having a religious revelation without fasting or drugs of some kind I think, uh-oh, someone's confusing the amazing human brain with god again. I can't add smileys because I'm a new user so this sentence is a long winded way of saying that there should be a smiley after the last full stop.

I can see why people do think of it as a religious revelation. Some people shake of the resulting beliefs when they rationalise their experience. I suppose a major problem is that many people wouldn't know where to start seeking answers, and in their wrong beliefs don't seek the advice of doctors. Worse, they may consult a holy man.

About ten years ago I had a really bad fever and had full-blown auditory hallucinations. A booming voice told me to sleep in the living room, which meant dragging my wannabe carcus down the stairs. An amazing experience, but afterwards I thought about it and said to myself "Oh, I was feverous". If I were a religious person the voice would have been ascribed to god rather than a nasty bout of flu.

[CapelDodger]

Because there is no god (or if there is, he keeps his mouth shut).
Nor does he leave any footprints. Or any sign at all of his presence. Subjective experience, of course, is not a sign. Not of a god, anyway.

[CapelDodger]

About ten years ago I had a really bad fever and had full-blown auditory hallucinations. A booming voice told me to sleep in the living room, which meant dragging my wannabe carcus down the stairs. An amazing experience, but afterwards I thought about it and said to myself "Oh, I was feverous". If I were a religious person the voice would have been ascribed to god rather than a nasty bout of flu.
My head gets really wierd before and during a migraine. Given how common migraine (and other epilepsy-spectrum conditions) are it's not surprising there are plenty of religious experiences.

Funny thing is, sometimes I spot the migraine coming but other times I look back and think "Why didn't I twig?". A properly trained dog would probably be a better prognosticator than my own mind.

[wollery]

I suffer form migraines, but not the really splitting headache type. No, my migraines produce strange visual effects, swirls and halos of light that dance, and when that passes I have about 10-15 minutes of the world looking like a Picasso knock-off. The whole experience leaves me feeling like I've just run a half marathon.

The first time this happened to me I was seriously confused and more than a little worried. If I'd been religious I would probably have tried to rationalise it in terms of a spiritual experience, and may well have come to the conclusion that it was God trying to speak to me. Instead I made a careful note of the symptoms and checked in a medical text. It turns out that what I describe above is fairly typical of many migraine sufferers. It's caused by irregularities in blood flow around the brain and the effect this has on the brain.

[thaiboxerken]

At the risk of a total thread drift, I've noticed that even some atheists tend to lump pornography in with "bad things."

I don't lump it as bad, just something that I think many christians beileve is bad.

[Dark Jaguar]

In spite of pointing out how silly this is, I hope you all realize that in the distant future he'll be using these arguments as an amazing revelation he "shares with" many people, totally forgetting that it's logical flaws were pointed out. See the thrashing of certain creationists and their future reusing of the same defeated arguments (arguments defeated to their face) as though nothing had even happened, as though we forgot.

[thaiboxerken]

I consider the inability to learn as stupidity. How many times has Iamme been informed of how and why his arguments are not logical?

[JackPT]

I consider the inability to learn as stupidity. How many times has Iamme been informed of how and why his arguments are not logical?

Fear and desperation plays a part in this kind of stupidity. They often think that their world will fall apart if they stop believing. For whatever reason, it could be that clinging on to the idea of magic allows them to deal with things that upset them, or that they feel lost without it. They can't see that the rational world is beautiful. I feel sorry for them. There are also plenty of smart people that believe nonsense because of desperation and fear.

[thaiboxerken]

I agree, even the most intelligent people can suffer from stupidity on certain subjects.

[bruto]

Thomps1d:
Indeed, creation scientists don’t do what they say – and Osama bin Laden and Jim Jones are and were respectively not acting at the bequest of God.

Now, if you can't prove that God exists...then I still wouldn't say that you're a bigot, just misguided.

In my initial post, I explained that God can be proven to exist via personal experience.

The Atheist:
Tell me exactly how many prisons you have visited, and tell me of the prisoners you have discussed religion with. I visit prisons regularly, and prisoners I meet with tell me of the alienation from God that results in their criminal acts, and the redemption that can come subsequently. I kindly ask that you apologize for calling me an idiot.

I also take strong exception to you and Marc L. characterizing me as a fundamentalist as I am nothing of the sort. Ask any fundamentalist about Quakers and they will tell you that in no uncertain terms (find a fundamentalist who knows me and you’ll get a real earful on how I am not even a real Christian). Atheist, I take pride in having been KICKED OUT of fundie forums!

Marc L –
I am sorry you were a fundamentalist, and agree that you may not have been a good husband and father when that was the case, but never having been a fundamentalist myself, I can not say first hand. But fundamentalists might as well be atheists as they tend to believe that God stopped speaking when the scriptures were canonized. And while you say you read the scriptures, Marc L, apparently your own literalist beliefs at the time you read them prevented them from opening their meaning to you. A fundamentalist would posit that the scriptures are the word of God – yet the scriptures never claim this for themselves. In fact, Jesus in referring to the scriptures in his arguments with the Pharisees tends to say “it is written that” rather than attributing these statements directly to God. And the Gospels make clear that they are reports of what is being said of Jesus of Nazareth – not divine dictation taken by the anonymous author! Moreover, right from the start of Genesis we see a description of God speaking to create the universe, and later Moses says that the commandments are not the written word but what is written in our hearts and on our tongues (see my original post). God's word is not the scriptures ...

And Bruto – excellent point.

The challenge with answering it is that outward forms of religion are often completely disconnected from the idea or practice of a relationship with the divine. Quakers hold that since the early days of Christianity, the sect has fallen into a state of apostasy as creeds and ritual have come to replace the inward experience of the paraclete -- or the Holy Spirit. While several passages in Hebrews makes clear that the priesthood was to be abandoned, and while other passages made clear that ministers were not to be paid (freely ye shall received, now freely ye shall give) a paid ministry and priesthood arose to enforce orthodoxy. As Christianity became a state religion and was used as a lever for governance, misguided policies like that of the “just war” came into parlance. Roman Catholicism imposed a church hierarchy on believesr, and in response Martin Luther came up with a creed that one must agree to in order to be “justified to God.” But to be justified means simply to become … just. Robert Barclay described how his own experience helped him how his Quakerism helped him accomplish this justification:

“When I came into the silent assemblies of God’s people, I felt a secret power among them, which touched my heart; and as I gave way unto it, I found the evil weakening in me, and the good raised up; and so I became thus knit and united unto them, hungering more and more after the increase of this power and life, whereby I might feel myself perfectly redeemed.”

Read Galations 5:6 and Romans 2:29 and Deuteronomy 30:6 for a deeper understanding of how religion should really work. We are not made just either by customs like circumcision or by accepting doctrine or by the letter of the scripture – but by a circumcision of the heart.

Those of us who see the scripture not as literal history but as a spiritual history can see a wonderful progression in scripture of people’s understanding of God, a progression from a God who demands obedience and requires sacrifice to one who sacrifices on our behalf. And when we read the scripture in this light, it takes on a different meaning than if we accept the misguided doctrine that it is the word of God!

This correct understanding of God and of scripture leaves our heart free to experience Him while also leaving our mind unhindered to inquire and think.

Have that cake and eat it too, man. Why not?

~ Charles Rathmann


A nice answer, though I think it dodges the question in a real sense, since it is kind of a "no true Scotsman" argument which leaves open the question of whether any really significant percentage of the practitioners of the world's religions actually are close to God in the way you consider appropriate. This may have some connection with the unfortunate reality that Quakers are not the dominant sect of Christianity, which I suspect disqualifies you to speak to my question more than anecdotally. Well, never mind. I suspect that if you were entirely honest with yourself you might find that your choice of religion is as much a result of your character as a cause. That's not to belittle your choice or the source of your inspiration, but even if you don't feel your Christianity was chosen, you did choose your sect. I came very close to being a Quaker myself in my youth, but as always in my quest for some kind of religious balance found myself tripping over that one little obstacle: my inability to believe in a personal, supernatural god.

[ponderingturtle]

Thomps1d:
Indeed, creation scientists don’t do what they say – and Osama bin Laden and Jim Jones are and were respectively not acting at the bequest of God.


See you are going here by saying that only people you respect who claim god as their motivator are actualy motivated by god. That is a massive selection bais. I feel I must wave to the true scottsmen here.

[ponderingturtle]

Does Viagra count as "performance-enhancing"?:D

That is what I was thinking about.

[ponderingturtle]

Yes, I've often thought I was a lesbian trapped in a man's body!

You are a transexual then, as your sexual identity is female.

[ponderingturtle]

Thompson1d said: Unfortunately, that's not proof...that's subjective experience. There are paranoid schizophrenics who quite sincerely believe that their personal experience is proof that the world is run by a New World Order composed of 12-foot tall shapechanging, Satanic, baby eating lizard aliens. That doesn't mean that it's true, no matter how sincerely it may be believed.

Well Thompson, are you suggesting that the enormous number of people who have religious experiences are all schizophrenic, or shall I assume that your argument is a specious one? Why not, as suggested in my initial post, call all of those who claim that their wives or families love them schizophrenics? That love can be measured or quantified no more than can God, yet it exists and is a powerful force in their lives.

And it they start talking to and listening to their love of their family then yes they are crazy.

[ponderingturtle]

No problem with your post, but from experience wild strawberries look nice and taste utterly delicious. Not much yield though, so if you find a patch don't tell anybody! And control yourself :) . The same strictures apply to magic mushrooms.

There's a hypermarket where I used to gather wild strawberries as a child :( . Progress sucks.

Well currently most fruits are being breed for yeild and shippability of product. So taste is not much of a concern.

Also it is a partialy a difference between strawberries that ripen on the plant and ones that are picked unripe and ripen in the box. That makes a difference in all kinds of produce.

[Tormac]

In our natural environment fats, proteins, sugar and salt are in relatively short supply. We've evolved to binge when we find them, ergo good taste, and cooked bacon has all of them. In our modern developed society we have plenty of them all and they're cheap, so that's what the supply chain offers us. "What's it to be, kids, bacon or broccoli?" We know the answer :) .

We aren't as evolved as our society is developed, not by a long way.

Well that’s an explanation for why bacon tastes good CapelDodger, but it does not explain why its soo bad for me (assuming that it has been miraculously designed by God that is). If God is perfect, all powerful, all knowing, and loves us all, why can’t he make bacon that is not a direct link to me getting heart disease? Or at least make me feel like I’ve had enough of it after a couple slices a week?

What kind of a God invents heroine, or leprosy, or genital warts? It’s hard to picture a world where leprosy is an absolute necessity.

Or am I misunderstanding you? Are you suggesting that these things arose from randomish natural processes, and are only a problem because our culture now outpaces uncaring natural phenomenon? ;)

I’m still really confused about this. How is it that explanations based on randomish natural processes seems to make more sense than ones based on a perfect designer? When I look at how my bicycle works, it makes perfect sense. Everything has a job, no system looks like it has been cobbled on from a design from a horse buggy. But when I look at how my body works, a lot of things look like they are cobbled together from things left over from old designs, or have little purpose, but are there just because.

While I’ve always though that the Waterford people know as much about bicycles as anyone, I would not have thought that their engineering was devine.

I wish some of the guys that have a lock on God’s master plan could explain these things to me, because the more I think about it, the more confused I become.

[ponderingturtle]

I agree, even the most intelligent people can suffer from stupidity on certain subjects.

Intelligent people are very good at coming up with seemingly intelligent explanations of things that they believe for not intelligent reasons. They are great rationalizers and can make others, and themselves, think that the reasons that they are stating for their beliefs are the real reasons.

[CFLarsen]

And now I have come up with this latest grandest of revelations: Food we eat just so happens to change colors so us and monkeys can tell when the tomato is red(ripe) for eating and the banana is yellow(ripe) for eating. This clinches it (case stated for God's existance). There is no other good reason why these things have to change color. GRASS doesn't change color. Why? Because we dont' eat it! God knew that. He caused apples, tomatoes, berries, bananas...a whole host of things to give 'signs' that they are ready to eat. He even made it so we would know when shrimp and lobster are ready to eat by changing colors when cooked just right!

So, we are not to eat broccoli?

Or green apples?

Ah,, the mind of a true believer....

:hb:

[bruto]

I guess we have proven not only that God exists, but he has a hip sense of humor too, having also made us edible!

[RandFan]

I guess we have proven not only that God exists, but he has a hip sense of humor too, having also made us edible! Quite but we don't change color when we are ripe.

[ponderingturtle]

Quite but we don't change color when we are ripe.

Ah but like most meat, I bet we change color when we are done cooking.

[thaiboxerken]

Intelligent people are very good at coming up with seemingly intelligent explanations of things that they believe for not intelligent reasons. They are great rationalizers and can make others, and themselves, think that the reasons that they are stating for their beliefs are the real reasons.

Ah yes, it's like a Mensa meeting. So many smart people, so many woos. They are smart enough to think that they can't be wrong about the woo subjects that they believe in. What's really interesting is that discussion of their beliefs leads to the same tired arguments that most woos use "you're not open-minded" "science can't know everything" and "you just don't get it."

[Darth Rotor]

Jimlintott -- I find it amusing that you consider my post insulting when a few posts above someone has made outrageously insulting remarks about my wife that do not merit a response. I use no pseudonym on this board but apparently that is an ill-advised thing to do in this forum -- and I think that can tell us something of secular nature.

~ Charles Rathmann
Sir:

I'll offer my apology to you for piling on, at your expense and your wife's, to pg's barb. It was in bad taste, and in bad form, that for my own amusement I failed to consider your position or feelings.

With regrets

DR

[CapelDodger]

Are you suggesting that these things arose from randomish natural processes, and are only a problem because our culture now outpaces uncaring natural phenomenon? ;)
I am indeed, godless evilutionist that I am :) .

[SirPhilip]

I love it when people fall for threads like these.

No I don't...

[Iamme]

My favourite thing God did was when He made a lot of different poisonous berries that use the same vibrant colour trick to let us know when to eat them so we can die. HAHA! That God, what a kidder.

How come *I* never ate a poisoinous berry. I grew up in a lush area surrounded by them. Could it be that I was brought up in a religious family and God saw to it I was schooled and protected, in the same way he proved he most likely exists by allowing me to plow into a herd of deer at 45 mph a number of years back and not have my car get one scratch?..while everyone else I know has crumpled cars? (True story) Or how I was forced off the road at high speeds when I didn't know how to drive that well, and yet somehow 'luckily' managed to get my car back on the roasd, even though I could feel it being sucked in the loose gravel toward the high up abyss? Or how I almost drowned and my friend somehow found some 20 foot long branch when I didn't even know how to swim, and saved me? Is ALL this chance?

I was put here on this Earth to minister to you people who I KNOW have enough curiousity about this subjectmater to even bother to read these threads in this forum. It is only natural that since none of us knows exactly how everything got here, and the fact that we know that everything in this world has a 'heirarchy' to it...that it stands to reason that their could be this kingdom of God, as the supreme heirarchy...the end all to how it all happened... by creating all things, and rules by allowing his energy to envelop us daily.

[Iamme]

I'm sure there are lots of kids who are happy that they don't have to eat broccoli, brussel sprouts and green beans since they don't change colors!

They don't need to change color because they are often eaten during differrent stages of their development. Some things are even eaten as sprouts. I used to go in field and eat, probably not ready to eat green beans.

Also, it could be that size dictates when it is perceived that they are ready.

[Z]

Tell that to the innocent babies and small children who die every day; even unto the Christian children whom God supposedly loves and protects.

If God was there to protect us directly, why bother changing fruit colors at all?

Moron.

[Iamme]

It is true that the probabililty of conditions necessary for life to exist on this planet to occur is extremely unlikely. However, there are many places where it could have occurred so it becomes likely that it would have occured somewhere. Now you have evolved to the point of conciousness and intelligence. You look down and exclaim, "This is so unlikely there must be a God!"

I like this analogy. Imagine that you walk into your backyard and observe a bird flying overhead. The bird defecates in midflight and the defecation falls onto your yard. You then walk over an notice that it is green and lying 2 feet from a dandelion. It is true that it is extremely unlikely that green bird defecation would fall at that particular time and land at that exact spot. However, it is also extremely likely that some color of bird defecation would land somewhere in your backyard, sometime. The bird is not a god, just a natural phenomena. What you are assuming is that a god chose the color of the bird defecation and directed it to that particular place and time. I disagree with that assumption.

I'm not really following your point here. Are you trying to say that every occurance is dictated by God, including defacation? I am not quite that loony. I believe God set the wheels in motion and made things to work a certain way, and in harmony with the rest of his creation. But I don't believe that when I was farting in bed this morning that God planned out my farts for the day and that brown stuff would ooze into my underwear. This is carrying things to some silly extreme rationale.

[Cosmo]

But I don't believe that when I was farting in bed this morning that God planned out my farts for the day and that brown stuff would ooze into my underwear.

Was this really necessary, Iamme?

[Iamme]

Hi Iamme, you were pretty responsive last time I suggested a book on cosmology so I have one on biology for you.

"The Selfish Gene" Would be a good book to start with. This book helps you think about these seemingly wonderful boilogical coincedences from a better point of view. As H'ethetheth stated the correct question to ask is "What advantage does the fruit gain by turning a different color when ripe." The answer beeing that the fruits genes are now hoping to use you to spread them around. Most animals would eat the entire fruit and deposit the undigested seeds in a new environment along with a good supply of nutrients to give them a good start. Ever wondered why watermellon seeds seem to come out untouched by the digestive system?

Note It's selfish gene and not the shellfish gene, although there's lots of stuff about animals in there as well. (Sorry couln't resdist!).
:)

So, we have yet another good reason for fruit to change color when ripe? Does that mean I discredit God?...or perhaps REALLY marvel at God, in the way that almost everything he made has more than one use and purpose. Just like plants often double up as medicine, or wood doubles up for building thngs and firewood. Or that cows milk is for yunguns...but also have enough to feed the world...and bees jsut so happen to make a product for themsleves but one that we also can share in that is considered one of the worlds best foods....and on and on.

And the fruit changing color has more than one reasson. Am I to simply discredit God over this? No.

[thaiboxerken]

Which god are you talking about Iamme?

[grayman]

...or perhaps REALLY marvel at God, in the way that almost everything he made has more than one use and purpose. Just like plants often double up as medicine, or wood doubles up for building thngs and firewood. Or that cows milk is for yunguns...but also have enough to feed the world...and bees jsut so happen to make a product for themsleves but one that we also can share in that is considered one of the worlds best foods....and on and on.



So you are saying that because you are amazed at all nature and science has to offer, you feel it necessary to praise a non-existent entity over this wonder?

cows milk is for yunguns...but also have enough to feed the world

We have enough to feed the world through scientific research, not through any "God". If God is supposed to be feeding the planet, he's failing miserably in many third-world nations. Either God doesn't care, or he is mean-spirited, or more likely, doesn't exist.

[Iamme]

If God was so forward thinking in helping us discern when lobster was finished cooking why is that food forbidden to eat under kosher rules?

I'm not following your point. You saying that since God has the power to change color of food that it seems odd he'd have some of his food creation off limits? I'm not following the tie-in here. God is God, and can make any rule he deems fit.

Just so you all know; I am not a Bible thumper. I have issues with certain things in the Bible. The Bible says it is the inspired word of God (somewheres...and I could never figure out one author, of only ONE book in the Bible, without knowing there would be a Bible, could state that fact). The Bible never says, "This is the Lord thy God speaking and believe all you read. I have not written it but I decreed it through man, and it's true." No, he never speaks. I believe that it could very well be that the Bible is 'inspired' by God in the sense we are all part of God and therefore automatically have a God-like mine, being his children, and what we reason out, in the same way we correctly reason out math.

Some of the fundamentals of the Bible could be true, but there are many detailed things in the Bible that man could THINK are of God, or thought would be pleasing to God, and his philosophy, but aren't. I would rather, for now, believe in something out there that is greater than us, because I believe WE are great. And it makes no sense that some product of chance made the greatest thing in the universe (us), without something behind it that wasn't greater. Is it man's own ego that blinds us to this simple logic?

[Cosmo]

God is God, and can make any rule he deems fit.

Then, Iamme, God cannot be the source of morality.

(Wooohooo! My 666th post!)

[Iamme]

Lobster's a fruit?

Ha! No. But it's just another 'sign'. Like how toast browns. It is just another feather in the cap of how things seem to work to our benefit with no real need. We could eat raw lobster not cooked all the way, and not die...and simply spit it out and put it back in the pot to cook longer. We could also do that to toast if it never browned. But it is remarkable to me, that all thing on the earth seem to just so haappen to work out as if it were all planned, when from a survival standpoint, a lot of these nice things wouldn't really be necessary. In the same way that designer clothes and jewelry are not necessary, and that we all could be just living on porridge and having grass and palm frons for clothes. But it is odd how spendid and abundant everything is, that goes way beyond actual need. (Like how comwe there just so HAPPENS to be rubber?..as just one little example)

It's as if our brains are manifesting this for our own pleasure (cosmetics, jewelry, cruises, Las Vegas, tropical islands...and on and on)...or, since we are part of God himself, this 'manifestation' is his gift to both him and us, jointly, as perhapes he gets to see the world through our eyes, and taste the foods of his creation through our taste buds, etc.

[Iamme]

Uh, where do you think bread comes from.

Not from grass.

[thaiboxerken]

Are you talking about the god of color changes?

[thaiboxerken]

Not from grass.

LMAO!!

Wheat is a type of grass.

[Marquis de Carabas]

How come *I* never ate a poisoinous berry.
Clearly because your god hates me.

[Iamme]

Well, ponderingturtle and Marquis de Carabus make another point. How do creationists make the illogical leap from these general arguements for the existence of a god to the specific assumption that it proves the existence of their god?

I have to admit that my thread title perhaps is rather bold in making that claim. I can't really say I have proof because since I can't lasso God, and bring him over to your house, there will always be doubt. I could have said that the fact that fruit changes color when ripe shows possible evidence of God's existance. So...I guess I laid it on too thick. But here you all are. All 160 replies and over 1700 viewqs...because you all thirst for proof of God....because you all know that it IS remarkable how the universe all works and the world and all things in it.

Off topic some, but I was reading one of the New Testament books the other night and felt completely amazed that anyone could possilbly make up this complete story regarding Jesus and what he was doing. I actually tried to read that Book from that perspective, but failed to see how anyone wrote it as some sort of made up lie.

[Iamme]

Clearly because your god hates me.

Obviously you are still with us, and not down in hell. :) Tell us more of your experience.

[Iamme]

LMAO!!

Wheat is a type of grass.

A "type"? Hmmmm. You are also a type of ape, I 'spose.

When I say grass, I mean grass. When I say wheat, I mean wheat.

[Iamme]

Are you talking about the god of color changes?

You mean like he was in the Wizard of Oz as that horse, perhaps?

[Iamme]

Originally Posted by Iamme
God is God, and can make any rule he deems fit.

Cosmo:
Then, Iamme, God cannot be the source of morality.

(Wooohooo! My 666th post!)
__________________
"Whereas ordinary politics wears a suit, religion wears a dress -- and nobody

Iamme:
Why not? Explain further (why you think there is some contradiction?).

666, eh? I chose that number for my pager, once...as a joke. Easy for everyone to remember.

[thaiboxerken]

A "type"?

No. Humans are primates though.


When I say grass, I mean grass. When I say wheat, I mean wheat.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grass

There are many, many types of grass. Rice and wheat are two of them. You really can't win on this point, simply because you are wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheat

[thaiboxerken]

You mean like he was in the Wizard of Oz as that horse, perhaps?

So you worship a horse?

[wollery]

The gospels were written a long time after Jesus death, and many of the stories were exactly what had been predicted in the old testament, and many of them can be found, almost identical, in older mythologies. During a conversation with a Jesuit priest a few years ago I discovered that the gospel of Luke was written in a literary style that was specifically designed to draw parallels with the OT prophecies.

Made up lies? Not entirely.

Accurate accounts of the life of one man? Almost certainly not.

[RandFan]

But here you all are. All 160 replies and over 1700 viewqs...because you all thirst for proof of God...? Rhetorical nonsense. Fallacy. That one debates in opposition to something doesn't grant another reason to draw any conclusions as to the motivation of the person debating.


because you all know that it IS remarkable how the universe all works and the world and all things in it. It is remarkable. What that has to do with anything is beyond me.

Off topic some, but I was reading one of the New Testament books the other night and felt completely amazed that anyone could possilbly make up this complete story regarding Jesus and what he was doing. I actually tried to read that Book from that perspective, but failed to see how anyone wrote it as some sort of made up lie.Only because you are ignorant of the fact that the story of Jesus actually predates jesus. :boggled: Yup. It's true. Others DID make up nearly identical stories. But you are ignorant of that fact and so you make your decision based on your own limited understanding. See Dionysus, Osiris, Mithras.

This is NOT as subject of controversy. It is accepted even by Christian scholars. Their explanation? The Devil counterfeited the story of Christ BEFORE Christ.

I'd ask you to educate yourself but you and I both know that your precious world view can't be troubled by pesky facts. For those who are intellectually honest I recommend The Christs Before Christ. Click this link (http://www.infidelguy.com/modules.php?name=Video&op=view&video_id=33) for a preview of what Christan theologians don't want you to know.

[grayman]

I enjoy reading this (http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/blessing.html) every Easter. Usually I print it and hang it up at work just to see how long it takes for someone to get upset and rip it down.

[Cosmo]

Originally Posted by Iamme
God is God, and can make any rule he deems fit.

Cosmo:
Then, Iamme, God cannot be the source of morality.

(Wooohooo! My 666th post!)
__________________
"Whereas ordinary politics wears a suit, religion wears a dress -- and nobody

Iamme:
Why not? Explain further (why you think there is some contradiction?).

666, eh? I chose that number for my pager, once...as a joke. Easy for everyone to remember.

If God can make any rule he feels like regardless what that rule may be, then we can't look to him for the source of our morality. He could make rules that forbid murder and theft, but he could also make rules requiring the death of all firstborns, massive genocides for practicioners of other religions, and the death penalty for persons who listen to country music.

And God would be equally just and correct were he to make any or all of these rules. Why? Because, as you posted, "God is God, and he can make any rule he deems fit." Therefore, your version of God cannot be the source of morality.

[grayman]

Are you talking about the god of color changes?

You mean this guy?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/9246453a7501b836d.bmp (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=2137)

[Silly Green Monkey]

Iamme, have you never seen grass go to seed?

[snooziums]

...Or that cows milk is for yunguns...but also have enough to feed the world...

And why is there so much extra cow's milk? Dairy cows are made pregnant, and once their calf is born, it is taken away and slathered for meat. This happens over and over again, and thus, all of the milk that would have gone to feeding the "yunguns" instead is sold for human food.

So cows were not met to provide milk for their "yunguns" and for others, it is just that humans change the rules to fit their needs. No proof of God there.

[bruto]

A "type"? Hmmmm. You are also a type of ape, I 'spose.

When I say grass, I mean grass. When I say wheat, I mean wheat.

When you say wheat you may mean wheat, but unless you qualify, when you say grass you might be referring to whatever belongs to the family of grasses, and that includes corn, wheat, oats and a bunch of other stuff. Wheat is a type of grass, and every other type of grass is another type of grass. They all have names, whether or not we use them daily.

[bruto]

All 160 replies and over 1700 viewqs...because you all thirst for proof of God....

Sorry to disappoint you, Iamme, but some of us, myself included, open an Iamme thread simply to see what level of inanity you have reached this time, and reply...well, it's just a nasty habit I guess, but I guarantee that it's not a thirst for god that motivates me. If I thirsted for God I'd look for him somewhere other than here, that's for sure!

[JackPT]

God is God, and can make any rule he deems fit.

Seems a strange thing if god is supposed to make perfect decisions. In fact if I believed in a god I'd be quite sceptical of a god that introduces new rules. It means whatever choices the god made in the past weren't perfect. Mind you, that would explain why some gods have a reputation for having no beginning and no end. They can't tell their ass from their elbow.

[ponderingturtle]

Which god are you talking about Iamme?

Hey I proved Zeus exists earlier in the thread, it must be him.

[ponderingturtle]

A "type"? Hmmmm. You are also a type of ape, I 'spose.

Technicaly yes.

When I say grass, I mean grass. When I say wheat, I mean wheat.

Yes, and you don't know what you are talking about. Try learning something about biology and such first. Grass is like saying Tree, it is very non specific.

[ponderingturtle]

All 160 replies and over 1700 viewqs...because you all thirst for proof of God....because you all know that it IS remarkable how the universe all works and the world and all things in it.


No, it can be most interesting to see new expressions of crazy. Take a look at crank.net.

[RandFan]

No, it can be most interesting to see new expressions of crazy. Take a look at crank.net. I think there is a website devoted to the crazy things believers say. I'm looking for it.

[ponderingturtle]

I think there is a website devoted to the crazy things believers say. I'm looking for it.

Fundies say the Darndest things
http://www.fstdt.com/

[RandFan]

Fundies say the Darndest things
http://www.fstdt.com/ Thank you. I gave up looking. "Darndest", it's now bookmarked.

[Skeptic]

He even made it so we would know when shrimp and lobster are ready to eat by changing colors when cooked just right!

Yes, but if you read Leviticus, you'll find that you're not supposed to eat either of them. In reality, all other color change was made by God except the ones of lobsters and shrimps when cooked, which was planned by Satan to make you sin by eating them and go to hell.

P.S.

I never understood why Satan works so hard tempting people. He seems to be getting most of the souls anyway.

[Rathmann]

Thomson1D ~

I forgive you your trespass in calling me a lightweight. Would that that were true, but the onslaught of the years makes it hard to keep my weight down! Less time lifting and more time on the elliptical trainer for me!

But seriously Thompson, insulting remarks of this nature on your part only make you appear insecure about your position in this matter, and may prevent others from adopting your point of view. Moreover, your statements to the effect that no one has ever proved the existence of a deity is absurd on their face. After all, we can easily prove the existence of God by defining God as things we all agree exist. And fortunately, that is exactly what the scriptures tend to do if we take the time to read them.

So let’s go chronologically, starting with Moses …

And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.
(Exodus 3:14)

Now how do you argue with the existence of a God who defines himself as … essentially existence itself. Translated from the Hebrew in the most direct form, God says he is “I shall be what I shall be.” This initial description of the God of monotheism is unique as God is not depicted as a human-like diety with moods and tempers (think of the jumbled theological mess of the Greeks in the centuries to come with their Gods having affairs on each other and raping and fighting each other). This God essentially is what is, and we either accept and embrace the truth of what is – and love God – or through human vanity try to ascert what is not true and defy Him, which is fruitless.

That is an Old Testament conception of God. Depending on your religious outlook, a New Testament definition of God might either seem to reflect a new concept of Him or be the payoff for a change in the cosmos brought on by God.

"And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him."
(1Jo 4:16)

Now earlier you were denigrating my likening of God to the love between family members. With this biblical definition of God, anyone engaged in this type of relationship in truth … believes in God. The God of the New Testament is love. If you have experienced love, you have an idea of what He is. Like the love that we experience in other elements of our lives, God can not be known rationally, but is experienced with other sensibilities, that a religious studies professor of mine decades ago referred to as the “super rational.” As we immerse ourselves more and more in Him, we find it easier to follow the commandments, love our neighbors as ourselves, etc.

So Thomson1d, would you like to concede on this point or would you like to deny the existence of love?

Now on to your specific points about the nature of the relationship with your fiancé (congratulations by the way) certainly there are outward signs that indicate that she loves you and vice versa. Yet some people engage in all of the outwards signs of love without in fact feeling it, which often results in trouble and marital counseling and the divorce attorney industry. So by definition, love must necessarily exist separately from the outward signs that point to it. God is love.

Some religious philosophers posit that in our beloved, see God ministering to us in a very direct fashion. I have often seen my own wife in this light, and strive to minister to her needs as well.

Thompson1d, in my marriage I have taken on responsibilities towards my wife, and as of a couple of weeks ago have accepted additional responsibilities for an adopted daughter. But that does not mean that I love only them. Time for a new vocabulary word …

agape
A Greek word for love that is found frequently in the Christian Scriptures (New Testament) in noun form as "agape" and in verb form as "agapao." 1 It is different from erotic love. It is supposed to be the characteristic attitude of Christians toward one another, (John 13:34), and toward all humanity, 1 Thessalonians. 3:12; 1 Corinthians 16:14; 2 Peter 1:7.

It is through this kind of love that God can make us more ethical beings, and work out the base parts of us. As we submit more and more of our beings to God and are filled with love not just for our families and our friends but for our enemies and for the world.

So Thompson1d, I apologize if you are offended by my calling your arguments specious, and if it bothers you that much I will not do so again. But if you really want to learn more about arguments for and against the existence of God, I can recommend some reading.

[Rathmann]

All that assumes that the words in the Koran or Bible are the true word of god. Where's your evidence of that?

My point is:
Jim Jones didn't know god's will,
OBL doesn't know god's will,
Just like you don't know god's will
Because there is no god (or if there is, he keeps his mouth shut).

Ziz ~
Not sure you are following logic there ... and I'll tell you why.

The strength of the argument here does not as you suggest rely on scriptures being as you put "the true word of God." The scriptures do not claim to be, are not and can not be the word of God, and if you really want to delve into the specifics of that, we can do that off thread so as to not bore the others. But I have expressed this concept of the scriptures not being the word of God further up in the thread.

However, people have been experiencing God for thousands of years, and they have written about their experiences. The sum of their experiences are clear, and the voice of God within us is clear that murder is wrong, and that we are not to hate but love each other. Anyone who advocates or participates in hate or murder is not doing the will of God.

Can any of us really know the will of God? Can our mind even grasp the infinite? I don't think so, and contend that when people try to encapsulate the will of God in books, creeds and other statements it tends to cause a lot of trouble. But I will refer you to my post of this evening in rely to Thompson1d, where I point out the New Testament definition of God as love. When asked what the greatest of the commandments is, Jesus answers that we love God with all of our hearts, minds and souls and that we love our neighbors as ourselves. One of the cool things about that is that neither of those are among the original commandments, which gets back the the key message of my initial post on this board that the commandments, and anything of God we comprehend, is known within us as opposed to without us from the scriptures. We must know these things in the spirit, rather than from the letter.

I'll share the following Biblical passage here -- not only because it further defines the concept of God as love but because I neglected to include a key concept in my response to Thompson1d. This is attributed to Jesus to his disciples shortly before his crucification ...

"As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love.
If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love. These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full. This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you. Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.
"... These things I command you, that ye love one another. If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you."
John 15:9-19

Thompson1d -- I agree with you that some people who report religious experiences are lying. However, living by the virtue of true inward religious experience -- as noted here by Jesus -- is more likely to put you at odd ends with those of the world than to earn their favor. When we give ourselves over to God -- to love -- the false gods of wealth, social position, ego, vanity, sense pleasures -- they all need to take a back seat. We grow in our relationsip with God in proportion to the degree that we set these things aside, and setting these things aside tends to put us out of favor with those who value them. The persecution of prophets throughout Isreal's history as described in the Old Testament illustrates this dynamic. The suffering of Jesus, the death of John the Baptist, persecution of first-century Christians, and the similar persecution of my spiritual brethren, the Quakers, further illustrates this. A more contemporary example of this is the death in Iraq of Quaker peace worker Tom Fox. I also think of an Episcopal church here in Milwaukee that has repeatedly been the target of police attention and been levied heavy fines for allowing the homeless to sleep on their lawn. Right on, man!

[Apathia]

Mr. Rathman,

Pardon me for the bluntness. I agree with you that the Divine is a matter of the heart. Being, Transcendance, Agape are as real and as accepted by me as peanut butter. But just because I agknowledge the existance of peanut butter, I am not logically required to believe in Peter Pan.

It's a weak argument. I can use the word "God" as a synonym for Being, Transcendance, or Agape. With that I believe in God. But what doesn't follow is the Theistic God. It doesn't add up to Theism. It does not add up to an individual supream being of that name.

My opinion is that the Theistc Creator God is a matter of man creating a God in his own image. We have anthropomophised the Divine. We make our idols of what seems suitible to our conceptions and discard what doesn't.
The Old Testament Yahweh is dipicted as haveing moods and a temper, and instructs his nation to commit atrocities that can't be squared with a caring father. Now this discarded in favor an improved God who reflects awareness and compassion. I hope that human kind eventually evolves out of having to exclusify Divinity into a Divine Despot or a beneficent ruler and find that its real home is in our Community and heart sharing.

Listening, paying full attention, caring, are all virtues that don't require a Theology. A God image that stands for compassion can be a model of what we can aspire to be like. But in the end, people are more important than these images that serve them.

I think you might reply that God is not in essence apart from human conception an individual person, but Being itself (ala Paul Tillich).
This, of course is a Deist postion rather than a Theist one.
It's also called a Nontheist approach.
I'm more Buddhist than Christian, so I call myself a Nontheist.
All that I wish to point out in this post, is that agknowledging a Transcendent and Sacred aspect to our lives, doesn't deliver the Theistic God of Christian folk religion.

Religion can be a blessing or a curse, just as any human activity. Religion is a blessing when it points the way beyond itself, but a curse when it claims the sacred as its exclusive property and locks it up in so called holy objects, places, teachings, rituals, and persons.
The Sacred is open and inexclusive. The open and inexclusive heart embraces all in One.

[RandFan]

However, people have been experiencing God for thousands of years, and they have written about their experiences. The sum of their experiences are clear......as mud.

Sorry, no. Looking back at thousands of years of religion I see genocide, slavery and murder. Nothing at all clear. I can't even tell how many gods there are. Was Zeus a real god or just metaphor for the real god? Let's see, we have Hindu, Sikh, Anism, Buddhist, etc.

How on earth you came up with a clear message from thousands of years of equivocation, contradiction and brutality is beyond me.

[thomps1d]

Thomson1D ~

I forgive you your trespass in calling me a lightweight. Would that that were true, but the onslaught of the years makes it hard to keep my weight down! Less time lifting and more time on the elliptical trainer for me!

It wasn't meant to be an insult, nor a literal reference to your physical weight - rather, it was a reference to the fact that your experience in matters of philosophy is not quite so deep as you might think.


But seriously Thompson, insulting remarks of this nature on your part only make you appear insecure about your position in this matter, and may prevent others from adopting your point of view.

I have no insecurity about my position whatsoever. It is the calm, rational, measured result of many years of intense study, reflection, and debate. While I do not claim (as some might) that my beliefs are beyond reproach, they certainly have much greater merit than you seem willing to concede to them. Again, I'm willing to chalk this up to your apparent inexperience in such matters, and will be happy to shed some light on what seem to be major flaws in your understanding.


Moreover, your statements to the effect that no one has ever proved the existence of a deity is absurd on their face.

Really? This ought to be good...but before we go any further, let me remind you that, if any person could truly prove that God exists, then every theological argument on the face of the planet would be quickly and easily solved. This has not been, so claiming that it has been is truly arrogant and doesn't become someone who seems to wish to be seen as humble.


After all, we can easily prove the existence of God by defining God as things we all agree exist. And fortunately, that is exactly what the scriptures tend to do if we take the time to read them.

Fortunately? That's an odd choice of words. If we redefine God to be things that we all agree exist, then naturally we will agree that God exists - this is true.

I agree that my toaster exists. I agree to define God as my toaster.

Thus God exists.

Unfortunately, I think that even you will agree that this line of reasoning is terribly flawed.


So let’s go chronologically, starting with Moses …
...

Now how do you argue with the existence of a God who defines himself as … essentially existence itself. T...This God essentially is what is, and we either accept and embrace the truth of what is – and love God – or through human vanity try to ascert what is not true and defy Him, which is fruitless.

Now you've created quite a little conundrum for yourself. If God is existence itself, then God is, by definition, every single thing that is depraved, indifferent, cruel, and evil in addition to all the good things in life. Further, if you define God as existence itself, then worshipping God is either equal to worshipping your own existence (uh-oh...sounds like we're getting into the arrogant factor again) or defining the term God so broadly as to be utterly useless.


...
Now earlier you were denigrating my likening of God to the love between family members. With this biblical definition of God, anyone engaged in this type of relationship in truth … believes in God.

Sorry, but this statement is so ridiculous that I find it difficult to believe that you actually offer it as a serious argument.

Well, let's go on the assumption that you do.

I love my family. I love my fiancee. I even love my friends (not in the same way as my fiancee, obviously). You may find this difficult to believe, but people who do not believe in God are capable of love.

What you are trying to do is bridge the gap between an emotional bond between two people and a belief in some millenia-old superstition used by middle eastern shepherds to explain the world and morality. Surely you have to see that there is no logical connection between the two.

Unless, of course, you're willing to redefine the definition of God at the drop of a hat - and not only that, but willing to redefine it as something so absurdly vague that the concept loses all cohesion.


So Thomson1d, would you like to concede on this point or would you like to deny the existence of love?

False dichotomy. I can fully acknowledge the existence of love (primarily as the interaction of certain chemicals in the brain which produce very strong emotional ties) without conceding to your point - if indeed, you had a point. From my reading of your post, I cannot find one.



Now on to your specific points about the nature of the relationship with your fiancé (congratulations by the way) certainly there are outward signs that indicate that she loves you and vice versa. Yet some people engage in all of the outwards signs of love without in fact feeling it, which often results in trouble and marital counseling and the divorce attorney industry. So by definition, love must necessarily exist separately from the outward signs that point to it. God is love.

Indeed, there is something that exists separately from the outward signs that point to it. However, "God is love" does not follow.

As I mentioned above, love is primarily our interpretation of the end-result of the interaction of certain chemicals within our brain. The process isn't fully understood yet, though neuroscience is still in its infancy, relatively speaking.

I hope you'll forgive that I'm not willing to crack open my skull, pull out my brain, and point out the particular chemical interactions that indicate that I do indeed love my fiancee.

Now, I'm sure that your immediate response will be that you would like to believe that there is more to love than the mere interaction of chemicals, because that demeans the concept of love. (By all means correct me if I'm wrong on this...I don't claim to have a direct line to your personal thoughts.)

However, that assertion would be incorrect, just as it would be incorrect to assert that a universe without God would lack beauty (again, I know you haven't explicitly said this, but I've heard enough Christians assert it that it deserves pre-emptively addressing the question). There is no need to believe in God to feel the mind-bending awe that I feel when I look up at the night sky and contemplate the vast expanses of the cosmos, just as there is no need for belief in some artificial concept of a deity for me to feel awe at the thought of how deeply I love my fiancee. I don't need to believe in God to know that I would do anything for her, including dying to defend her if necessary.

In fact, belief in God actually detracts from that beauty. When you go from contemplation of the intricate and subtle details of all of existence and how marvellous it is that it all arose naturally to saying "God did it", you do a tremendous disservice to the beauty found in the universe - and that includes love.


Some religious philosophers posit that in our beloved, see God ministering to us in a very direct fashion. I have often seen my own wife in this light, and strive to minister to her needs as well.

I'm glad to hear that you strive to minister to your wife's needs. If more men and women realized that the needs of their partner are paramount in a relationship, perhaps there would be shorter lines in divorce courts. However, that still doesn't turn into a conclusion of divine intent in the relationship, any more than Apple + Orange = Pickup Truck.


Thompson1d, in my marriage I have taken on responsibilities towards my wife, and as of a couple of weeks ago have accepted additional responsibilities for an adopted daughter. But that does not mean that I love only them. Time for a new vocabulary word …

Again, it's good to hear that you love your wife and adopted daughter, and that you still have love for others. If your love for the rest of your family vanished when you said your vows, it would be a sad state of affairs indeed.


agape
A Greek word for love that is found frequently in the Christian Scriptures (New Testament) in noun form as "agape" and in verb form as "agapao." 1 It is different from erotic love. It is supposed to be the characteristic attitude of Christians toward one another, (John 13:34), and toward all humanity, 1 Thessalonians. 3:12; 1 Corinthians 16:14; 2 Peter 1:7.

Again we see arrogance shining through your post. Just to make things clear, Rathmann, I have a very thorough formal education. I'm fully aware of the definition of "agape", and your assumption that I did not know it is very telling.


It is through this kind of love that God can make us more ethical beings, and work out the base parts of us. As we submit more and more of our beings to God and are filled with love not just for our families and our friends but for our enemies and for the world.

Maybe you need to re-read the definition of the word. Love for your fellow man certainly can help make you a more ethical being, but that's because it is your love for your fellow man. God is not necessary in that equation.

If you doubt this, go ask your friendly neighbourhood Buddhist. Compassion (their less pretentious phrasing for agape) for your fellow man leads to understanding of your fellow man, which leads to wisdom and ethical development. Once again we have a case where throwing God into the issue unnecessarily just detracts from the true beauty of the world. Your love for your fellow man is what makes you an ethical being. Attributing that to God lessens the beauty of the love that any compassionate person has for another person.


So Thompson1d, I apologize if you are offended by my calling your arguments specious, and if it bothers you that much I will not do so again. But if you really want to learn more about arguments for and against the existence of God, I can recommend some reading.

It doesn't bother me when somebody calls my arguments specious when they truly are specious. However, this is truly a case where you need to tend to the beam in your own eye before touching the speck in mine. In this thread, you have consistently failed to bring anything to the table which actually works to further any kind of useful argument for the existence of God.

That's not meant to be an insult - many generations of men before you have tried to do the same thing, and every last one of them has failed. I have shelves full of philosophy and theology texts that are testament to this fact - every single one of them ends on the same note, and it is this:

Belief in God is not something that can ever be justified by proof, because the notion of God is not something that can be proven. Belief in God is the domain of faith alone, not reason.

If you are willing to abandon reason in order to believe in God, more power to you. So long as you are not harming anybody or oppressing/repressing anybody for the sake of your ideology, it is your right to do so.

Just don't expect me to do the same thing, and (though this is exceedingly difficult) please do not be so arrogant as to assume that any poster on this board has not heard the arguments that you make a thousand times before.

[ponderingturtle]

Ziz ~

Can any of us really know the will of God? Can our mind even grasp the infinite? I don't think so,

You seem to be claiming that you can, how else could you know that MLK and Gandi where inspired by god but Jim Jones and OBL where not? That means you know absolutely who god is working through and who he is not. How do you do that with out knowing the will of god?

[JackPT]

The strength of the argument here does not as you suggest rely on scriptures being as you put "the true word of God." The scriptures do not claim to be, are not and can not be the word of God, and if you really want to delve into the specifics of that, we can do that off thread so as to not bore the others. But I have expressed this concept of the scriptures not being the word of God further up in the thread.

So the scriptures aren't the word of god. Makes sense. I thought they were chosen for their poitical correctness by the Council of Nicea in 324 AD. The Emperor Constantine played a big part. It must be awful basing your life on something that was chosen for political expediency. If you knew anything about the bible this should have been the first red flag for you.

However, people have been experiencing God for thousands of years, and they have written about their experiences. The sum of their experiences are clear, and the voice of God within us is clear that murder is wrong, and that we are not to hate but love each other. Anyone who advocates or participates in hate or murder is not doing the will of God.

Yes, lots of people have claimed to experience god over thousands of years. That's why there are so many religions. It's also why we've had things like auto de fes, crusades & crusade-a-likes, and other horrible things in the name of a god. The definition of the Christian god isn't love, it's organised self-delusion. A delusion that helped made the gap between the fall of the Roman Empire and the Enlightenment horrible.

The sum of the experiences are not clear because of things like the Council of Nicea. The voice of god is not clear within anyone. Or if it is, it has historically included mass-murder, intolerance, holding back progress, and hypocrisy. What you appear to be saying is that everyone that did things in the name of god in the last 2000 years, including the church, was wrong because they participated in hate and murder.

I suppose it's a start on the path of atheism. A realisation that much of what religions have done themselves has been awful, therefore they were at best hypocrites, at worst better at interpreting their holy books than you. I congratulate your first steps towards atheism. Well done. Once you realise how stupid the Bible is you can make tentative steps towards realising the problems with a god.

[Loss Leader]

As I mentioned above, love is primarily our interpretation of the end-result of the interaction of certain chemicals within our brain. The process isn't fully understood yet, though neuroscience is still in its infancy, relatively speaking.

I've been told that love is a trick a woman and her baby play on a man to keep him from from taking off for Vegas. And every time I hear that, I think, "Man, I have got to get to Vegas."

Excellent post, BTW. Thorough and careful on all points. Not a word to disagree with.

[Loss Leader]

However, people have been experiencing God for thousands of years, and they have written about their experiences. The sum of their experiences are clear, and the voice of God within us is clear that murder is wrong, and that we are not to hate but love each other. Anyone who advocates or participates in hate or murder is not doing the will of God.


Rathmann, your posts have been answered quite well by others. However, I wanted to add that when reading the above it struck me that I could think of no society, no matter how religious, that did not engage in murder. This includes the only society I know of that was actually directly led by your particular version of God: When Moses and the Israelites were led to the promised land by God, they found the most amazing thing - it was already inhabited. Hence, they began a campaign aided by divine intervention to wipe out the civilizations in the area. Joshua fought the battle of Jericho because the people of Jericho had no interest in leaving their city to go fight him.

And, of course, God set down multiple rules forbidding intermariage with outsiders and prescribing death for those who transgress.

The actions of the Israelites in Canaan do not appear to be consistent with your definition of the will of God. They do, however, appear to be consistent with the behaviors of other nomadic, homogenius tribes from the Mongols to the Germanic Barbarians on.

[Oroborus]

How on earth you came up with a clear message from thousands of years of equivocation, contradiction and brutality is beyond me.

:rolleyes: Duh, a Wizard did it.

[trvlr2]

[QUOTE=Rathmann;2026339]Thomson1D ~

I forgive you your trespass in calling me a lightweight. Would that that were true, but the onslaught of the years makes it hard to keep my weight down! Less time lifting and more time on the elliptical trainer for me!
snip
No problem. I will make light of you.

snip
But seriously Thompson, insulting remarks of this nature on your part only make you appear insecure about your position in this matter, and may prevent others from adopting your point of view. Moreover, your statements to the effect that no one has ever proved the existence of a deity is absurd on their face. After all, we can easily prove the existence of God by defining God as things we all agree exist. And fortunately, that is exactly what the scriptures tend to do if we take the time to read them.

So let’s go chronologically, starting with Moses …

And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.
(Exodus 3:14)

So, you are saying that god is Popeye, the sailor man?
(I yams what I yam)
Snip.

love. If you have experienced love, you have an idea of what He is. Like the love that we experience in other elements of our lives, God can not be known rationally, but is experienced with other sensibilities, that a religious studies professor of mine decades ago referred to as the “super rational.” As we immerse ourselves more and more in Him, we find it easier to follow the commandments, love our neighbors as ourselves, etc.
snip
Did you mean super IRrational?

snip.

a new vocabulary word …

agape
A Greek word for love that is found frequently in the Christian Scriptures (New Testament) in noun form as "agape" and in verb form as "agapao." 1 It is different from erotic love. It is supposed to be the characteristic attitude of Christians toward one another, (John 13:34), and toward all humanity, 1 Thessalonians. 3:12; 1 Corinthians 16:14; 2 Peter 1:7.

snip.


from the dictionary, agape also means-

Main Entry: 2agape
Pronunciation: &-'gAp also -'gap
Function: adjective or adverb
1 : wide open : GAPING <with mouth agape>
2 : being in a state of wonder <tourists agape at the scenery>

As in mind wide open, sufficient to have brains fall out?.

snip

[Tormac]

How come *I* never ate a poisoinous berry. I grew up in a lush area surrounded by them. Could it be that I was brought up in a religious family and God saw to it I was schooled and protected, in the same way he proved he most likely exists by allowing me to plow into a herd of deer at 45 mph a number of years back and not have my car get one scratch?..while everyone else I know has crumpled cars? . . .

Hi Iamme,

This question is an extension about my question about leprosy and fatty food Iamme, if you did not eat poisonous stuff that was around you as a child because "God saw to it I was schooled and protected" then why did God not protect the children that did accidentally poison themselves?

I'm not trying to be a hard case about this Iamme, I'm really trying to understand the notion that God watches over you, but not others. Why do you suppose God protected your car and not the other people’s cars from collisions with deer? Is it because God loves you more than other people? Did the people who ate poisonous things as children, or hit deer with their car commit horrible sins, and so had it coming? Do you have more utility for God, and so are you worth protecting, as one of his servants, when others are not?

[brooklyn44]

I Love This Whole Thread!!!

[bruto]

I Love This Whole Thread!!! Ah, love! another proof that God exists. Cuz God is love, you know.

[RenaissanceBiker]

I've been told that love is a trick a woman and her baby play on a man to keep him from from taking off for Vegas.

Love doesn't keep me from taking off for Vegas. Vegas keeps me from taking off for Vegas.

[CapelDodger]

Why do you suppose God protected your car and not the other people’s cars from collisions with deer?
Frankly, I'd prefer a god that protected deer from people in cars.

[Marc L]

Frankly, I'd prefer a god that protected deer from people in cars.

Yeah. A bit better sense would seem to have been in order. When you're built so you freeze when you see a pair of headlights coming at you, it's kind of a bad thing. One would think that an omnipotent god would have seen this coming...

Marc

[Tormac]

Frankly, I'd prefer a god that protected deer from people in cars.

Well maybe there is a bamby-deer heaven, just like kitty kat heaven and puppy dog heaven, so that smoothes over the violent death of animals.

[Rathmann]

... but now I have some other responsiblities. Cranking off a column and a couple of white papers. Do not want those here to think I have forgotten you, especially Thompson1d.

But Thompson, you seem very concerned that I be impressed with your credentials. If you would like to compare resumes in the area of philosophy, I would be open to that. I studied both philosophy and religion -- my main field of study being journalism (I actually got a scholarship from the Freedom from Religion Foundation for writings on the separation of church and state). But philosophy seemed to me, as time went on, paramount to intellectual junk food that did not satisfy, while as I read the scriptures that I had earlier sought to refute, I found nourishing food. Some might make gods of men by worshipping the human faculty of reason, or make gods of things by prostrating themselves before the altar of wealth. We all have a god -- but do we realize what it is and can we support its pre-eminence in our lives?

And I agree with those posting above -- I too love this whole thread. Discussions of this nature help clarify one's positions, although I contend that theology is no better than philosophy, for God exists in the way we live in His Spirit rather than in verbal arguments and doctrine.

But still -- I do confess that this is enjoyable.

I particularly like the Popeye reference. I have oftren wondered if Elzie Crisler Segar was making some type of theological reference by placing these words on Popeye's ill-proportioned lips.

[I less than three logic]

We all have a god -- but do we realize what it is and can we support its pre-eminence in our lives?
“Only presidents, editors, and people with tapeworms have the right to use the editorial ‘we’.” – Mark Twain

[Loss Leader]

Some might make gods of men by worshipping the human faculty of reason, or make gods of things by prostrating themselves before the altar of wealth.

And some people make their god out of nothing at all.

[Marquis de Carabas]

I made my god out of mashed 'taters.

[Ossai]

Rathmann
After all, we can easily prove the existence of God by defining God as things we all agree exist. And fortunately, that is exactly what the scriptures tend to do if we take the time to read them. What scriptures would those be?

Where are you getting this god is love from anyway? You’ve already declared the bible is not a valid source of information, so where are you getting this?

Ossai

[jimlintott]

Rathmann

After all, we can easily prove the existence of God by defining God as things we all agree exist. And fortunately, that is exactly what the scriptures tend to do if we take the time to read them.Can you prove the existence of god scientifically not philosophically? When someone claims they can prove something is real. I expect it to be real, not just an idea. I will require some physical evidence, not word play.

Oh, I seem to have missed your apology for saying that people who do not believe cannot be as caring as those who do. This is a deep insult to me, my family and a large group of people. It seems to me that a caring man would admit he was wrong and move on.

[RandFan]

But philosophy seemed to me, as time went on, paramount to intellectual junk food that did not satisfy...Then you missed the point of philosophy. That's rather sad. :(

...while as I read the scriptures that I had earlier sought to refute, I found nourishing food. Cool, which parts? The genocide? The incest? The raping? The misogyny? The intolerance? The acceptance of slavery? God drowning children? God killing infant Egyptians? I'm dying to know of this "nourishing food" you speak of.

Or do you pick and choose what is and what is not nourishing? And if you do then does not that suggest you have to know ahead of time what is good? Now, if that is true then please pray tell what good is scripture? I spent 4 years in seminary and 2 years as a missionary and an intellectual honest analysis of the entire text tells me that there isn't much.

[ponderingturtle]

Then you missed the point of philosophy. That's rather sad. :(

Cool, which parts? The genocide? The incest? The raping? The misogyny? The intolerance? The acceptance of slavery? God drowning children? God killing infant Egyptians? I'm dying to know of this "nourishing food" you speak of.

Or do you pick and choose what is and what is not nourishing? And if you do then does not that suggest you have to know ahead of time what is good? Now, if that is true then please pray tell what good is scripture? I spent 4 years in seminary and 2 years as a missionary and an intellectual honest analysis of the entire text tells me that there isn't much.

Maybe just good parenting advice, you know stone the disobedient children to death and that kind of thing.

[zizzybaluba]

However, people have been experiencing God for thousands of years, and they have written about their experiences. The sum of their experiences are clear, and the voice of God within us is clear that murder is wrong, and that we are not to hate but love each other. Anyone who advocates or participates in hate or murder is not doing the will of God.


I contend that ALL throughout history who claim to have been "experiencing god" have, in fact, been delusional. The idea that "murder is wrong" in the standard functioning human mind is the result of natural selection-- and I'll save the reasons why altruistic behavior makes sense in a Darwinian model for another thread.

[RenaissanceBiker]

Frankly, I'd prefer a god that protected deer from people in cars.

Apparently this annoying god has also been protecting them from my rifle too. I'll try to thwart him again Saturday.

[CapelDodger]

Apparently this annoying god has also been protecting them from my rifle too. I'll try to thwart him again Saturday.
Break a leg. Shoot a friend in the face. Whatever. Be assured I do not wish you well in this venture.

It's reindeer season in a couple of months. I can picture you now, camped out on the roof with thermos and brandy-flask, scanning the skies, listening for sleighbells, determined not to fall asleep ...

[The Atheist]

Apparently this annoying god has also been protecting them from my rifle too. I'll try to thwart him again Saturday.Ever tried hunting them with a bow?

[Marc L]

while as I read the scriptures that I had earlier sought to refute, I found nourishing food.

Rathman, you've mentioned you don't take the entire bible literally. It's also clear you do take some parts of it (and if I'm mistaken in that, please correct me) literally. I will ask you my standard two question that as yet hasn't been answered (at all, not just not to my satisfaction).

1) Is the bible 100% accurate? (obviously, you've already answered this one).
2) If not, which parts are allegory and which are accurate?
a) How do you decide which is which?

Marc

[Ladewig]

I made my god out of mashed 'taters.

Ah, then the Shroud of Turin is really dried gravy. or should I say the Shroud of Tureen?

[RenaissanceBiker]

Break a leg. Shoot a friend in the face. Whatever. Be assured I do not wish you well in this venture.

That's harsh, man. I'm not hunting for trophies, I'm going to eat what I kill.

It's reindeer season in a couple of months. I can picture you now, camped out on the roof with thermos and brandy-flask, scanning the skies, listening for sleighbells, determined not to fall asleep ...

Naw, if I'm on the roof they'll see me. I set up a trip wire so they'll fall off the roof. I'll be in my warm truck listening to the radio and ready to jump out with my shotgun. "DROP THE BAG, FAT MAN!"

Ever tried hunting them with a bow?

I got a compound bow this year, but I'm not good enough to hunt with it. I practice, but until I'm confident that I can kill at a reasonable distance I won't. It would be cruel to just injure an animal without killing it.

[The Atheist]

I got a compound bow this year, but I'm not good enough to hunt with it. I practice, but until I'm confident that I can kill at a reasonable distance I won't. It would be cruel to just injure an animal without killing it.Yeah, bloody good show on the practice! You'll get to the stage where you know it's right. Enjoy.

You will.

[Bill Thompson]

YEAH! If the Moon isn't habitable, that PROVES there MUST be a GOD!

Never mind that whole too small to hold an atmosphere thing. . .

:rolleyes:

Hi. Newbee here.

I think that Earth being unique for life (and I think there are a number of reasons why it might be) might be an indication that there is not a loving God. Why would me make us so lonely?

[Z]

Welcome, Bill.

I think the Earth being unique for life is a pretty good indication that life is a mistake.

:D

[Loss Leader]

Hi. Newbee here.

I think that Earth being unique for life (and I think there are a number of reasons why it might be) might be an indication that there is not a loving God. Why would me make us so lonely?

I think the earth being unique for life is no indication of anything whatsoever. The only thing that you can tell from one data point is that the event is possible. Otherwise, you're going to need more information.

Also, how lonely are you if you're sitting around wishing you had aliens to talk to. Get a pet or join a book club or something. Just get out of the apartment.

[RandFan]

Never mind

ETA: I gotta get that chip of my shoulder.

[bruto]

Break a leg. Shoot a friend in the face. Whatever. Be assured I do not wish you well in this venture.

It's reindeer season in a couple of months. I can picture you now, camped out on the roof with thermos and brandy-flask, scanning the skies, listening for sleighbells, determined not to fall asleep ...

Capel, I wonder if you are aware of the deer problem in some parts of the US. I am not a hunter myself, and have problems with the attitude of many hunters, but I also live in an area which, despite being mostly rural, is periodically overrun by an exploding deer population that outruns its available food supply. They devastate orchards and end up in vast numbers dead on the highway. You can blame this on civilization, but that doesn't make the problem go away. It's just as likely that before people roamed these hills the deer population fluctuated similarly, and many deer died of starvation, or were picked off by large predators. I'm not sure, though, whether I would welcome the pre-civilization population level of panthers and wolves that once roamed the countryside either. We've become rather used to the idea that we can let our children go out into the backyard without danger of being eaten by wild animals, but it was not always so. Well regulated hunting is one of the ways that the problems of civilization encroaching on wild populations of deer and their predators can be mitigated, and while it may not be as natural as letting nature find its balance, it may well be more humane. "Being humane" is itself not exactly a phenomenon seen in nature as a whole.

I'm also not a vegetarian. I'd just as soon see Renaissance Biker eat a deer that has had a nice full life romping in a field until the bullet hit, as to see him eat a cow that's lived its miserable short life in a feedlot until the hammer hit. It will be better for his cholesterol count too.

[Starrman]

Now earlier you were denigrating my likening of God to the love between family members. With this biblical definition of God, anyone engaged in this type of relationship in truth … believes in God. The God of the New Testament is love. If you have experienced love, you have an idea of what He is. Like the love that we experience in other elements of our lives, God can not be known rationally, but is experienced with other sensibilities, that a religious studies professor of mine decades ago referred to as the “super rational.” As we immerse ourselves more and more in Him, we find it easier to follow the commandments, love our neighbors as ourselves, etc.

Rathmann - would you say it is possible for a brain injury to cause someone to stop loving? If love is an incorporeal emotion given to us by a diety, how do you explain that persons with brain injuries lost the feelings of love they have for their wives, husbands, families and sometimes even children?

[plindboe]

Thomson1D ~
After all, we can easily prove the existence of God by defining God as things we all agree exist. And fortunately, that is exactly what the scriptures tend to do if we take the time to read them.

Redefining something non-existant as something existant doesn't suddenly make it spring into existance. I lack words to express how ridiculous your argument is.

[ponderingturtle]

Rathmann - would you say it is possible for a brain injury to cause someone to stop loving? If love is an incorporeal emotion given to us by a diety, how do you explain that persons with brain injuries lost the feelings of love they have for their wives, husbands, families and sometimes even children?

Actualy this can happen to an extent. What some people have had after brain injuries is that they feel everyone around them is an imposter. The reason is that they no longer feel an emotional connection on seeing them as the connection between the emotional section and the visual section has been severed. This means that they decided that they can not be who they appear to be because they don't feel this connection.

[CapelDodger]

That's harsh, man.
Harsh? You're whacking wildlife with a rifle and I'm harsh? You should see me with an axe-handle and a cat - that's harsh. (Cats are not wildlife, be they feral or no.)

I'm not hunting for trophies, I'm going to eat what I kill.
I can't help thinking you'll get a buzz out of the kill, and that makes me queasy. Always has.

If you go hunting wild boar with a sharp stick and a small knife I guess you'd get my grudging respect.


Naw, if I'm on the roof they'll see me. I set up a trip wire so they'll fall off the roof. I'll be in my warm truck listening to the radio and ready to jump out with my shotgun. "DROP THE BAG, FAT MAN!"
Of course, you intend to use the Lego, not just hang it on the wall :) . And what about the children? Will nobody think about the children?

I got a compound bow this year, but I'm not good enough to hunt with it. I practice, but until I'm confident that I can kill at a reasonable distance I won't.
At least I'm further away than that. I used to target-shoot with a composite bow in my younger days, it was most satisfying. Nowadays I stick to darts, pool and shying rocks at cats.

[Sandy M]

So you worship a horse?

I do. I must, considering all the money I pay to keep one in absolute comfort. But he doesn't change color.

[RenaissanceBiker]

As Bruto mentioned, I would rather eat the deer that has roamed free than a cow penned up in a feedlot. I eat both, but would rather eat the deer. The deer has a very good chance of eluding me. I've been out three times already and come home empty handed. I spent some good time in the woods, just haven't had a good shot to take.

I go into the deer's environment and try to outsmart him. I have to evade detection by their superior senses and anticipate where they are likely to be. This involves scouting the area well before the season starts without disturbing them. I have to identify food sources and bedding areas, then figure when they are likely to be traveling between them.

It is going to start raining tonight and continue through Saturday morning. The deer will lay in their bedding area trying to stay dry. I hope it is still raining when I walk into the woods. That will cover my sounds and wash my scent from the air. I'll use a climbing stand to get about 30 feet up a tree at the edge of an oak grove I found. Climbing a tree with this kind of stand takes some physical strength. Deer like acorns and the ground around the grove is covered with them. I hope the rain stops after I get up there. Then the deer will get up and start looking for food. I'll be cold, wet and tired but if I'm lucky I might get a shot at one.

There's a hundred ways I could screw up. This time of year I wash with scent free soap and avoid scented deodorant. I washed my hunting clothes in scent-free detergent that has no UV brighteners, and stored them in a bag with some fresh cut pine branches. I could make too much noise walking a half a mile in through thick woods with a 25 lb. stand on my back and carrying a heavy rifle. I could leave too much scent on the ground, especially if the rain stops too soon. I could make too much noise climbing the tree. I could make too much scent in stand by sweating on the way up or farting. I could make too much noise in the stand or just move at the wrong time. The wind could blow the wrong direction. A squirrel could see me and start barking. Two weeks ago, two squirrels got within 3 feet of me in a tree and didn't recognize me as human. The deer could simply decide to go to another food source. They are survivors, well suited to living in their environment. Even with all this preparation I'll still be lucky to get a chance to shoot one. But that last cow you munched on had no chance.

[CapelDodger]

Capel, I wonder if you are aware of the deer problem in some parts of the US.
I don't doubt the deer are aware of the human problem, if only instinctively.

I am not a hunter myself, and have problems with the attitude of many hunters, but I also live in an area which, despite being mostly rural, is periodically overrun by an exploding deer population that outruns its available food supply.
One word - Wolves. A step towards sorting out the cat problem as well.

I appreciate that culling is necessary in an artifical eco-system. It's the killing as entertainment that bothers me. That's just part of my make-up.


eta But that last cow you munched on had no chance.

Guess what ...

[RenaissanceBiker]

Guess what ...

Uh, what?

[Silly Green Monkey]

Now plants, REALLY have no choice.

[supercorgi]

I appreciate that culling is necessary in an artifical eco-system. It's the killing as entertainment that bothers me. That's just part of my make-up.

I would agree if he was trophy hunting. I don't think you should kill a critter just to cut it's head off and stick over your fireplace. But he's going to eat the deer - he's using it. And I'd bet he gets some satisfaction from hunting for his food rather than going to the grocery store and buying some shrink-wrapped venison.

Hey RB, can I have the hides? I always wanted to try brain-tanning. :)

[bruto]

I don't doubt the deer are aware of the human problem, if only instinctively.


One word - Wolves. A step towards sorting out the cat problem as well.

I appreciate that culling is necessary in an artifical eco-system. It's the killing as entertainment that bothers me. That's just part of my make-up.


eta

Guess what ...

Well, I don't find hunting and fishing entertaining, so I don't do either. And I find many hunters rather obnoxious for various reasons. But I am not going to try to guess the motivation of all of them, and if RB wants to go out and shoot a deer and eat it, then I won't protest as long as he doesn't shoot it in by backyard, which is a posted safety zone. I once worked for a non profit organization in New York State which received deer which had been legally shot by orchard owners, but which the owners could not then keep, as a way of making sure they weren't just after the meat. But what ensued was that the deer would be shot and then dumped in the landfill, until we agreed to take them and butcher them. It was an unpleasant task, but we got lots of protein.

As for wolves, well...we have some big coyotes already, but I'm not eager for the wolves and cougars to return to pre-columbian levels. I know I'm being kind of human-centric about it, but I'd just as soon let the hunters eat the deer, and not have to carry my own gun when I go out in the woods.

Our cat problem insofar as there is one, is already under control out here because we have both coyotes and bobcats aplenty. Bobcats just love to snack on domestic pussycats. The domestic cat population around here is very dynamic. But since I have no cat, I don't mind the others, because they do a pretty good job of mousing in my barn.

[RenaissanceBiker]

I would agree if he was trophy hunting. I don't think you should kill a critter just to cut it's head off and stick over your fireplace. But he's going to eat the deer - he's using it. And I'd bet he gets some satisfaction from hunting for his food rather than going to the grocery store and buying some shrink-wrapped venison.

Hey RB, can I have the hides? I always wanted to try brain-tanning. :)

It certainly is not economical. My rifle and scope cost almost $1,000 and my hunting license cost $50. I have spent quite a bit on other gear and the time I put into is an intangible cost. So it is a challenge to me and as a person who likes a challenge it is entertainment. I enjoy the meat and so does my family but it is not a cost effective food source.

You can have the hides if you come and pick them up. I haven't decided if I will clean them myself or have someone do it. Do you really want save them?