Abiyoyo Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 Sorry. I don't understand your point. Supposedly, the 12 apostles started their belief because of miracles Jesus did, and finally the miracle of resurrection. Paul was, presumably, converted because of a miracle vision, and his service continued because of miracles that followed. The early church was full of people who converted because of miracles they saw, or at least we're supposed to believe that. Why can't I have a tangible miracle? Why would a miracle corrupt me, but not corrupt Paul? I think it follows what Paul (or whoever) said that God chooses some for destruction. Perhaps all of us here on this website are picked by God to be vessels of destruction. Then it's not your choice or power that can convert anyone of us. You're fighting against God's will. Okay, well, God is real to me based on history and my personal belief, and he hasn't performed any miracles for me. So, in my opinion, God is real. In your opinion, God is not real. So, it's a matter of opinion, not fact, right? No, Christianity started before Christ, with handful of people believing God was sending the Messiah. Ah. So the miracles started because the disciples believe Jesus was about to come and they believed the miracles into existence? They saw what they wanted to see? I was referring to John the Baptist, prior prophets, etc. No, no doubt he is capable of such a feat over here. Then stop doubting and stop fighting against God's will. I'm not doubting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 You mean God/Jesus are on the same level as hoaxes, tricks, slight of hand, and special effects on TV? God can't do better than that? Not much of a God then... So, you feel that if God is real, then He should make Himself known in a tangible way so that people can experience him? I guess it's a bit too much to ask........................ It's not that it's much to ask, it's just not relevant in evidence of existence. For centuries, we knew that there was something that caused sickness in people that must have been physically on objects, yet it was only at a certain time that people advanced enough to be able to produce technology to see bacteria. So, bacteria always existed, yet we never saw it for centuries. Lack of evidence certainly is relevant to the issue of said evidence. It is the very issue. When it comes to sickness the Bible spread the misinformation that sickness was caused by spirits and demons. Additionally the Bible gave people the impression that we can cast out these demons and spirits via spiritual warfare and calling on Jesus name. Science found bacteria though no help from God. When progress happens it is because humans made it happen due to hard work. God does nothing. The evidence of God is very much lacking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abiyoyo Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 Okay, the OP was John 3:16, which is the core of the whole thing, right? Believe and live with God. That's just plain illogical and cherrypicking. No hell, no heaven...no sin, no sinner...no savior, no salvation... Why is believing in a creator silly when we only have limited sight. It is proven over history that we have limits and dont see past those limits until someone, something enables us to see an extended view. I'm sure 2000 years ago, normal everyday people would not have been able to contemplate space travel. How can you scientifically place something as hands down non-existent, knowing the human mind and perception is limited? Why is believing in Santa silly when we only have limited sight. Because there is not any kind of anything to suggest there are real flying reindeer or A guy in a red suite flying around giving out presents, jumping through peoples chimneys, except the story that we have past on to our children from generation to generation. Now, there are things to suggest there is a God, over thousands of years of people's witness and testimonies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 Because there is not any kind of anything to suggest there are real flying reindeer or A guy in a red suite flying around giving out presents, jumping through peoples chimneys, except the story that we have past on to our children from generation to generation. Now, there are things to suggest there is a God, over thousands of years of people's witness and testimonies. No. There is no difference except that for Santa the people who tell you Santa is real do not believe it. Witness and testimonies about God are just as unreliable as the known deception for Santa. They do not suggest that there is a God because they are not objective evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agnosticator Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 Because there is not any kind of anything to suggest there are real flying reindeer or A guy in a red suite flying around giving out presents, jumping through peoples chimneys, except the story that we have past on to our children from generation to generation. Now, there are things to suggest there is a God, over thousands of years of people's witness and testimonies. Now, there are things to suggest there are ghosts, demons, aliens, Gods other than the biblegod, over thousands of years of people's witness and testimonies. Many stories are passed from generation to generation. You can pick what you like to believe, but there's no more evidence for any one over the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 Okay, well, God is real to me based on history and my personal belief, and he hasn't performed any miracles for me. So, in my opinion, God is real. In your opinion, God is not real. So, it's a matter of opinion, not fact, right? Yes. I agree with that. I never claimed it was a fact. But you claimed that if I had an experience of a miracle that would convert me, I wouldn't be a real Christian, but the wrong kind of Christian. Just like Paul, the 12, and the first 100 years of the Christian Church. All of them, and I, would all be that kind of wrong Christians. While you, are the right kind, because you believe without evidence. I was referring to John the Baptist, prior prophets, etc. And I was referring to the 12 disciples, the apostles, Paul, the early church, etc... They all believed after seeing miracles. According to you, that's the wrong kind of being converted. So your whole New Testament was written by the "wrong" Christians, if the stories are true. I'm not doubting Your doubting that a miracle would change my mind and convert me to the true faith. So you claimed in one of your earlier posts. Do you want to go back to it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 Because there is not any kind of anything to suggest there are real flying reindeer or A guy in a red suite flying around giving out presents, jumping through peoples chimneys, except the story that we have past on to our children from generation to generation. So where do the presents come from at Christmas? Explain that. No one has been able to fully explain how the presents magically appear under the Christmas tree on Christmas morning. And don't tell me the anecdotal stories about the parents doing it. They're just unbelievers and try to destroy the magic. All the other ones where we have no evidence the parents did it, they are unresolved and unexplained, and only Santa could have done it. Now, there are things to suggest there is a God, over thousands of years of people's witness and testimonies. And the same for many other religions, even pagan, and polytheistic religions, and even atheist magicians have done miracles that are impossible. I know one thing that is impossible in my life, and that's to see my son healed. I know all the thousands of things that has to change, physically, in his body for him to be back to what he was. I will believe when I see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 Die ego! Die! You think it will stay dead? Hah Kill it and it will be reborn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator Margee Posted November 27, 2011 Moderator Share Posted November 27, 2011 You mean God/Jesus are on the same level as hoaxes, tricks, slight of hand, and special effects on TV? God can't do better than that? Not much of a God then... So, you feel that if God is real, then He should make Himself known in a tangible way so that people can experience him? I guess it's a bit too much to ask........................ It's not that it's much to ask, it's just not relevant in evidence of existence. For centuries, we knew that there was something that caused sickness in people that must have been physically on objects, yet it was only at a certain time that people advanced enough to be able to produce technology to see bacteria. So, bacteria always existed, yet we never saw it for centuries. that's just plain dumb! If god had given us the right 'tools' - it wouldn't have taken 2,000 years to know how to cure some of the horrible sickness........ it's all about evolution. Cave men should have been stittin' in their caves watching T.V and thier wives using microwave ovens......... all about evolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 ... it's all about evolution. I feel compelled to voice my disagreement here Margee. I think evolution is an important aspect of the biological picture on Earth, but it's not the whole picture. One can know all about evolution while knowing virtually nothing about physiology, and vice versa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agnosticator Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 They also read magazines at the beach. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 ... it's all about evolution. I feel compelled to voice my disagreement here Margee. I think evolution is an important aspect of the biological picture on Earth, but it's not the whole picture. One can know all about evolution while knowing virtually nothing about physiology, and vice versa. True. But the knowledge of physiology was not naturally or intuitively known by people before a few hundred years ago. Physiology, psychology, biology, and so one are sciences that grow, evolve, and expand. The key to knowledge evolving is that it is evolving. So the process is still evolutionary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 ... it's all about evolution. I feel compelled to voice my disagreement here Margee. I think evolution is an important aspect of the biological picture on Earth, but it's not the whole picture. One can know all about evolution while knowing virtually nothing about physiology, and vice versa. True. But the knowledge of physiology was not naturally or intuitively known by people before a few hundred years ago. Physiology, psychology, biology, and so one are sciences that grow, evolve, and expand. The key to knowledge evolving is that it is evolving. So the process is still evolutionary. Well I disagree with you and the dictionary both Hans. I think the word "evolution" should refer to the process of species change only. I think the word is too often conflated with the process of cultural development, individual growth and change, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 that's just plain dumb! If god had given us the right 'tools' - it wouldn't have taken 2,000 years to know how to cure some of the horrible sickness........ it's all about evolution. Cave men should have been stittin' in their caves watching T.V and thier wives using microwave ovens......... all about evolution. Not just the wives. God should have told the men to treat the women as equals. If the Bible is true then God was dictating rules on pain of death so saying people back then wouldn't have accepted is rubbish. You did what God told you to do or else. God killed a lot of people at the slightest disobedience. The reason God didn't tell men to make women equal is because God was invented by those men. Humans realized gender equality was better for us on our own. All progress comes from humans rather than God. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 ... it's all about evolution. I feel compelled to voice my disagreement here Margee. I think evolution is an important aspect of the biological picture on Earth, but it's not the whole picture. One can know all about evolution while knowing virtually nothing about physiology, and vice versa. True. But the knowledge of physiology was not naturally or intuitively known by people before a few hundred years ago. Physiology, psychology, biology, and so one are sciences that grow, evolve, and expand. The key to knowledge evolving is that it is evolving. So the process is still evolutionary. Well I disagree with you and the dictionary both Hans. I think the word "evolution" should refer to the process of species change only. I think the word is too often conflated with the process of cultural development, individual growth and change, etc. The root of the word is Latin "evolutionem" and not a word invented to describe Evolution per se. Evolution with uppercase is a proper noun and refers to the Theory of Evolution of Species, however, the word evolution, lower case, is a noun referring to any evolutionary process where things evolve, i.e. a process of small changes over time. I strongly disagree that the word evolution is equivalent to Evolution. And why? Because the word evolution was used in the 17th century, a long time before it was connected to Evolution. And here's an example of how the word "evolution" is used in mathematics: http://en.wikipedia....ntial_evolution And computer science: http://en.wikipedia....lution_strategy And in linguistics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_linguistics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 Hans, we disagree. And it's okay. In this particular disagreement I am certain that I am correct and that you are mistaken, therefore I do not feel overly compelled to persuade you. If I was less certain of my position then I might try and persuade you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 Hans, we disagree. And it's okay. In this particular disagreement I am certain that I am correct and that you are mistaken, therefore I do not feel overly compelled to persuade you. If I was less certain of my position then I might try and persuade you. Yes we disagree. And I'm okay with it too. And I'm equally certain that I'm right, since I've taken classes where the word "evolution" have been used in other contexts. (I'm even in a project right now where evolutionary algorithms are being used.) All that aside, I'm glad to see you here again. And that goes to Yoyo as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 Yes we disagree. And I'm okay with it too. And I'm equally certain that I'm right, since I've taken classes where the word "evolution" have been used in other contexts. (I'm even in a project right now where evolutionary algorithms are being used.) Well, language changes, and here I prefer to see it change in a particular direction. I could just as well wish glaciers to move how I want them. All that aside, I'm glad to see you here again. Thank you Hans. It's good to see you guys too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 Yes we disagree. And I'm okay with it too. And I'm equally certain that I'm right, since I've taken classes where the word "evolution" have been used in other contexts. (I'm even in a project right now where evolutionary algorithms are being used.) Well, language changes, and here I prefer to see it change in a particular direction. I could just as well wish glaciers to move how I want them. Yes, it changes. It was used for other meanings before Darwin came along and borrowed the word to explain his theory. I'm not sure he was the one who did it first though to explain biological evolution. The original, Latin, use was to "unroll scrolls." Volvo, the car maker, has the same root, and it means "I'm rolling" or "I'm moving." The word is still in use in Spanish and Italian. Revolver and revolution also have common roots. They're all related. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 But Hans, surely you see my point here too, right? I mean, if my coffee cools down by gradual change, then do you see why I might object to refering to this process as evolutionary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 But Hans, surely you see my point here too, right? I mean, if my coffee cools down by gradual change, then do you see why I might object to refering to this process as evolutionary? Yes, that's not evolution. However, society has evolved. New ideas build upon new ideas. Society is not just degrading to a less level from a more advanced level. I'm sure you would agree that society today is more complex and intricate than it was some thousand years ago. It's not like the Babylonians knew how to fly and had computers and Internet, and the last couple of thousands of years we have devolved to lesser technology, knowledge, and science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 However, society has evolved. I disagree. Only species evolve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RankStranger Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 The word "evolution" existed long before it was applied to the gradual change of species. Why should biology have a monopoly on a word they adopted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 The word "evolution" existed long before it was applied to the gradual change of species. Agreed. Why should biology have a monopoly on a word they adopted? Because I say so. And I intend a great deal more monopoly for biology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oddbird1963 Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 That's why you couldn't come up with evidence. It's a fail for you too. You just can't admit it. You are trapped in the circuar maze of religious indoctrination with millions of escape hatches to keep from dealing with reality. If your religion weren't so harmful to people, I'd feel sorry for you. Would it make a difference to you if there was evidence....? (I assume the answer is no) Of course it would make a difference to me if there were evidence. Your assumption is incorrect. It is also baseless. Where do you get off making such an assumption? If you have sound evidence, bring it on. Otherwise, all I'm hearing from you is a huge amount of argument from ignorance and straw-manning of non believers mixed with a handful of special pleading. Welcome back, by the way! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts