@HushAndLearn "For you is all relative, so that which is good/bad for you, might be bad/good for others, is all relative according to you." No, that's a strawman argument that you Christians just wont stop using. We have evolved to the point where we are civilized enough to develop a code of ethics without consulting a deity. Basically, most atheist hold to: do whatever you want as long as you don't hurt anyone else. And love as much as you can. My ethical code is far superior to you god's.
@txfreethinker >>No, that's a strawman argument that you Christians just wont stop using
--Because is a fact, not straw man involve
>>We have evolved to the point where we are civilized enough to develop a code of ethics without consulting a deity
--I wonder why some people are Republicans and others are Democrats. Some support abortions & others don't. No such thing as civilization involve yet into what you call "ethics"
>>do whatever you want as long as you don't hurt anyone
@HushAndLearn So, it basically sounds like OT Israel had a blood-thirsty tyrant who resorted to violence and even genocide, instead of persuasion, to get his point of view across! "Kill the men, women, children AND the babies! And kidnap the virgins to be your wives!" My neighbor has more goodwill than that! Does this god even know the meaning of goodwill??
@HushAndLearn So, those women deserved to be slaughtered?? That's pretty evil. You would think an omniscient god would be able to move upon those evil women's hearts and reform them instead of just killing them. Even today, there are people like me who are much more humane than the OT god. Let me ask you something: Say one of your children became an atheist and started leading Christians towards atheism. Then god commanded you to kill him/her, would you do it?
@txfreethinker >>those women deserved to be slaughtered?? That's pretty evil
--You kill others, expect to be killed. If for you that is evil, then I don't know from where you get those morality to discern it is evil, remember? Is all relative according to you.
>>You would think an omniscient god would be able to move upon those evil women's hearts and reform them instead of just killing them
--God warn you, not force you; if He force then there is no such thing as freewill nor love.
@txfreethinker >>people like me who are more humane than the OT god
--For you is all relative, so that which is good/bad for you, might be bad/good for others, is all relative according to you. So don't complaint since there is not such thing as evil
>>one of your children became an atheist & started leading Christians towards atheism
--I'll warn him; but not force him. According to the new covenant, God already told us not to kill, so He shouldn't tell me to kill anyone, God will take care
@txfreethinker >>There is no justification for any of those things. Your god is evil--just admit it.
--Of course there is justification, because those women caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to trespass against the Lord in the incident of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord.
Killing the spirit is worst than killing the flesh, so those woman were killing the spirit of Israel & they have to die according to the law eye for an eye in OT.
@zachahary25 Wrong. We observe evolution all the time...micro-evolution. And if micro-evolution takes place over a long period of time, it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that macro-evolution takes place as well.
There are religions/belief systems that predate Christianity, Islam, Hinduism or Judaism; whose beliefs included morals. If morals MUST come from a moral law giver, common sense dictates that moral law for these early religions must have come from the moral law giver; God. If you agree with the moral law giver argument, you admit that the first religions were given morals directly from the first moral law giver, and that all other religions after that, by exclusion, must be false.
@jdd94 -Many people claim many things, so how do you know if those claims are truth or not? The answer is the origin or source of that specific world view.
Islam came from a single person who never did miracles and never spoke to God, Hinduism doesn't have a founder and an irrational god with a very vague idea of it that even Buddha left that religion. Buddha is an agnostic/atheistic religion. Only in Christianity have the most logical solid foundation across centuries form eye witness accounts
@HushAndLearn First of all in the Qu'ran Mohammed was visited by the Angel Gabriel, throughout his life, and was taken to the Holy Land by the angel. You might think that never really happened, but only because your a Christian. Atheists have the same opinion of Christianity. And are you saying that since Buddhism is agnostic/atheistic, that it isn't logical? I don't think Christianity is very logical, the crusades, former popes, condoning slavery, killing of sinners...Thou Shalt Not Kill?
@jdd94 >>First of all in the Qu'ran Mohammed was visited by the Angel Gabriel
--As the Bible warn us that the devil make himself looks as an angel of light
>>You might think that never really happened, but only because your a Christian
--No, Christianity is not base on one person nor in one culture as the Qur'an is. The Bible comes from over 40 different authors, over 66 books from over 1500 years from direct eye witness accounts.
@jdd94 >>Atheists have the same opinion of Christianity
--Atheism doesn't have problems with religions only, but with history too. The Bible is the best well supported document from any other one. Atheism rejects absolute while deny God absolutely which is a self contradictory statement.
>>And are you saying that since Buddhism is agnostic/atheistic, that it isn't logical?
--Life is prove of a Creator, not the nothingness. Little particles of matter don't know what is adaptable & what is not.
@jdd94 >>I don't think Christianity is very logical, the crusades, former popes, condoning slavery, killing of sinners...Thou Shalt Not Kill?
--Christians are not the ones who claim to be without faith. Christians are the ones who take Jesus as our mentor and follow his teachings as much as possible. If you are against slavery then you are against prisoners who are private of their freedom as will. Slaves comes from people who commit willingly evil deeds & God just regulate it, not condone it.
@HushAndLearn I'm not trying to insult your beliefs, my point was that Christianity is not the first religion, nor the last. Christian apologetics try to argue for the mere existence of a God, but even those claims can't be proven, or disproven. Agnosticists/atheists refuse to believe in a God without proof of one. Refusing to believe 2000 year old myths, they trust in the scientific method to help uncover the origins of life. Some of our science might eventually be myth, but it's a start.
@jdd94 >>my point was that Christianity is not the first religion, nor the last
--Is not about who is the first one or which one is the last one, is about reasoning and logic that if God exist, He must be able to preserve His word and reveal Himself to His own creation. Miracles comes form God and liars don't and Jesus did prove to be who He claim to be, which is something that nor Muhammad nor Joseph Smith had that privilege for the way it is claim to be the event.
@jdd94 >>atheists refuse to believe in a God without proof of one
--Life is proof of God. Again, evolution can't explain how does the testicles wirelessly or magically adapt to the ovum since male and female are two independent organisms. Nor evolution can explain how the ovum exclusively adapted to man and not any other living organism; it is because it compels a Creator
>>Some of our science might eventually be myth, but it's a start
--Science will never prove primordial slime to begin with
@HushAndLearn Your right, evolution doesn't explain how things "magically or exclusively adapt"; because in the real world, we don't use magic or superstition to explain things. Religion cannot explain why God gave humans, "dominion over all animals", yet created animals like lions, tigers, spiders and scorpions all of which can kill you in 15 minutes or less. Nor can it explain why God clearly commands that children be killed, victims marry their rapists, and non-believers be killed.
@jdd94 >>Religion cannot explain why God gave humans, "dominion over all animals"
--Because we are created in the image of God
>>yet created animals like lions, tigers, spiders and scorpions all of which can kill you in 15 minutes or less
--Not all lions ate meet, they just get adapted to eat it. Eg. Google the lion that wouldn't eat meat. Also plague came as for result of sin (Read Torah for references)
@HushAndLearn God gave us the ability to think outside our instinct. there isn't any real argument here. you can kill a lion just as fast as it can kill you. so i agree
@jdd94 >>Nor can it explain why God clearly commands that children be killed, victims marry their rapists, and non-believers be killed
--In the same passages will tell you why. For example in [Numbers 31:15-16] it tells you why in there as for one example. And so on for the specific passages you are making reference. Just remember that the Torah is the righteous law eye for and eye, and reminded us that sin have a price to pay; that's why we need a Savior to release us from sin.
@LEilllLEi -What he mean is that computers doesn't spell pain with the moral ramifications that we have. Computers doesn't have feelings nor it can be programmed. You can't fall in love with a robot by the fact that robots doesn't have freewill. Morality is something that can't be just program as computers are. Morality is always raise by a person intrinsic to that question. What this proves is that morality must be transcendent, morality is something that matter can't afford in and of itself.
@LEilllLEi -What he mean is that computers doesn't spell pain with the moral ramifications that we have. Computers doesn't have feelings nor it can be programmed. You can't fall in love with a robot for the fact that robots doesn't have freewill
Morality is something that can't be just program as computers are. Morality is always raise by a person intrinsic to that question. What this proves is that morality must be transcendent, morality is something that matter can't afford in and of itself
What nonsense... All these theists with their bullshit morality argument make the exact same mistake. They use the words "good" and "evil" as if they are nouns instead of adjectives. This is completely wrong. You need 2 things: a human to perform an act and a human to evaluate the act as being good or evil. We don't call it "evil" when a lion kills a young deer. We call it "nature". Without humans, the labels "good" and "evil" are meaningless. Thus refuting the "moral law giver" bullshit.
@MRafh979 --Many convert to Islam for ignorance & others for being threat (Qur'an 9:5). Muhammad never spoke to Allah nor he did miracles (Qur'an 29:50).
I mean, why then Muhammad was a prophet? Because the Qur'an said so? & why the Qur'an said so? Because Muhammad Said so! This is circular reasoning.
Several Hadith speak about the relationship of Muhammad & Aisha! How can that be a prophet?
Qur'an is a book of one (Muhammad). The Bible a book of several ones that speak about the same Truth.
I have a question for you. Does it seem appropriate to only do moral deeds because of a fear of God? I mean, does it seem impossible to do moral actions because of the act of doing good? Take a look at the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, by Immanuel Kant: he states that you should do acts for the sake of the act, e.g. going to Africa and helping with AIDS not because of heaven, but because you find it in yourself that it is virtuous. Is that impossible by an Atheist?
@finalfantasiest1234 >>Does it seem appropriate to only do moral deeds because of a fear of God?
--Is not because of fear, is because of truth. Think about that, look how the world is going down on many ethical, moral, emotional issues, etc. That is because most people ignore God's word. There is not such thing as good against God's commandments.
>>I mean, does it seem impossible to do moral actions because of the act of doing good?
--Good according to who? Islam think they are doing good!
@finalfantasiest1234 >>Take a look at the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals: he states that you should do acts for the sake of the act, e.g. going to Africa and helping with AIDS not because of heaven, but because you find it in yourself that it is virtuous. Is that impossible by an Atheist?
--Hitler thought he was doing good, now debate that with him (if he was alive) or with people that still support him. For atheist is all relative, is just your opinion against others.
Has it never dawned upon Ravi, that the moral law giver is us, and we give ourselves the Social Contract so that people do not kill each other, and lie, and steal? Honestly, if the bible is an absolute, why do we not commit to misogyny, or the killing of sons or daughters if they talk back?
@finalfantasiest1234 >> Honestly, if the bible is an absolute, why do we not commit to misogyny, or the killing of sons or daughters if they talk back?
--Because you as many other atheist get stuck in the old testament (the law) and always forget about Jesus Christ (the Grace). We all are sinner and that screw us all up in front of the perfect and righteous God (the law) and through Jesus Christ we get something we don't deserve (the grace). We are Christians by following Jesus teachings.
@HushAndLearn Actually, the New Testament says that the Old Testament is still valid:
Matthew 5:17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
God and Jesus allowed slavery, misogyny, and discrimination: pick up a history book. We should live in a society where the only religion allowed is Christianity (Commandment 1) and where woman are not allowed to speak (1 Corinthians 14:34) and slavery is O.K. (Philemon).
@finalfantasiest1234 >>Actually, the New Testament says that the Old Testament is still valid [Matthew 5:17]
--Precisely Jesus fulfill the law and demonstrate that by the keeping of the law no flesh can be justify. We deserve the wrath of God and not His love because our iniquity. Now we have eternal life not because of our deeds but for what Jesus did
>>God and Jesus allowed slavery, misogyny, and discrimination
--Wrong, God punish accordingly to our deeds. God doesn't condemn out of the air
@finalfantasiest1234 >> We should live in a society where the only religion allowed is Christianity (Commandment 1)
--Is not forced to believe, is just warned, otherwise is in violation of love through freewill. All this goodness comes from above, you don't want to be with Him then you can't have any goodness. All goodness comes from one, and that one is God
>>where woman r not allowed to speak 1 Corinthians 14:34
--Yes, but in Jesus there is no male no female, we all one (Galatians 3:28)
"It's in violation of love through freewill." How is following an almost dictatorial, ancient religious text "freewill"? If he loves us so much, why make a book filled with flaws and contradictions, and allow the planting of evidence that would make us doubt him in every way? Do I deserve hell just because I don't believe: the "all-loving" God wants that? Hell≠freewill
Galatians 3:28 is, within the context, saying that everyone is a child of God: not that they are equal in any way.
@finalfantasiest1234 >>How is following an almost dictatorial, ancient religious text "freewill"?
--All the goodness come from above. How can you proclaim love & life, if God Himself is love, light & life. All matter and laws that exits in this universe are dependable on Him. God will not force you to love Him and if you don't want to be with Him, then how can you keep getting God's attributes? Heaven is a place prepare for us, but no if you don't want to keep any relationship with Him.
@finalfantasiest1234 >>If he loves us so much, why make a book filled with flaws and contradictions
--Why laws? If you want everything to be relative, just look at the world, is going down precisely because people want to do whatever they want to do. For us to keep God's word is not for wrong but for good. How can you complaint about His word if you haven't even try to keep a relationship with Him through Jesus Christ?
Regarding contradiction, I haven't seen any. Just people misunderstandings.
@finalfantasiest1234 >>Statistics: Christians have a 27% of divorce, Atheists/Agnostic have a 21% of divorce. (by a Christian)
--Is like saying, there are less airplane crashes than card ones. Well duh, there are many more cars than airplanes. As those Christians who divorce, is because one of them is in violation of God's word (plain and simple)
>>Lack of religious faith has shown a strong correlation with intelligence. (meta analysis)
@HushAndLearn "Is like saying, there are less airplane crashes than card ones. Well duh, there are many more cars than airplanes"
You don't understand how statistics work, do you?
Here's what it really means: out of 100% of atheist couples, only 21% ends in divorce, while out of 100% of christian couples, 27% end in divorce. In other words, christian couples are more likely to divorce then atheist couples. Durrrrr.
@ScientificBob >>You don't understand how statistics work, do you?
--And you forget that car accidents are base on overpopulation, terrain, tires defects over the bumps, etc. while airplanes are base just on malfunctions.
>>In other words, christian couples are more likely to divorce then atheist couples. Durrrrr.
--Because most of the population are Christians from their teeth out.
Yes I know, only 1 out of the 30,000 denominations of Christianity should get in. Apparently God couldn't have made things a little more specific in his Bible. And I do not even get how those contradictions mean absolutely nothing. They are stated explicitly in Bible. I really hope you take a good look.
@finalfantasiest1234 >>Yes I know, only 1 out of the 30,000 denominations of Christianity should get in
--No, is not be denomination, is by relationship. Unity does not mean uniformity. Christianity is not by the denomination that you belongs to, but whether to become follower of Jesus
>>And I do not even get how those contradictions mean absolutely nothing. They are stated explicitly in Bible. I really hope you take a good look.
--I asked you from which one do you want me to start
--Because God also state, Judge not, that you be not judged [Mat 7:1-5]. And the reason is because we don't know people's hearts, only God knows and only God can make such righteous decisions. Only base on His decision we then can, but not by ourselves.
@HushAndLearn that phrase is only included in texts where the intended audience understood a semantic representation of the act of murder. In your and my language we use the word murder to denote what was semantically represented by the word kill years back. It used to denote the state of non-justification, it does not now in our culture...in versions translated for our Lg. group the word murder is used. Gotta say other than this reply the others have been bang on. Be blessed'n'Pray ceaselessly!
@finalfantasiest1234 that phrase is only included in texts where the intended audience understood a semantic representation of the act of murder. In your and my language we use the word murder to denote what was semantically represented by the word kill years back. It used to denote the state of non-justification, it does not now in our culture...in versions translated for our Lg. group the word murder is used. Be honest and seek truth. Read the bible thru'n' ask God to reveal himself. Dare you.
@finalfantasiest1234 >>and allow the planting of evidence that would make us doubt him in every way?
--Doubting? Do you really think your body mechanism and DNA code complexity is doubting? Is like you telling me that throwing ink in the air can make a dictionary! Don't you know that matter in & of itself doesn't know anything about adaptation? How can you speak about DNA code and ignore the word code? There is no way evolution can explain sperm adaptation in a ovum from 2 independent organisms
@HushAndLearn Honestly, have you touched an evolutionary text? Does a good 2.5 BILLION years mean anything to develop complexity? And by "planting evidence" I meant dinosaur fossils and thousands of transition fossils. As for matter adaption, there is a theory that actually is descriptive of abiogenesis "watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg". The only thing that says one thing can spontaneously come out of another are religious texts (Bible: man from dirt, woman from rib?) and what is this "word code" you say?
Not a scientific theory? Evolution is just a personal belief? Honestly, I am not going to debate this. You creationists claim that evolution is invalid yet can agree to the world rotating around the sun, even though your Bible claims that the Earth is fixed. You honestly do not know evolution if you think that it has anything to do with the origin of life. In fact, you have not even spent 10 seconds to study it. Google evolution: you'll find it means DIVERSITY of life.
For damn sake, evolution has nothing, and I emphasize this, NOTHING to do with "intelligent particles". Do you say that Einstein's gravitational theory is incorrect because it does not describe the origin of gravity? Honestly, theories describe SPECIFIC laws. Evolution describes how life becomes diverse.
@finalfantasiest1234 >>For damn sake, evolution has nothing, and I emphasize this, NOTHING to do with "intelligent particles"
--That's why then you shouldn't debate it, because evolution jumped the food to eat the desert first avoiding the REAL question.
>>Honestly, theories describe SPECIFIC laws
--Yes, laws that you can test, observe, repeat and demonstrate the ENTIRE event, not just by looking the end and assume the beginning yourself, in that case I need no help.
@HushAndLearn "evolution jumped the food to eat the desert first avoiding the REAL question."
This is intellectually dishonest and asanine. You are basicly saying that Newton and Einstein couldn't have studied gravity because they can't explain how it originates. However, Einstein still delivered a very accurate theory explaining how it works.
That's exactly what evolution does: explain how life works. Not how it came into existance.
@ScientificBob >>This is intellectually dishonest and asanine. You are basicly saying that Newton and Einstein couldn't have studied gravity because they can't explain how it originates
--Typical straw man, what it means is that you don't know everything to make such absolute rejection towards God. But yet you are making such absolutes rejection.
>>However, Einstein still delivered a very accurate theory explaining how it works.
--And yet, he never reject the existence of God such as you do.
@ScientificBob >>That's exactly what evolution does: explain how life works. Not how it came into existance
--You can't get any with evolution, evolution doesn't explain how life works nor it can explain its origin, what a rubbish subject, you can't get any but they can get the money from our pockets.
@HushAndLearn "not just by looking the end and assume the beginning yourself"
The only thing assumed by evolution theory is that life exists. Looking around, I'ld say that's a pretty safe assumption.
It doesn't matter to the theory HOW it came to exist. Wheter it was god, abiogenesis, aliens or a unicorn farting it unto the planet... Once it was here, it started to evolve.
@ScientificBob >>The only thing assumed by evolution theory is that life exists. Looking around, I'ld say that's a pretty safe assumption.
--A pretty safe assumption as the existence of God, since matter behaviors can't do anything on its own. Pretty foolish to see a PC and assume it came from nothingness or by its own. Life as a PC are made of matter and yet, you believe one ans reject the other.
>>Once it was here, it started to evolve.
--But not as evolutionism imply at such large scale.
@HushAndLearn "It is fix base on rotation" Actually, it's not.
" and translation." I'm sorry, what?
"you can't even explain how testicles wirelessly adapt to the ovum" There are several hypotheses. Nobody claims to have all the answers to everything (except every religion, off course). This is why we still train scientists... to find out more. We're not gonna learn it from reading a 2000 year old book.
@HushAndLearn "That doesn't explain anything about how particles have intelligence to adapt themselves" They don't. No intelligence is required. That's the thing. Get it into your brick head.
Mutations happen. Most go unnoticed since they are neutral or they simply don't change the workings of the material. Some are bad - these genes will not spread. The beneficial ones have a good chance of fixation, through the filter of natural selection. No intelligence needed.
@ScientificBob >>They don't. No intelligence is required. That's the thing. Get it into your brick head.
--Lol, if they have no intelligence they can't adapt, fyi. Is like trying ink to understand what a letter is for then to make a word, impossible, you must need a mind for that.
>>The beneficial ones have a good chance of fixation, through the filter of natural selection. No intelligence needed.
--Wrong, good or bad mutations always goes back to what originally was meant to be
@HushAndLearn "I am surprise that many those who claim to know it, doesn't really know it well." Haha. Says the man who thinks throwing ink into the air to create a dictionary is a good analogy to evolutionary mechanisms...
"not scientific theory" Denying it doesn't make it go away.
"they can't prove if they have offspring to begin with." Wauw. Fossils are remnants of individuals who were part of a POPULATION. A species. And you claim to understand evolution? Really?
@finalfantasiest1234 >>there is a theory that actually is descriptive of abiogenesis
--Completely inadequate. That doesn't explain how particles itself can understand adaptation. Same as how testicles wirelessly adapt to the ovum (yes, I meat wirelessly as sarcasm).
>>The only thing that says one thing can spontaneously come out of another are religious texts
--At least by eye witnesses, common sense and reason, something evolution doesn't have.
@finalfantasiest1234 >>(Bible: man from dirt, woman from rib?) and what is this "word code" you say?
--If a human becomes dirt after death, then I see we do from dirt. But not because dirt have intelligence, but because there was a mind behind. In the other hand you believe we came from a rock in and of itself, now how is that logical? A PC can't create itself before the PC came to exist, it must be something superior to the computer in order to create the computer.
@HushAndLearn "the other hand you believe we came from a rock " False.
"A PC can't create itself before the PC came to exist" Which is completely irrelavent because a PC is not made of organic material that is subject to laws and processes of bio-chemistry.
--Truth, if you don't believe in God, then you believe it came to be by itself from nothingness, like saying you can give birth yourself before you even born.
>>Which is completely irrelavent because a PC is not made of organic material that is subject to laws and processes of bio-chemistry.
--But is made of matter, a PC, watch, human body are made of matter regardless it function, is made of matter. Matter that in and of itself doesn't understand about adaptation
--Truth, if you don't believe in God, then you believe it came to be by itself from nothingness, like saying you can give birth yourself before you even born.
>>Which is completely irrelavent because a PC is not made of organic material that is subject to laws and processes of bio-chemistry.
--But is made of matter, a PC, watch, human body are made of matter regardless it function, is made of matter. Matter that in and of itself doesn't understand about adaptation
@HushAndLearn "Do you really think your body mechanism and DNA code complexity is doubting? Is like you telling me that throwing ink in the air can make a dictionary! " No, it's not. And only a mind that is completely oblivious to biology could produce such a dumbass sentence.
"How can you speak about DNA code and ignore the word code" Nobody does. The problem is that you don't understand the word 'code'. And I know it'll be futile to try and explain it to you.
@ScientificBob >>No, it's not. And only a mind that is completely oblivious to biology could produce such a dumbass sentence
--And someone else to not understand it.
>>Nobody does. The problem is that you don't understand the word 'code'. And I know it'll be futile to try and explain it to you.
--Everyone does, the difference is that you are too sadly blind to understand my sentence. Matter in and of itself does NOT know what is adaptable and what is not by its own, you MUST need a mind.
Yes, so how is that relevant to the inferiority of women and the jealousy of other gods (honestly, he couldn't have just stopped Muhammad from existing with his omnipotence? Look at all the people he killed in Numbers. One man was too much?) How is it relevant to the 1900+ years of cruel treatment of blacks? If god did not want this separation, he sure made it as vague as possible so that no one would realize "equality".
@finalfantasiest1234 >>so how is that relevant to the inferiority of women and the jealousy of other gods
--By the fact that we r physiologically different & by the fact that is Christ we are all one
>>he couldn't have just stopped Muhammad from existing with his omnipotence? Look at all the people he killed in Numbers.
--Muhammad never spoke to Allah, just with an angel; which the Bible already state in [2 Corinthians 11:14]: For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light
So, Satan is just as bright as God. That is what I hear when you state that. Remember, your god killed thousands in the book of Numbers. Your God should have eradicated such a group for insolence and heresy. And by omniscience, he should have recognized that people would follow a faith that would parallel his.
--I doesn't say he is, it is said he still pretend to be one.
>>Remember, ur god killed thousands in the book of Numbers
--Because that town killed thousands of Israels in the first place. That's why God allow Moses to revenge them. God doesn't punish out of the air if there is not a reason
>>ur God should have eradicated such a group for insolence and heresy
If somebody holds a gun to your head and makes you choose between kissing his feet or refusing to do so, while refusal will result in a bullet through your brain... then you don't really have a choice.
That is what you are calling "free will"? Only instead of a quick death by a bullet, your mythology teaches an eternity of torture.
To call that "free will" is an insult to humanity.
@ScientificBob >>If somebody holds a gun to your head and makes you choose between kissing his feet or refusing to do so, while refusal will result in a bullet through your brain... then you don't really have a choice.
--Wrong, I still do have a choice to kiss it or die, still a choice. Like a self suicide.
>>Only instead of a quick death by a bullet, your mythology teaches an eternity of torture
--By the rejection of the only source of life, yes.
@HushAndLearn "But still a self choice" When you are offered 2 options, one of which leads to certain death, then it really isn't a choice at all. But blackmail. Blackmail is not "choice".
"Is that going to be worthy" I guess you meant 'worth it'. No, probably not. You are a classic example of someone who is so indoctrinated in religion that you have effectively placed you brain in hibernation mode. But i'll do it, just for the fun of arguing and just MAYBE I'll get you to wake up.
@ScientificBob >>When you are offered 2 options, one of which leads to certain death, then it really isn't a choice at all. But blackmail. Blackmail is not "choice".
--It is, because even if they destroy my body, they can't destroy my soul (which that is the real me). The body will still getting destroy
@HushAndLearn "It is, because even if they destroy my body, they can't destroy my soul "
That's assuming you have a "soul", off course. The rational folks among us would prefer to live though.
Again, blackmail is blackmail. It's not a "choice". It's... blackmail. The word exists for a reason.
Sure, you can still "choose" to die. But if that is your idea of "free will", then you are even deeper engulfed in this backwards bronze age mentality then I thought. Which is sad.
@HushAndLearn "--You care more for temporal treasures" So... life. Right.
"A much better one than from atheism perspective and that is creation proves a creator, not nothingness"
That doesn't answer my question. It's off-topic gibberish. The question was, do you have a -rational- reason to believe that there is another life after this one?
>>That doesn't answer my question. It's off-topic gibberish
--It did answer your question. How then explain life in a logical congruently way? The first cause to cause intelligence to exist, must be because it must be an intelligent mind behind it in the first place.
For which there is no evidence. Point remains. I care about keeping people alive on this planet. You... not really.
"The first cause ..." Blablabla. Off-topic gibberish. We are not talking about fallacious first cause arguments. I'm asking you what your evidence is that when people die, something 'lives' on?
@HushAndLearn "like believing that everything came from nothingness" Isn't that what you believe? I sure as hell don't anyway.
"Even worse, you still don't know and will die uncertain"
There will be a lot of things I won't know when I die. And the same goes for you and every human that ever lived and ever will live. I don't see why that is a problem.
@ScientificBob >>Isn't that what you believe? I sure as hell don't anyway.
--I believe in God, you don't. So that leaves you in the answer of the nothingness did all these
>>There will be a lot of things I won't know when I die. And the same goes for you and every human that ever lived and ever will live. I don't see why that is a problem.
--A big one for you, because you reject the only source of life, that which you do as if you do know the absolutes, don't reject something you don't know.
@HushAndLearn "I believe in God" Yes, but don't you necessarily need to believe that god created everything from 'nothing'?
"So that leaves you in the answer of the nothingness did all these" Not really. The way I see it, the universe has always existed and the state of "nothing" doesn't exist.
"A big one for you, because you reject the only source of life" No, I reject unsupported claims about the "source of life" - whatever it is that you mean by that.
@ScientificBob >>Yes, but don't you necessarily need to believe that god created everything from 'nothing'?
--I am not here to explain how He did it, but to prove it MUST require intelligence to create intelligence in the first place. And you can't run away from that fact
>>Not really. The way I see it, the universe has always existed and the state of "nothing" doesn't exist.
--Wrong sentence, that is not possible even scientifically. Otherwise they wouldn't expend all that money on the LHC
@HushAndLearn "I am not here to explain how He did it" Then how can you know that he did it?
"to prove it MUST require intelligence " Well, you lost in advance on that point. I'm a software engineer. I work on an optimisation project. Several algoritms are employed. One of them being genetic algoritms. I know for a fact great solutions for problems can be obtained through blind processes.
Space and time came into being simultanously with the big bang. The universe IS the space-time continuum. Hence, the universe has -always- existed. Or in other words, at any given moment in TIME, the universe was here. There is no 'before' the universe, just like there is no 'north' of the north-pole. Hence, my statement is correct. The universe has always been here.
@ScientificBob >>The universe IS the space-time continuum. Hence, the universe has -always- existed
--Otherwise they wouldn't build the LHC because they want to replicate the big bang. Each and most scientist know the universe can't be eternal because none of its content can be.
>>Or in other words, at any given moment in TIME, the universe was here
--Actually is at none given time
>>There is no 'before' the universe
--Then talk to the scientists who believe it came out of nothing
@ScientificBob >>Yes, but don't you necessarily need to believe that god created everything from 'nothing'?
--I am not here to explain how He did it, but to prove it MUST require intelligence to create intelligence in the first place. And you can't run away from that fact
>>Not really. The way I see it, the universe has always existed and the state of "nothing" doesn't exist.
--Wrong sentence, that is not possible even scientifically. Otherwise they wouldn't expend all that money on the LHC
@ScientificBob >>u r a classic example of someone who is so indoctrinated in religion that you have effectively placed u brain in hibernation mode
--Actually not, I became Christian when I start asking the questions. Not like those who believe that life came from a rock or out of nothingness. Even worse for those who still don't know and make absolutes rejections towards God
>>But i'll do it, just for the fun of arguing and just MAYBE I'll get you to wake up
@HushAndLearn "Not like those who believe that life came from a rock or out of nothingness." Who are you speaking of? I am unaware of anyone who believes that.
"I became Christian when I start asking the questions" Could you perhaps share some of those questions with the answers you found as well as how you reached those answers? I'm genuinly interested in that.
"Or I may b the one who wake u up" Perhaps. But you're gonna have to reply first. You are welcome to do so.
@ScientificBob >>Could you perhaps share some of those questions with the answers you found as well as how you reached those answers? I'm genuinly interested in that.
--A human body is far more complex than any other thing that any human being has been able to create. It is scientifically well know that every time you see a functional pattern, is because it must have a mind behind. [Romans 1:20], so that they are without excuse
@HushAndLearn "It is scientifically well know that every time you see a functional pattern, is because it must have a mind behind"
How is that 'scientifically known'?
I happen to know for a fact that this is incorrect, but I'm interested why you think that this is 'scientifically known'.
And off course, we have a perfectly reasonable and well fitting natural explanation for the complexity of life. I'm sure you are aware of that. So what's wrong with that explanation?
@HushAndLearn "Tell me any scientific evidence that creates a functional pattern without intelligence involve"
Genetic Algoritms. See boxcar2d(dot)com for a great (yet simple) example. Genetic algoritms are based on the natural process of evolution: mutate, survive, breed.
And you again avoid answering the question. You made a claim: science proves X. I asked you: how does science prove this?
--Actually it is not, you all are trying to go as complex as possible to get into the ignorance of it and to assume it does it itself. Particles don't and CAN'T understand what is adaptable and what is not WITHOUT intelligence in the first place. Ignorance doesn't prove things scientifically.
>>You made a claim: science proves X. I asked you: how does science prove this?
--You can prove scientifically that PC are made from intelligence in the first place.
@HushAndLearn "Ignorance doesn't prove things scientifically." How ironic.
You clearly have no idea of what a genetic algoritm is.
"Particles don't and CAN'T understand what is adaptable and what is not " The whole point of the algoritm is that they don't have to, Einstein.
"You can prove scientifically that PC are made from intelligence " Correct, we can visit the pc factory. But I don't see how that is relevant to my question. I didn't ask about pc's, I asked about life.
>>You clearly have no idea of what a genetic algoritm is
--I do
>>The whole point of the algoritm is that they don't have to, Einstein.
--They do, you think they don't (which is different). You take something for absolute when science is not. You can't throw letters in the air and pretend they will adapt! Because if by any chance they form a word they have no reason to be adapted when throwing them again.
These are artificial objects. I don't see how these are relevant. We aren't talking about things that were made by humans. We are talking about things NOT made by humans.
@HushAndLearn "It doesn't matter, they still made of matter as we are" Ow, it doesn't matter? Hahaha. That's like saying that we can study the engine of a BMW to find a cure for cancer. It's all 'made of matter' right?
"Matter and particles are relevant" Different molecules behave differently, Einstein.
"Matter can't understand a thing about adaptation." Who is claiming that it should?
@ScientificBob >>If you mention "pc" as an analogy to argue against evolution, you fail miserably
--I think is backward because you fail to understand my materialistic point in the first place. It doesn't matter, everything in this universe is made of matter. Organic or inorganic in IS matter.
>>PC's aren't subject to processes of bio-chemistry
--But is made of matter as we are. Just are folly calling bio-chemistry something is ALSO made of matter too. Try to grasp my point more carefully!
@HushAndLearn "you fail to understand my materialistic point " Your point is ridiculous. You imply that all matter behaves the same at all times. You completely ignore that different atoms/molecules have different properties that cause different behaviours. You completely deny/ignore the field of chemistry. You are basicly saying that all of chemistry, biology and physics is completely wrong. It's completely asanine.
--Begin with empirical science. Not by assumptions.
>>You mean aside from the hundreds of thousands of fossils, NONE of which is in contradiction with evolution theory?
--Fossils prove the flood in the first place because fossil preservation is not easy at all. All you are doing is seeing something and assume another. All fossils prove is that they are death, you can't prove if they had any offspring. So there.
@HushAndLearn "Begin with empirical science" Fossil record, phylogenetic tree, observed speciation, comparative dna, genetic algoritms. I even gave you a website where you can see the algoritm in action. How much more empirical can it get?
Let's try this differently... What kind of evidence would satisfy you?
--Fossil record doesn't prove they had offspring nor who is it in the collection of them (assumptions r not facts), phylogenetic tree equal your personal beliefs on the evolutionary fantasy, comparative dna make us capable to survive in this life otherwise we wouldn't drink water & eat plants if we have no relationship with God's creation, speciation is the limit within the taxonomy family
--Fossil record doesn't prove they had offspring nor who is it in the collection of them (assumptions r not facts), phylogenetic tree equal your personal beliefs on the evolutionary fantasy, comparative dna make us capable to survive in this life otherwise we wouldn't drink water & eat plants if we have no relationship with God's creation, speciation is the limit within the taxonomy family
@ScientificBob >>I even gave you a website where you can see the algoritm in action. How much more empirical can it get?
--You must be kidding, assumptions are not empirical at all.
>>Let's try this differently... What kind of evidence would satisfy you?
--EMPIRICAL! Accelerate the process of evo in the lav and demonstrate that a kingdom can be produce gradually or rapidly another animal that is consider to be completely another taxonomy kingdom. Don't give me personal assumptions.
@HushAndLearn "Fossils prove the flood " Que? Are you serious? This is getting very very ridiculous.
"All fossils prove is that they are death" No. What fossils prove is that life started out simple and grew more diverse and complex over time. If fossils proved the flood, then we would find mammals over the entire geological column, but we don't. We would find humans everywhere, but we don't. It would be only one geological flood layer, but it isn't.
@ScientificBob >>Que? Are you serious? This is getting very very ridiculous.
--I feel sorry for you is ridiculous with such logic. Fossils doesn't preserve that easy, you need rapid burial to preserve them in the first place and we do have million of them.
>>What fossils prove is that life started out simple and grew more diverse and complex over time
--Wrong, you can't even prove they had any offspring in the first place, much less who is it. So that's a fail.
@ScientificBob >>If fossils proved the flood, then we would find mammals over the entire geological column, but we don't.
--Because the geologic column doesn't exist anywhere in the world but only in text books, you'll find all sorts of results in different places
>>We would find humans everywhere, but we don't
--If they don't want to admit that Neanderthals were humans, is not my fault. The Bible mention people that lived over 900 years, meaning different DNA structure.
@HushAndLearn "you can't prove if they had any offspring" Complete fail. Fossils are remnants of individuals. Individuals that belonged to a species. It's a sample of a population. A fossil is a representative of the population of that species at that particular time in that location. Wheter or not that particular creature produced off spring is 100% irrelavent. And the fact that you mention that proves how little you really know about the stuff you are arguing against. Have some dignity
@HushAndLearn "For you is all relative, so that which is good/bad for you, might be bad/good for others, is all relative according to you." No, that's a strawman argument that you Christians just wont stop using. We have evolved to the point where we are civilized enough to develop a code of ethics without consulting a deity. Basically, most atheist hold to: do whatever you want as long as you don't hurt anyone else. And love as much as you can. My ethical code is far superior to you god's.
txfreethinker 23 hours ago
@txfreethinker >>No, that's a strawman argument that you Christians just wont stop using
--Because is a fact, not straw man involve
>>We have evolved to the point where we are civilized enough to develop a code of ethics without consulting a deity
--I wonder why some people are Republicans and others are Democrats. Some support abortions & others don't. No such thing as civilization involve yet into what you call "ethics"
>>do whatever you want as long as you don't hurt anyone
--Abortion?
HushAndLearn 22 hours ago
@txfreethinker >>My ethical code is far superior to you god's.
--No wonder why Irreligion has killed more people than any other religion in the world o.0
HushAndLearn 22 hours ago
@HushAndLearn So, it basically sounds like OT Israel had a blood-thirsty tyrant who resorted to violence and even genocide, instead of persuasion, to get his point of view across! "Kill the men, women, children AND the babies! And kidnap the virgins to be your wives!" My neighbor has more goodwill than that! Does this god even know the meaning of goodwill??
txfreethinker 23 hours ago
@txfreethinker >>it basically sounds like OT Israel had a blood-thirsty tyrant who resorted to violence and even genocide
--Eye for an eye. The problem is not genocide, the problem is killing one illegitimately.
>>instead of persuasion, to get his point of view across
--They were warned
>>Kill the men, women, children AND the babies
--Aren't you going to die one day too? The problem is not death, is where we are going afterwards
>>My neighbor has more goodwill than that!
--Relativism ;-)
HushAndLearn 23 hours ago
@HushAndLearn So, those women deserved to be slaughtered?? That's pretty evil. You would think an omniscient god would be able to move upon those evil women's hearts and reform them instead of just killing them. Even today, there are people like me who are much more humane than the OT god. Let me ask you something: Say one of your children became an atheist and started leading Christians towards atheism. Then god commanded you to kill him/her, would you do it?
txfreethinker 1 day ago
@txfreethinker >>those women deserved to be slaughtered?? That's pretty evil
--You kill others, expect to be killed. If for you that is evil, then I don't know from where you get those morality to discern it is evil, remember? Is all relative according to you.
>>You would think an omniscient god would be able to move upon those evil women's hearts and reform them instead of just killing them
--God warn you, not force you; if He force then there is no such thing as freewill nor love.
HushAndLearn 23 hours ago
@txfreethinker >>people like me who are more humane than the OT god
--For you is all relative, so that which is good/bad for you, might be bad/good for others, is all relative according to you. So don't complaint since there is not such thing as evil
>>one of your children became an atheist & started leading Christians towards atheism
--I'll warn him; but not force him. According to the new covenant, God already told us not to kill, so He shouldn't tell me to kill anyone, God will take care
HushAndLearn 23 hours ago
@HushAndLearn ">>Nor can it explain why God clearly commands that children be killed, victims marry their rapists, and non-believers be killed
--In the same passages will tell you why."
There is no justification for any of those things. Your god is evil--just admit it.
txfreethinker 1 day ago
@txfreethinker >>There is no justification for any of those things. Your god is evil--just admit it.
--Of course there is justification, because those women caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to trespass against the Lord in the incident of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord.
Killing the spirit is worst than killing the flesh, so those woman were killing the spirit of Israel & they have to die according to the law eye for an eye in OT.
HushAndLearn 1 day ago
@zachahary25 Wrong. We observe evolution all the time...micro-evolution. And if micro-evolution takes place over a long period of time, it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that macro-evolution takes place as well.
txfreethinker 1 day ago
Ravi Zacharias is making a leap in logic. Just because there is good and evil (a "law") doesn't necessarily mean the law-giver is "god."
txfreethinker 1 day ago
There are religions/belief systems that predate Christianity, Islam, Hinduism or Judaism; whose beliefs included morals. If morals MUST come from a moral law giver, common sense dictates that moral law for these early religions must have come from the moral law giver; God. If you agree with the moral law giver argument, you admit that the first religions were given morals directly from the first moral law giver, and that all other religions after that, by exclusion, must be false.
jdd94 2 months ago
@jdd94 -Many people claim many things, so how do you know if those claims are truth or not? The answer is the origin or source of that specific world view.
Islam came from a single person who never did miracles and never spoke to God, Hinduism doesn't have a founder and an irrational god with a very vague idea of it that even Buddha left that religion. Buddha is an agnostic/atheistic religion. Only in Christianity have the most logical solid foundation across centuries form eye witness accounts
HushAndLearn 2 months ago
@HushAndLearn First of all in the Qu'ran Mohammed was visited by the Angel Gabriel, throughout his life, and was taken to the Holy Land by the angel. You might think that never really happened, but only because your a Christian. Atheists have the same opinion of Christianity. And are you saying that since Buddhism is agnostic/atheistic, that it isn't logical? I don't think Christianity is very logical, the crusades, former popes, condoning slavery, killing of sinners...Thou Shalt Not Kill?
jdd94 2 months ago
@jdd94 >>First of all in the Qu'ran Mohammed was visited by the Angel Gabriel
--As the Bible warn us that the devil make himself looks as an angel of light
>>You might think that never really happened, but only because your a Christian
--No, Christianity is not base on one person nor in one culture as the Qur'an is. The Bible comes from over 40 different authors, over 66 books from over 1500 years from direct eye witness accounts.
HushAndLearn 2 months ago
@jdd94 >>Atheists have the same opinion of Christianity
--Atheism doesn't have problems with religions only, but with history too. The Bible is the best well supported document from any other one. Atheism rejects absolute while deny God absolutely which is a self contradictory statement.
>>And are you saying that since Buddhism is agnostic/atheistic, that it isn't logical?
--Life is prove of a Creator, not the nothingness. Little particles of matter don't know what is adaptable & what is not.
HushAndLearn 2 months ago
@jdd94 >>I don't think Christianity is very logical, the crusades, former popes, condoning slavery, killing of sinners...Thou Shalt Not Kill?
--Christians are not the ones who claim to be without faith. Christians are the ones who take Jesus as our mentor and follow his teachings as much as possible. If you are against slavery then you are against prisoners who are private of their freedom as will. Slaves comes from people who commit willingly evil deeds & God just regulate it, not condone it.
HushAndLearn 2 months ago
@HushAndLearn I'm not trying to insult your beliefs, my point was that Christianity is not the first religion, nor the last. Christian apologetics try to argue for the mere existence of a God, but even those claims can't be proven, or disproven. Agnosticists/atheists refuse to believe in a God without proof of one. Refusing to believe 2000 year old myths, they trust in the scientific method to help uncover the origins of life. Some of our science might eventually be myth, but it's a start.
jdd94 2 months ago
@jdd94 >>my point was that Christianity is not the first religion, nor the last
--Is not about who is the first one or which one is the last one, is about reasoning and logic that if God exist, He must be able to preserve His word and reveal Himself to His own creation. Miracles comes form God and liars don't and Jesus did prove to be who He claim to be, which is something that nor Muhammad nor Joseph Smith had that privilege for the way it is claim to be the event.
HushAndLearn 2 months ago
@jdd94 >>atheists refuse to believe in a God without proof of one
--Life is proof of God. Again, evolution can't explain how does the testicles wirelessly or magically adapt to the ovum since male and female are two independent organisms. Nor evolution can explain how the ovum exclusively adapted to man and not any other living organism; it is because it compels a Creator
>>Some of our science might eventually be myth, but it's a start
--Science will never prove primordial slime to begin with
HushAndLearn 2 months ago
@HushAndLearn Your right, evolution doesn't explain how things "magically or exclusively adapt"; because in the real world, we don't use magic or superstition to explain things. Religion cannot explain why God gave humans, "dominion over all animals", yet created animals like lions, tigers, spiders and scorpions all of which can kill you in 15 minutes or less. Nor can it explain why God clearly commands that children be killed, victims marry their rapists, and non-believers be killed.
jdd94 2 months ago
@jdd94 >>Religion cannot explain why God gave humans, "dominion over all animals"
--Because we are created in the image of God
>>yet created animals like lions, tigers, spiders and scorpions all of which can kill you in 15 minutes or less
--Not all lions ate meet, they just get adapted to eat it. Eg. Google the lion that wouldn't eat meat. Also plague came as for result of sin (Read Torah for references)
HushAndLearn 1 month ago
@HushAndLearn God gave us the ability to think outside our instinct. there isn't any real argument here. you can kill a lion just as fast as it can kill you. so i agree
zachahary25 1 week ago
@jdd94 >>Nor can it explain why God clearly commands that children be killed, victims marry their rapists, and non-believers be killed
--In the same passages will tell you why. For example in [Numbers 31:15-16] it tells you why in there as for one example. And so on for the specific passages you are making reference. Just remember that the Torah is the righteous law eye for and eye, and reminded us that sin have a price to pay; that's why we need a Savior to release us from sin.
Kind regards.
HushAndLearn 1 month ago
@jdd94 God gave you a mind. did you watch this at all or are you just a troll? evolution can't be observed. end of story. that's a fact.
zachahary25 1 week ago
@LEilllLEi -What he mean is that computers doesn't spell pain with the moral ramifications that we have. Computers doesn't have feelings nor it can be programmed. You can't fall in love with a robot by the fact that robots doesn't have freewill. Morality is something that can't be just program as computers are. Morality is always raise by a person intrinsic to that question. What this proves is that morality must be transcendent, morality is something that matter can't afford in and of itself.
HushAndLearn 5 months ago
@LEilllLEi -What he mean is that computers doesn't spell pain with the moral ramifications that we have. Computers doesn't have feelings nor it can be programmed. You can't fall in love with a robot for the fact that robots doesn't have freewill
Morality is something that can't be just program as computers are. Morality is always raise by a person intrinsic to that question. What this proves is that morality must be transcendent, morality is something that matter can't afford in and of itself
HushAndLearn 5 months ago
What nonsense... All these theists with their bullshit morality argument make the exact same mistake. They use the words "good" and "evil" as if they are nouns instead of adjectives. This is completely wrong. You need 2 things: a human to perform an act and a human to evaluate the act as being good or evil. We don't call it "evil" when a lion kills a young deer. We call it "nature". Without humans, the labels "good" and "evil" are meaningless. Thus refuting the "moral law giver" bullshit.
ScientificBob 6 months ago
@ScientificBob >>This is completely wrong. You need 2 things: a human to perform an act and a human to evaluate the act as being good or evil
--So don't complaint for what Hitler did, even if your love one was one of the victims, because is all relative to you (nature according to you).
>>Without humans, the labels "good" and "evil" are meaningless
--That's what he is talking about, because we have transcendent values. Values that a computer can't get.
HushAndLearn 5 months ago
The question of evil...... WTF?
''There is no good or evil, only Power.''
Starwars.
gregrutz 6 months ago
@gregrutz >>''There is no good or evil, only Power.'' Starwars
--Then don't complaint if someone killed your love one. Since for you is all relative. o.0
HushAndLearn 6 months ago
Okay. Well I cannot continue debating at the moment. Thank you for the interesting debate, Cheers- FF1234
finalfantasiest1234 6 months ago
watch this YouTube ( Where are YOU Going to after death?! )
(See why corruption Aslam Yusuf Estes )
(See why Aslam Abdul Raheem assigned )
(Jesus Christ in Islam)
(why she became muslim)
(Christian Professor converts to Islam )
(European Scientist converts to Islam)
(A Compilation of Converts to Islam )
(Anatomy : Scientist converted to islam after reading Quran)
(compilation of converts to islam New Muslims from different places)
MRafh979 6 months ago
@MRafh979 --Many convert to Islam for ignorance & others for being threat (Qur'an 9:5). Muhammad never spoke to Allah nor he did miracles (Qur'an 29:50).
I mean, why then Muhammad was a prophet? Because the Qur'an said so? & why the Qur'an said so? Because Muhammad Said so! This is circular reasoning.
Several Hadith speak about the relationship of Muhammad & Aisha! How can that be a prophet?
Qur'an is a book of one (Muhammad). The Bible a book of several ones that speak about the same Truth.
HushAndLearn 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
watch this YouTube ( Where are YOU Going to after death?! )
(See why corruption Aslam Yusuf Estes )
(See why Aslam Abdul Raheem assigned )
(Jesus Christ in Islam)
(why she became muslim)
(Christian Professor converts to Islam )
(European Scientist converts to Islam)
(A Compilation of Converts to Islam )
(Anatomy : Scientist converted to islam after reading Quran)
(compilation of converts to islam New Muslims from different places)
MRafh979 6 months ago
I have a question for you. Does it seem appropriate to only do moral deeds because of a fear of God? I mean, does it seem impossible to do moral actions because of the act of doing good? Take a look at the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, by Immanuel Kant: he states that you should do acts for the sake of the act, e.g. going to Africa and helping with AIDS not because of heaven, but because you find it in yourself that it is virtuous. Is that impossible by an Atheist?
finalfantasiest1234 6 months ago
@finalfantasiest1234 >>Does it seem appropriate to only do moral deeds because of a fear of God?
--Is not because of fear, is because of truth. Think about that, look how the world is going down on many ethical, moral, emotional issues, etc. That is because most people ignore God's word. There is not such thing as good against God's commandments.
>>I mean, does it seem impossible to do moral actions because of the act of doing good?
--Good according to who? Islam think they are doing good!
HushAndLearn 6 months ago
@finalfantasiest1234 >>Take a look at the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals: he states that you should do acts for the sake of the act, e.g. going to Africa and helping with AIDS not because of heaven, but because you find it in yourself that it is virtuous. Is that impossible by an Atheist?
--Hitler thought he was doing good, now debate that with him (if he was alive) or with people that still support him. For atheist is all relative, is just your opinion against others.
Regards.
HushAndLearn 6 months ago
Comment removed
finalfantasiest1234 6 months ago
Has it never dawned upon Ravi, that the moral law giver is us, and we give ourselves the Social Contract so that people do not kill each other, and lie, and steal? Honestly, if the bible is an absolute, why do we not commit to misogyny, or the killing of sons or daughters if they talk back?
finalfantasiest1234 6 months ago
@finalfantasiest1234 >> Honestly, if the bible is an absolute, why do we not commit to misogyny, or the killing of sons or daughters if they talk back?
--Because you as many other atheist get stuck in the old testament (the law) and always forget about Jesus Christ (the Grace). We all are sinner and that screw us all up in front of the perfect and righteous God (the law) and through Jesus Christ we get something we don't deserve (the grace). We are Christians by following Jesus teachings.
HushAndLearn 6 months ago
@HushAndLearn Actually, the New Testament says that the Old Testament is still valid:
Matthew 5:17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
God and Jesus allowed slavery, misogyny, and discrimination: pick up a history book. We should live in a society where the only religion allowed is Christianity (Commandment 1) and where woman are not allowed to speak (1 Corinthians 14:34) and slavery is O.K. (Philemon).
finalfantasiest1234 6 months ago
@finalfantasiest1234 >>Actually, the New Testament says that the Old Testament is still valid [Matthew 5:17]
--Precisely Jesus fulfill the law and demonstrate that by the keeping of the law no flesh can be justify. We deserve the wrath of God and not His love because our iniquity. Now we have eternal life not because of our deeds but for what Jesus did
>>God and Jesus allowed slavery, misogyny, and discrimination
--Wrong, God punish accordingly to our deeds. God doesn't condemn out of the air
HushAndLearn 6 months ago
@finalfantasiest1234 >> We should live in a society where the only religion allowed is Christianity (Commandment 1)
--Is not forced to believe, is just warned, otherwise is in violation of love through freewill. All this goodness comes from above, you don't want to be with Him then you can't have any goodness. All goodness comes from one, and that one is God
>>where woman r not allowed to speak 1 Corinthians 14:34
--Yes, but in Jesus there is no male no female, we all one (Galatians 3:28)
HushAndLearn 6 months ago
@HushAndLearn
"It's in violation of love through freewill." How is following an almost dictatorial, ancient religious text "freewill"? If he loves us so much, why make a book filled with flaws and contradictions, and allow the planting of evidence that would make us doubt him in every way? Do I deserve hell just because I don't believe: the "all-loving" God wants that? Hell≠freewill
Galatians 3:28 is, within the context, saying that everyone is a child of God: not that they are equal in any way.
finalfantasiest1234 6 months ago
@finalfantasiest1234 >>How is following an almost dictatorial, ancient religious text "freewill"?
--All the goodness come from above. How can you proclaim love & life, if God Himself is love, light & life. All matter and laws that exits in this universe are dependable on Him. God will not force you to love Him and if you don't want to be with Him, then how can you keep getting God's attributes? Heaven is a place prepare for us, but no if you don't want to keep any relationship with Him.
HushAndLearn 6 months ago
@finalfantasiest1234 >>If he loves us so much, why make a book filled with flaws and contradictions
--Why laws? If you want everything to be relative, just look at the world, is going down precisely because people want to do whatever they want to do. For us to keep God's word is not for wrong but for good. How can you complaint about His word if you haven't even try to keep a relationship with Him through Jesus Christ?
Regarding contradiction, I haven't seen any. Just people misunderstandings.
HushAndLearn 6 months ago
@HushAndLearn
Yes, about relations with God.
Statistics: 75% of inmates are Christian, less than 0.1% are Atheist. (Pris. stat)
Statistics: Christians have a 27% of divorce, Atheists/Agnostic have a 21% of divorce. (by a Christian)
Statistics: Lack of religious faith has shown a strong correlation with intelligence. (meta analysis)
Contradictions: ffrf org/legacy/books/lfif/?t=contra
Oh, and by the way, most of America is Christian, your religion reign's supreme. That is 75% of America.
finalfantasiest1234 6 months ago
@finalfantasiest1234 >>Statistics: Christians have a 27% of divorce, Atheists/Agnostic have a 21% of divorce. (by a Christian)
--Is like saying, there are less airplane crashes than card ones. Well duh, there are many more cars than airplanes. As those Christians who divorce, is because one of them is in violation of God's word (plain and simple)
>>Lack of religious faith has shown a strong correlation with intelligence. (meta analysis)
--Fact, most of doctors believe in miracles
HushAndLearn 6 months ago
@HushAndLearn "Is like saying, there are less airplane crashes than card ones. Well duh, there are many more cars than airplanes"
You don't understand how statistics work, do you?
Here's what it really means: out of 100% of atheist couples, only 21% ends in divorce, while out of 100% of christian couples, 27% end in divorce. In other words, christian couples are more likely to divorce then atheist couples. Durrrrr.
ScientificBob 6 months ago
@ScientificBob >>You don't understand how statistics work, do you?
--And you forget that car accidents are base on overpopulation, terrain, tires defects over the bumps, etc. while airplanes are base just on malfunctions.
>>In other words, christian couples are more likely to divorce then atheist couples. Durrrrr.
--Because most of the population are Christians from their teeth out.
HushAndLearn 5 months ago
Comment removed
ScientificBob 6 months ago
@finalfantasiest1234 >>Contradictions: ffrf org/legacy/books/lfif/?t=contra
--From which one you want me to start?
>>Oh, and by the way, most of America is Christian, your religion reign's supreme. That is 75% of America.
--So? Not all Christians will necessarily go to heaven if they don't keep a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ [Matthew 7:21]
HushAndLearn 6 months ago
@HushAndLearn
Yes I know, only 1 out of the 30,000 denominations of Christianity should get in. Apparently God couldn't have made things a little more specific in his Bible. And I do not even get how those contradictions mean absolutely nothing. They are stated explicitly in Bible. I really hope you take a good look.
finalfantasiest1234 6 months ago
@finalfantasiest1234 >>Yes I know, only 1 out of the 30,000 denominations of Christianity should get in
--No, is not be denomination, is by relationship. Unity does not mean uniformity. Christianity is not by the denomination that you belongs to, but whether to become follower of Jesus
>>And I do not even get how those contradictions mean absolutely nothing. They are stated explicitly in Bible. I really hope you take a good look.
--I asked you from which one do you want me to start
HushAndLearn 6 months ago
@HushAndLearn How about "Thou shall not kill."
finalfantasiest1234 6 months ago
@finalfantasiest1234 >>How about "Thou shall not kill."
--Because God also state, Judge not, that you be not judged [Mat 7:1-5]. And the reason is because we don't know people's hearts, only God knows and only God can make such righteous decisions. Only base on His decision we then can, but not by ourselves.
HushAndLearn 6 months ago
@HushAndLearn that phrase is only included in texts where the intended audience understood a semantic representation of the act of murder. In your and my language we use the word murder to denote what was semantically represented by the word kill years back. It used to denote the state of non-justification, it does not now in our culture...in versions translated for our Lg. group the word murder is used. Gotta say other than this reply the others have been bang on. Be blessed'n'Pray ceaselessly!
HeyMike7 6 months ago
@finalfantasiest1234 that phrase is only included in texts where the intended audience understood a semantic representation of the act of murder. In your and my language we use the word murder to denote what was semantically represented by the word kill years back. It used to denote the state of non-justification, it does not now in our culture...in versions translated for our Lg. group the word murder is used. Be honest and seek truth. Read the bible thru'n' ask God to reveal himself. Dare you.
HeyMike7 6 months ago
@finalfantasiest1234 >>and allow the planting of evidence that would make us doubt him in every way?
--Doubting? Do you really think your body mechanism and DNA code complexity is doubting? Is like you telling me that throwing ink in the air can make a dictionary! Don't you know that matter in & of itself doesn't know anything about adaptation? How can you speak about DNA code and ignore the word code? There is no way evolution can explain sperm adaptation in a ovum from 2 independent organisms
HushAndLearn 6 months ago
@HushAndLearn Honestly, have you touched an evolutionary text? Does a good 2.5 BILLION years mean anything to develop complexity? And by "planting evidence" I meant dinosaur fossils and thousands of transition fossils. As for matter adaption, there is a theory that actually is descriptive of abiogenesis "watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg". The only thing that says one thing can spontaneously come out of another are religious texts (Bible: man from dirt, woman from rib?) and what is this "word code" you say?
finalfantasiest1234 6 months ago
@finalfantasiest1234 >>have you touched an evolutionary text?
--Yes & I am surprise that many those who claim to know it, doesn't really know it well.
>>Does a good 2.5 BILLION years mean anything to develop complexity?
--No, by the fact that that is just a personal belief, not scientific theory.
>>I meant dinosaur fossils and thousands of transition fossils
--Imagination is not a solid foundation by the fact that they can't prove if they have offspring to begin with.
HushAndLearn 6 months ago
@HushAndLearn
Not a scientific theory? Evolution is just a personal belief? Honestly, I am not going to debate this. You creationists claim that evolution is invalid yet can agree to the world rotating around the sun, even though your Bible claims that the Earth is fixed. You honestly do not know evolution if you think that it has anything to do with the origin of life. In fact, you have not even spent 10 seconds to study it. Google evolution: you'll find it means DIVERSITY of life.
finalfantasiest1234 6 months ago
@finalfantasiest1234 >>even though your Bible claims that the Earth is fixed
--It is fix base on rotation and translation.
>>You honestly do not know evolution if you think that it has anything to do with the origin of life
--It doesn't, you can't even explain how testicles wirelessly adapt to the ovum.
>>Google evolution: you'll find it means DIVERSITY of life.
--That doesn't explain anything about how particles have intelligence to adapt themselves. Nor how testicles adapt to the ovum
HushAndLearn 6 months ago
@HushAndLearn
For damn sake, evolution has nothing, and I emphasize this, NOTHING to do with "intelligent particles". Do you say that Einstein's gravitational theory is incorrect because it does not describe the origin of gravity? Honestly, theories describe SPECIFIC laws. Evolution describes how life becomes diverse.
finalfantasiest1234 6 months ago
@finalfantasiest1234 >>For damn sake, evolution has nothing, and I emphasize this, NOTHING to do with "intelligent particles"
--That's why then you shouldn't debate it, because evolution jumped the food to eat the desert first avoiding the REAL question.
>>Honestly, theories describe SPECIFIC laws
--Yes, laws that you can test, observe, repeat and demonstrate the ENTIRE event, not just by looking the end and assume the beginning yourself, in that case I need no help.
Regards
HushAndLearn 6 months ago
@HushAndLearn "evolution jumped the food to eat the desert first avoiding the REAL question."
This is intellectually dishonest and asanine. You are basicly saying that Newton and Einstein couldn't have studied gravity because they can't explain how it originates. However, Einstein still delivered a very accurate theory explaining how it works.
That's exactly what evolution does: explain how life works. Not how it came into existance.
ScientificBob 6 months ago
@ScientificBob >>This is intellectually dishonest and asanine. You are basicly saying that Newton and Einstein couldn't have studied gravity because they can't explain how it originates
--Typical straw man, what it means is that you don't know everything to make such absolute rejection towards God. But yet you are making such absolutes rejection.
>>However, Einstein still delivered a very accurate theory explaining how it works.
--And yet, he never reject the existence of God such as you do.
HushAndLearn 5 months ago
@ScientificBob >>That's exactly what evolution does: explain how life works. Not how it came into existance
--You can't get any with evolution, evolution doesn't explain how life works nor it can explain its origin, what a rubbish subject, you can't get any but they can get the money from our pockets.
HushAndLearn 5 months ago
@HushAndLearn "not just by looking the end and assume the beginning yourself"
The only thing assumed by evolution theory is that life exists. Looking around, I'ld say that's a pretty safe assumption.
It doesn't matter to the theory HOW it came to exist. Wheter it was god, abiogenesis, aliens or a unicorn farting it unto the planet... Once it was here, it started to evolve.
ScientificBob 6 months ago
@ScientificBob >>The only thing assumed by evolution theory is that life exists. Looking around, I'ld say that's a pretty safe assumption.
--A pretty safe assumption as the existence of God, since matter behaviors can't do anything on its own. Pretty foolish to see a PC and assume it came from nothingness or by its own. Life as a PC are made of matter and yet, you believe one ans reject the other.
>>Once it was here, it started to evolve.
--But not as evolutionism imply at such large scale.
HushAndLearn 5 months ago
@HushAndLearn ''how testicles adapt to the ovum''
You are not that stupid are you? I guess so !
Species evolve dummy.
gregrutz 6 months ago
@gregrutz >>You are not that stupid are you? I guess so ! Species evolve dummy.
--That's not an answer on how they adapted. Too bad you still don't get it.
HushAndLearn 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HushAndLearn "It is fix base on rotation" Actually, it's not.
" and translation." I'm sorry, what?
"you can't even explain how testicles wirelessly adapt to the ovum" There are several hypotheses. Nobody claims to have all the answers to everything (except every religion, off course). This is why we still train scientists... to find out more. We're not gonna learn it from reading a 2000 year old book.
ScientificBob 6 months ago
@HushAndLearn "That doesn't explain anything about how particles have intelligence to adapt themselves" They don't. No intelligence is required. That's the thing. Get it into your brick head.
Mutations happen. Most go unnoticed since they are neutral or they simply don't change the workings of the material. Some are bad - these genes will not spread. The beneficial ones have a good chance of fixation, through the filter of natural selection. No intelligence needed.
ScientificBob 6 months ago
@ScientificBob >>They don't. No intelligence is required. That's the thing. Get it into your brick head.
--Lol, if they have no intelligence they can't adapt, fyi. Is like trying ink to understand what a letter is for then to make a word, impossible, you must need a mind for that.
>>The beneficial ones have a good chance of fixation, through the filter of natural selection. No intelligence needed.
--Wrong, good or bad mutations always goes back to what originally was meant to be
HushAndLearn 5 months ago
@HushAndLearn "I am surprise that many those who claim to know it, doesn't really know it well." Haha. Says the man who thinks throwing ink into the air to create a dictionary is a good analogy to evolutionary mechanisms...
"not scientific theory" Denying it doesn't make it go away.
"they can't prove if they have offspring to begin with." Wauw. Fossils are remnants of individuals who were part of a POPULATION. A species. And you claim to understand evolution? Really?
ScientificBob 6 months ago
@ScientificBob >>Haha. Says the man who thinks throwing ink into the air to create a dictionary is a good analogy to evolutionary mechanisms
--And a person that doesn't understand about common sense and logic in obvious sentences.
>>Denying it doesn't make it go away
--Not it proves that it exist at large scale
>>Fossils are remnants of individuals who were part of a POPULATION. A species. And you claim to understand evolution? Really?
--Yes, because fossils only proves that is death
HushAndLearn 5 months ago
@finalfantasiest1234 >>there is a theory that actually is descriptive of abiogenesis
--Completely inadequate. That doesn't explain how particles itself can understand adaptation. Same as how testicles wirelessly adapt to the ovum (yes, I meat wirelessly as sarcasm).
>>The only thing that says one thing can spontaneously come out of another are religious texts
--At least by eye witnesses, common sense and reason, something evolution doesn't have.
HushAndLearn 6 months ago
@finalfantasiest1234 >>(Bible: man from dirt, woman from rib?) and what is this "word code" you say?
--If a human becomes dirt after death, then I see we do from dirt. But not because dirt have intelligence, but because there was a mind behind. In the other hand you believe we came from a rock in and of itself, now how is that logical? A PC can't create itself before the PC came to exist, it must be something superior to the computer in order to create the computer.
HushAndLearn 6 months ago
@HushAndLearn "the other hand you believe we came from a rock " False.
"A PC can't create itself before the PC came to exist" Which is completely irrelavent because a PC is not made of organic material that is subject to laws and processes of bio-chemistry.
ScientificBob 6 months ago
@ScientificBob >>False.
--Truth, if you don't believe in God, then you believe it came to be by itself from nothingness, like saying you can give birth yourself before you even born.
>>Which is completely irrelavent because a PC is not made of organic material that is subject to laws and processes of bio-chemistry.
--But is made of matter, a PC, watch, human body are made of matter regardless it function, is made of matter. Matter that in and of itself doesn't understand about adaptation
HushAndLearn 5 months ago
@ScientificBob >>False.
--Truth, if you don't believe in God, then you believe it came to be by itself from nothingness, like saying you can give birth yourself before you even born.
>>Which is completely irrelavent because a PC is not made of organic material that is subject to laws and processes of bio-chemistry.
--But is made of matter, a PC, watch, human body are made of matter regardless it function, is made of matter. Matter that in and of itself doesn't understand about adaptation
HushAndLearn 5 months ago
@HushAndLearn "Do you really think your body mechanism and DNA code complexity is doubting? Is like you telling me that throwing ink in the air can make a dictionary! " No, it's not. And only a mind that is completely oblivious to biology could produce such a dumbass sentence.
"How can you speak about DNA code and ignore the word code" Nobody does. The problem is that you don't understand the word 'code'. And I know it'll be futile to try and explain it to you.
ScientificBob 6 months ago
@ScientificBob >>No, it's not. And only a mind that is completely oblivious to biology could produce such a dumbass sentence
--And someone else to not understand it.
>>Nobody does. The problem is that you don't understand the word 'code'. And I know it'll be futile to try and explain it to you.
--Everyone does, the difference is that you are too sadly blind to understand my sentence. Matter in and of itself does NOT know what is adaptable and what is not by its own, you MUST need a mind.
HushAndLearn 5 months ago
@finalfantasiest1234 >>Do I deserve hell just because I don't believe: the "all-loving" God wants that? Hell≠freewill
--My friend, you are sending yourself to hell by rejecting the only source of life. if you are not with God, then with who?
>>Galatians 3:28 is, within the context, saying that everyone is a child of God: not that they are equal in any way.
--[Galatians 3:28] is talking that there is no more divisions among us with God through Jesus Christ.
HushAndLearn 6 months ago
@HushAndLearn
Yes, so how is that relevant to the inferiority of women and the jealousy of other gods (honestly, he couldn't have just stopped Muhammad from existing with his omnipotence? Look at all the people he killed in Numbers. One man was too much?) How is it relevant to the 1900+ years of cruel treatment of blacks? If god did not want this separation, he sure made it as vague as possible so that no one would realize "equality".
finalfantasiest1234 6 months ago
@finalfantasiest1234 >>so how is that relevant to the inferiority of women and the jealousy of other gods
--By the fact that we r physiologically different & by the fact that is Christ we are all one
>>he couldn't have just stopped Muhammad from existing with his omnipotence? Look at all the people he killed in Numbers.
--Muhammad never spoke to Allah, just with an angel; which the Bible already state in [2 Corinthians 11:14]: For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light
HushAndLearn 6 months ago
@HushAndLearn
So, Satan is just as bright as God. That is what I hear when you state that. Remember, your god killed thousands in the book of Numbers. Your God should have eradicated such a group for insolence and heresy. And by omniscience, he should have recognized that people would follow a faith that would parallel his.
finalfantasiest1234 6 months ago
@finalfantasiest1234 >>Satan is just as bright as God.
--I doesn't say he is, it is said he still pretend to be one.
>>Remember, ur god killed thousands in the book of Numbers
--Because that town killed thousands of Israels in the first place. That's why God allow Moses to revenge them. God doesn't punish out of the air if there is not a reason
>>ur God should have eradicated such a group for insolence and heresy
--He will punish accordingly after death
HushAndLearn 6 months ago
@finalfantasiest1234 >>How is it relevant to the 1900+ years of cruel treatment of blacks?
--Is like me blaming you for the 9/11 attack! How is that relevant? Don't accuse God for our own actions.
>>If god did not want this separation, he sure made it as vague as possible so that no one would realize "equality".
--Otherwise will be against freewill, therefore will not be love.
HushAndLearn 6 months ago
@HushAndLearn "Otherwise will be against freewill"
If somebody holds a gun to your head and makes you choose between kissing his feet or refusing to do so, while refusal will result in a bullet through your brain... then you don't really have a choice.
That is what you are calling "free will"? Only instead of a quick death by a bullet, your mythology teaches an eternity of torture.
To call that "free will" is an insult to humanity.
ScientificBob 6 months ago
@ScientificBob >>If somebody holds a gun to your head and makes you choose between kissing his feet or refusing to do so, while refusal will result in a bullet through your brain... then you don't really have a choice.
--Wrong, I still do have a choice to kiss it or die, still a choice. Like a self suicide.
>>Only instead of a quick death by a bullet, your mythology teaches an eternity of torture
--By the rejection of the only source of life, yes.
HushAndLearn 5 months ago
@HushAndLearn "I still do have a choice to kiss it or die,"
You call it a 'choice'. I call it blackmail and immoral.
I'm gonna reply to your other 16 messages through pm because 500-char posts annoy me.
ScientificBob 5 months ago
@ScientificBob >>You call it a 'choice'. I call it blackmail and immoral.
--But still a self choice. We all are going to die in one way or another.
>>I'm gonna reply to your other 16 messages through pm because 500-char posts annoy me
--Is that going to be worthy? But that's your own freewill to do so =)
Kind regards.
HushAndLearn 5 months ago
@HushAndLearn "But still a self choice" When you are offered 2 options, one of which leads to certain death, then it really isn't a choice at all. But blackmail. Blackmail is not "choice".
"Is that going to be worthy" I guess you meant 'worth it'. No, probably not. You are a classic example of someone who is so indoctrinated in religion that you have effectively placed you brain in hibernation mode. But i'll do it, just for the fun of arguing and just MAYBE I'll get you to wake up.
ScientificBob 5 months ago
@ScientificBob >>When you are offered 2 options, one of which leads to certain death, then it really isn't a choice at all. But blackmail. Blackmail is not "choice".
--It is, because even if they destroy my body, they can't destroy my soul (which that is the real me). The body will still getting destroy
>>No, probably not
--No one is exempt of typos
HushAndLearn 5 months ago
@HushAndLearn "It is, because even if they destroy my body, they can't destroy my soul "
That's assuming you have a "soul", off course. The rational folks among us would prefer to live though.
Again, blackmail is blackmail. It's not a "choice". It's... blackmail. The word exists for a reason.
Sure, you can still "choose" to die. But if that is your idea of "free will", then you are even deeper engulfed in this backwards bronze age mentality then I thought. Which is sad.
ScientificBob 5 months ago
@ScientificBob >>The rational folks among us would prefer to live though.
--As do I! I don't feel any sense of compulsion in my emotions
>>blackmail is blackmail. It's not a "choice". It's... blackmail.
--Nope, it still a choice, for you it is because you see no other better place better than this, my expectations are not temporal
>>Sure, you can still "choose" to die
--Life it doesn't end in this, just because this is the only one you know, it doesn't mean is the only one
HushAndLearn 5 months ago
@HushAndLearn "Nope, it still a choice, for you it is because you see no other better place better than this"
Haaa. So I care MORE about life. This was not the point, but it's great to see a theist admit to that.
"Life it doesn't end in this, just because this is the only one you know, it doesn't mean is the only one"
Do you have a -rational- reason to suggest that it isn't?
ScientificBob 5 months ago
@ScientificBob >>So I care MORE about life
--You care more for temporal treasures, not for eternal ones. You are close in the same circle
>>Do you have a -rational- reason to suggest that it isn't?
--A much better one than from atheism perspective and that is creation proves a creator, not nothingness.
HushAndLearn 5 months ago
@HushAndLearn "--You care more for temporal treasures" So... life. Right.
"A much better one than from atheism perspective and that is creation proves a creator, not nothingness"
That doesn't answer my question. It's off-topic gibberish. The question was, do you have a -rational- reason to believe that there is another life after this one?
ScientificBob 5 months ago
@ScientificBob >>So... life. Right
--Not eternal life, I am pro-eternal.
>>That doesn't answer my question. It's off-topic gibberish
--It did answer your question. How then explain life in a logical congruently way? The first cause to cause intelligence to exist, must be because it must be an intelligent mind behind it in the first place.
HushAndLearn 5 months ago
@HushAndLearn "Not eternal life, I am pro-eternal."
For which there is no evidence. Point remains. I care about keeping people alive on this planet. You... not really.
"The first cause ..." Blablabla. Off-topic gibberish. We are not talking about fallacious first cause arguments. I'm asking you what your evidence is that when people die, something 'lives' on?
ScientificBob 5 months ago
@ScientificBob >>For which there is no evidence. Point remains
--History, eye evidence, and empirical statements.
>>I care about keeping people alive on this planet. You... not really.
--Too bad because none of them are going to stay here for too long
>>We are not talking about fallacious first cause arguments
--It is a must logical scientific argument
>>I'm asking you what your evidence is that when people die, something 'lives' on?
--You want people personal experiences? There are tons!
HushAndLearn 5 months ago
@ScientificBob >>So I care MORE about life
--You care more for temporal treasures, not for eternal ones. You are close in the same circle
>>Do you have a -rational- reason to suggest that it isn't?
--A much better one than from atheism perspective and that is creation proves a creator, not nothingness
HushAndLearn 5 months ago
@ScientificBob >>But if that is your idea of "free will", then you are even deeper engulfed in this backwards bronze age mentality then I thought
--Yea, like believing that everything came from nothingness, lol. Even worse, you still don't know and will die uncertain. I pass!
HushAndLearn 5 months ago
@HushAndLearn "like believing that everything came from nothingness" Isn't that what you believe? I sure as hell don't anyway.
"Even worse, you still don't know and will die uncertain"
There will be a lot of things I won't know when I die. And the same goes for you and every human that ever lived and ever will live. I don't see why that is a problem.
ScientificBob 5 months ago
@ScientificBob >>Isn't that what you believe? I sure as hell don't anyway.
--I believe in God, you don't. So that leaves you in the answer of the nothingness did all these
>>There will be a lot of things I won't know when I die. And the same goes for you and every human that ever lived and ever will live. I don't see why that is a problem.
--A big one for you, because you reject the only source of life, that which you do as if you do know the absolutes, don't reject something you don't know.
HushAndLearn 5 months ago
@HushAndLearn "I believe in God" Yes, but don't you necessarily need to believe that god created everything from 'nothing'?
"So that leaves you in the answer of the nothingness did all these" Not really. The way I see it, the universe has always existed and the state of "nothing" doesn't exist.
"A big one for you, because you reject the only source of life" No, I reject unsupported claims about the "source of life" - whatever it is that you mean by that.
ScientificBob 5 months ago
@ScientificBob >>Yes, but don't you necessarily need to believe that god created everything from 'nothing'?
--I am not here to explain how He did it, but to prove it MUST require intelligence to create intelligence in the first place. And you can't run away from that fact
>>Not really. The way I see it, the universe has always existed and the state of "nothing" doesn't exist.
--Wrong sentence, that is not possible even scientifically. Otherwise they wouldn't expend all that money on the LHC
HushAndLearn 5 months ago
@HushAndLearn "I am not here to explain how He did it" Then how can you know that he did it?
"to prove it MUST require intelligence " Well, you lost in advance on that point. I'm a software engineer. I work on an optimisation project. Several algoritms are employed. One of them being genetic algoritms. I know for a fact great solutions for problems can be obtained through blind processes.
ScientificBob 5 months ago
@ScientificBob >>Then how can you know that he did it?
--Because I know I exist, my body is not a result of the nothingness
>>Well, you lost in advance on that point
--I can't, you can't create intelligence without intelligence in the first place
>>One of them being genetic algoritms. I know for a fact great solutions for problems can be obtained through blind processes
--None of them, you don't create intelligent algorithms out of none intelligence process.
HushAndLearn 5 months ago
@HushAndLearn ""Wrong sentence"
'always' is a word that details a length of time.
Space and time came into being simultanously with the big bang. The universe IS the space-time continuum. Hence, the universe has -always- existed. Or in other words, at any given moment in TIME, the universe was here. There is no 'before' the universe, just like there is no 'north' of the north-pole. Hence, my statement is correct. The universe has always been here.
ScientificBob 5 months ago
@ScientificBob >>The universe IS the space-time continuum. Hence, the universe has -always- existed
--Otherwise they wouldn't build the LHC because they want to replicate the big bang. Each and most scientist know the universe can't be eternal because none of its content can be.
>>Or in other words, at any given moment in TIME, the universe was here
--Actually is at none given time
>>There is no 'before' the universe
--Then talk to the scientists who believe it came out of nothing
HushAndLearn 5 months ago
@ScientificBob >>Yes, but don't you necessarily need to believe that god created everything from 'nothing'?
--I am not here to explain how He did it, but to prove it MUST require intelligence to create intelligence in the first place. And you can't run away from that fact
>>Not really. The way I see it, the universe has always existed and the state of "nothing" doesn't exist.
--Wrong sentence, that is not possible even scientifically. Otherwise they wouldn't expend all that money on the LHC
HushAndLearn 5 months ago
@ScientificBob >>u r a classic example of someone who is so indoctrinated in religion that you have effectively placed u brain in hibernation mode
--Actually not, I became Christian when I start asking the questions. Not like those who believe that life came from a rock or out of nothingness. Even worse for those who still don't know and make absolutes rejections towards God
>>But i'll do it, just for the fun of arguing and just MAYBE I'll get you to wake up
--Or I may b the one who wake u up
HushAndLearn 5 months ago
@HushAndLearn "Not like those who believe that life came from a rock or out of nothingness." Who are you speaking of? I am unaware of anyone who believes that.
"I became Christian when I start asking the questions" Could you perhaps share some of those questions with the answers you found as well as how you reached those answers? I'm genuinly interested in that.
"Or I may b the one who wake u up" Perhaps. But you're gonna have to reply first. You are welcome to do so.
ScientificBob 5 months ago
@ScientificBob >>Could you perhaps share some of those questions with the answers you found as well as how you reached those answers? I'm genuinly interested in that.
--A human body is far more complex than any other thing that any human being has been able to create. It is scientifically well know that every time you see a functional pattern, is because it must have a mind behind. [Romans 1:20], so that they are without excuse
HushAndLearn 5 months ago
@HushAndLearn "It is scientifically well know that every time you see a functional pattern, is because it must have a mind behind"
How is that 'scientifically known'?
I happen to know for a fact that this is incorrect, but I'm interested why you think that this is 'scientifically known'.
And off course, we have a perfectly reasonable and well fitting natural explanation for the complexity of life. I'm sure you are aware of that. So what's wrong with that explanation?
ScientificBob 5 months ago
@ScientificBob >>How is that 'scientifically known'?
--Tell me any scientific evidence that creates a functional pattern without intelligence involve? Just don't give me uncertain conclusions
>>I happen to know for a fact that this is incorrect, but I'm interested why you think that this is 'scientifically known'
--A PC, a personal watch, etc. I guess this is an incorrect fact now? hum!
HushAndLearn 5 months ago
@HushAndLearn "Tell me any scientific evidence that creates a functional pattern without intelligence involve"
Genetic Algoritms. See boxcar2d(dot)com for a great (yet simple) example. Genetic algoritms are based on the natural process of evolution: mutate, survive, breed.
And you again avoid answering the question. You made a claim: science proves X. I asked you: how does science prove this?
ScientificBob 5 months ago
@ScientificBob >>Genetic Algoritms
--Actually it is not, you all are trying to go as complex as possible to get into the ignorance of it and to assume it does it itself. Particles don't and CAN'T understand what is adaptable and what is not WITHOUT intelligence in the first place. Ignorance doesn't prove things scientifically.
>>You made a claim: science proves X. I asked you: how does science prove this?
--You can prove scientifically that PC are made from intelligence in the first place.
HushAndLearn 5 months ago
@HushAndLearn "Ignorance doesn't prove things scientifically." How ironic.
You clearly have no idea of what a genetic algoritm is.
"Particles don't and CAN'T understand what is adaptable and what is not " The whole point of the algoritm is that they don't have to, Einstein.
"You can prove scientifically that PC are made from intelligence " Correct, we can visit the pc factory. But I don't see how that is relevant to my question. I didn't ask about pc's, I asked about life.
ScientificBob 5 months ago
@ScientificBob >>How ironic.
--Yes, very ironic
>>You clearly have no idea of what a genetic algoritm is
--I do
>>The whole point of the algoritm is that they don't have to, Einstein.
--They do, you think they don't (which is different). You take something for absolute when science is not. You can't throw letters in the air and pretend they will adapt! Because if by any chance they form a word they have no reason to be adapted when throwing them again.
HushAndLearn 5 months ago
@HushAndLearn "--A PC, a personal watch, etc."
These are artificial objects. I don't see how these are relevant. We aren't talking about things that were made by humans. We are talking about things NOT made by humans.
Animals, planets, snowflakes, atoms, electrons, stars, milky ways,... you know... natural objects.
If you mention "pc" as an analogy to argue against evolution, you fail miserably.
PC's aren't subject to processes of bio-chemistry.
ScientificBob 5 months ago
@ScientificBob >>These are artificial objects
--It doesn't matter, they still made of matter as we are
>>I don't see how these are relevant
--Matter and particles are relevant
>>We aren't talking about things that were made by humans
--But you can't run away from the fact that we are made of matter as any other artificial object
>>We are talking about things NOT made by humans.
--But they ARE made of matter as we are. Matter can't understand a thing about adaptation.
HushAndLearn 5 months ago
@HushAndLearn "It doesn't matter, they still made of matter as we are" Ow, it doesn't matter? Hahaha. That's like saying that we can study the engine of a BMW to find a cure for cancer. It's all 'made of matter' right?
"Matter and particles are relevant" Different molecules behave differently, Einstein.
"Matter can't understand a thing about adaptation." Who is claiming that it should?
ScientificBob 5 months ago
@ScientificBob >>Ow, it doesn't matter? Hahaha
--Right, that is the point, matter which is all genetics are base on
>>That's like saying that we can study the engine of a BMW to find a cure for cancer
--That was pretty straw man, all I am talking about is about matter, period
>>It's all 'made of matter' right?
--Right!
>>Different molecules behave differently, Einstein.
--But they still made of matter, behaviors came from an intelligent input
HushAndLearn 5 months ago
@ScientificBob >> Who is claiming that it should?
--Facts and empirical science. Intelligence don't come from none intelligence, doesn't matter the subject.
HushAndLearn 5 months ago
@ScientificBob >>These are artificial objects
--It doesn't matter, they still made of matter as we are
>>I don't see how these are relevant
--Matter and particles are relevant
>>We aren't talking about things that were made by humans
--But you can't run away from the fact that we are made of matter as any other artificial object
>>We are talking about things NOT made by humans.
--But they ARE made of matter as we are. Matter can't understand a thing about adaptation.
HushAndLearn 5 months ago
@ScientificBob >>If you mention "pc" as an analogy to argue against evolution, you fail miserably
--I think is backward because you fail to understand my materialistic point in the first place. It doesn't matter, everything in this universe is made of matter. Organic or inorganic in IS matter.
>>PC's aren't subject to processes of bio-chemistry
--But is made of matter as we are. Just are folly calling bio-chemistry something is ALSO made of matter too. Try to grasp my point more carefully!
HushAndLearn 5 months ago
@HushAndLearn "you fail to understand my materialistic point " Your point is ridiculous. You imply that all matter behaves the same at all times. You completely ignore that different atoms/molecules have different properties that cause different behaviours. You completely deny/ignore the field of chemistry. You are basicly saying that all of chemistry, biology and physics is completely wrong. It's completely asanine.
ScientificBob 5 months ago
@ScientificBob >>ur point is ridiculous
--Is common sense since u can't run away from that fact
>>u imply that all matter behaves the same at all times
--No, what I imply is that everything that have a functional pattern is because it must requires an mind behind and that's a fact
>>u completely ignore the field of chemistry
--Never
>>u r basicly saying that all of chemistry, biology and physics is completely wrong
--What I am saying is that they r not absolutes for you to be brainwashed
HushAndLearn 5 months ago
@ScientificBob >>ur point is ridiculous
--Is common sense since u can't run away from that fact
>>u imply that all matter behaves the same at all times
--No, what I imply is that everything that have a functional pattern is because it must requires an mind behind and that's a fact
>>u completely ignore the field of chemistry
--Never
>>u r basicly saying that all of chemistry, biology and physics is completely wrong
--What I am saying is that they r not absolutes for you to be brainwashed
HushAndLearn 5 months ago
@ScientificBob >>ur point is ridiculous
--Is common sense since u can't run away from that fact
>>u imply that all matter behaves the same at all times
--No, what I imply is that everything that have a functional pattern is because it must requires an mind behind and that's a fact
>>u completely ignore the field of chemistry
--Never
>>u r basicly saying that all of chemistry, biology and physics is completely wrong
--What I am saying is that they r not absolutes for you to be brainwashed
HushAndLearn 5 months ago
@HushAndLearn "But is made of matter as we are. Just are folly calling bio-chemistry something is ALSO made of matter too"
So why don't you eat plastic cups instead of organic food? It's all "just matter" and there is no difference, right?
When's the last time you saw a pc reproduce and pass on its traits to its off spring?
ScientificBob 5 months ago
@ScientificBob >>Just r folly calling bio-chemistry something is ALSO made of matter too
--Everything is made of matter
>>So why don't you eat plastic cups instead of organic food? It's all "just matter" and there is no difference, right?
--The fact that they have different function, doesn't mean they aren't made of matter
>>When's the last time you saw a pc reproduce & pass on its traits to its off spring?
--They r made of matter as well as we r. They just serve different function
HushAndLearn 5 months ago
@ScientificBob >>Just r folly calling bio-chemistry something is ALSO made of matter too
--Everything is made of matter
>>So why don't you eat plastic cups instead of organic food? It's all "just matter" and there is no difference, right?
--The fact that they have different function, doesn't mean they aren't made of matter
>>When's the last time you saw a pc reproduce & pass on its traits to its off spring?
--They r made of matter as well as we r. They just serve different function
HushAndLearn 5 months ago
@ScientificBob >>And off course, we have a perfectly reasonable and well fitting natural explanation for the complexity of life
--No you don't. All you have are personal illogical beliefs, even worse, with no historical background from eye witness accounts.
>>I'm sure you are aware of that. So what's wrong with that explanation?
--You haven't provide any explanation o.0
HushAndLearn 5 months ago
@HushAndLearn "personal illogical beliefs" No, just good old evidence.
"no historical background " You mean aside from the hundreds of thousands of fossils, NONE of which is in contradiction with evolution theory?
"eye witness accounts" Google 'observed speciation'. Plenty of observations are available.
"You haven't provide any explanation " Mutate, survive, reproduce, repeat.
ScientificBob 5 months ago
@ScientificBob >>No, just good old evidence
--Begin with empirical science. Not by assumptions.
>>You mean aside from the hundreds of thousands of fossils, NONE of which is in contradiction with evolution theory?
--Fossils prove the flood in the first place because fossil preservation is not easy at all. All you are doing is seeing something and assume another. All fossils prove is that they are death, you can't prove if they had any offspring. So there.
HushAndLearn 5 months ago
@HushAndLearn "Begin with empirical science" Fossil record, phylogenetic tree, observed speciation, comparative dna, genetic algoritms. I even gave you a website where you can see the algoritm in action. How much more empirical can it get?
Let's try this differently... What kind of evidence would satisfy you?
ScientificBob 5 months ago
@ScientificBob >>Fossil record, phylogenetic tree,observed speciation, comparative dna, genetic algoritms
--Fossil record doesn't prove they had offspring nor who is it in the collection of them (assumptions r not facts), phylogenetic tree equal your personal beliefs on the evolutionary fantasy, comparative dna make us capable to survive in this life otherwise we wouldn't drink water & eat plants if we have no relationship with God's creation, speciation is the limit within the taxonomy family
HushAndLearn 5 months ago
@ScientificBob >>Fossil record, phylogenetic tree,observed speciation, comparative dna, genetic algoritms
--Fossil record doesn't prove they had offspring nor who is it in the collection of them (assumptions r not facts), phylogenetic tree equal your personal beliefs on the evolutionary fantasy, comparative dna make us capable to survive in this life otherwise we wouldn't drink water & eat plants if we have no relationship with God's creation, speciation is the limit within the taxonomy family
HushAndLearn 5 months ago
@ScientificBob >>I even gave you a website where you can see the algoritm in action. How much more empirical can it get?
--You must be kidding, assumptions are not empirical at all.
>>Let's try this differently... What kind of evidence would satisfy you?
--EMPIRICAL! Accelerate the process of evo in the lav and demonstrate that a kingdom can be produce gradually or rapidly another animal that is consider to be completely another taxonomy kingdom. Don't give me personal assumptions.
HushAndLearn 5 months ago
@HushAndLearn "Fossils prove the flood " Que? Are you serious? This is getting very very ridiculous.
"All fossils prove is that they are death" No. What fossils prove is that life started out simple and grew more diverse and complex over time. If fossils proved the flood, then we would find mammals over the entire geological column, but we don't. We would find humans everywhere, but we don't. It would be only one geological flood layer, but it isn't.
ScientificBob 5 months ago
@ScientificBob >>Que? Are you serious? This is getting very very ridiculous.
--I feel sorry for you is ridiculous with such logic. Fossils doesn't preserve that easy, you need rapid burial to preserve them in the first place and we do have million of them.
>>What fossils prove is that life started out simple and grew more diverse and complex over time
--Wrong, you can't even prove they had any offspring in the first place, much less who is it. So that's a fail.
HushAndLearn 5 months ago
@ScientificBob >>If fossils proved the flood, then we would find mammals over the entire geological column, but we don't.
--Because the geologic column doesn't exist anywhere in the world but only in text books, you'll find all sorts of results in different places
>>We would find humans everywhere, but we don't
--If they don't want to admit that Neanderthals were humans, is not my fault. The Bible mention people that lived over 900 years, meaning different DNA structure.
HushAndLearn 5 months ago
@HushAndLearn "you can't prove if they had any offspring" Complete fail. Fossils are remnants of individuals. Individuals that belonged to a species. It's a sample of a population. A fossil is a representative of the population of that species at that particular time in that location. Wheter or not that particular creature produced off spring is 100% irrelavent. And the fact that you mention that proves how little you really know about the stuff you are arguing against. Have some dignity
ScientificBob 5 months ago
@ScientificBob >>Fossils are remnants of individuals. Individuals that belonged to a species. It's a sample of a population
--But not a sample of reproduction. So therefore you can't use them as evidence for a gradual taxonomy change.
>>A fossil is a representative of the population of that species at that particular time in that location
--And a lot of imagination according to their own personal evolutionary theosophy
HushAndLearn 5 months ago
@ScientificBob >>Wheter or not that particular creature produced off spring is 100% irrelavent.
--It is not, because you use them as a successfully sequence, which is not. When it could end up right there as well.
>>And the fact that you mention that proves how little you really know about the stuff you are arguing against. Have some dignity
--Ok then, I guess fossils were not buried after all, lol ^-^
HushAndLearn 5 months ago