If God doesn't exist...

[Damaged Eagle]

You detractors to the big bang keep referring to an equilibrium that was supposed to have existed.

You have quantifiable evidence that there was something else that existed prior to this space-time continuum started up?

That assumption is stupid. No scientists theory I have seen suggested that the precursor to our universe, the "ball", was just sitting around for some unspecified period of our time before the bang. It makes more sense to me that the so called "ball" was building all along with some unknown force applied to this incomplete "ball" to keep it in check. At some point all hell broke loose as the "ball" reached a certain point outside the density/pressure needed to contain it. It could not be contained just as the unknown force reached it's opposite and relative decreasing strength needed to contain the "ball".

This theory could be compared to having a bottle of compressed gas sent upwards while more and more pressure is added to the bottle on the inside of the cylinder and the atmospheric pressure is steadily decreasing as the cylinder goes skyward. At some point in altitude ascended to the cylinder explodes because the strength to hold it intact is not enough.

That is just one possibility of how our current universe could have started to expand. You can see I did not need to refer to any god like creature in my theory.

Where's your quantifiable proof for this or is just more scientific creationism theology?

*****CHUCKLE*****

From a little less than 400,000 years backward the theories abound. Many even have this universe a small as the size of a dime or an atom.

The event asks several foundational questions such as when was this universe "this universe" and not some extension of a previous universe.

Was the "ball" as I call it or the point of the singularity actually the beginning of this universe? Some suggest that the stuff of the beginning was an assortment of strings vibrating specific tones within the dense soup of these strings. Some speculate that the shape of the beginning was flat and not spherical. For my purposes the moment that matter assumed the form of atoms we are familiar with was the actual start of this universe.

In any case there was no "place" for a god as there was nothing in these four dimensions before this universe took nothing's place. There was only absolute darkness.

There are theories that many potential universes attempt to start forming but fail.

Like I said there are many theories attempting to explain the how, what and where of the start of this universe. I know of none that seriously attempt to add a god to these equations.

So what you're saying is that you have nothing except some scientific theologies, which are most likely wrong, to hold up as a banner of quantitative truth in your scientific crusade of empirical reasoning..... Perhaps you should call upon a nebulous fairy or the galactic unicorn to assist you in your fight for scientific truth as you wave your wand of quantitative analysis. Yet in the end you still have nothing while I and other people who have faith have God and all of Gods works to point to as proof of God's existence.

*****HAPPY SMILE*****

 

[zaangalewa]

Imagine all the debree floating around in space before all the stars. The remains of a previous universe in complete darkness. Because of gravity and the pull of black holes, everything eventually collects together and then all that "stuff" gets sucked into a black hole and either explodes (big bang) or gets sucked through the black hole and starts a universe on the other side of that black hole, just like our universe was started from the "stuff" that stirred around in a once dead universe in another dimension.

Or God did it.

Which answer is simple yet stupid

That's only stupid because of your own lack of knowledge, what seems to give you a wrong impression about the stupidity of other people, who try to touch your own frustrated emptyness, intentional ignorance and agressive arrogance.

If you would use the including "or" (in Latin "vel", logical sign "v" - in Kantors mathematics called "union" sign "U" - in computer science called "or" sign "or") then the sentence "or god did it" is anything else than stupid.

and makes most people feel comfortable? God of course. Its what our simple ancient ancestors thought up. And whoever created Christianity created the greatest bs story ever told.

But it doesn't even have to be a great story because people are really stupid. Just look at Jehovas, Mormons and Muslims.

Lots of people fought and fight with god. Lots of them live in the illusion they could not win against god. But they win and crucify him or bring his people in concentration camps like Auschwitz-Birkenau. God dies many deaths. He died this days also in Brussels many deaths caused from people speaking and believing nonsense about this what they think what god is. They forget that no one needs to defend an allmighty entity and they forget: Who kills a human being kills a universe. You are by the way right: God is not existing. He died on a cross today. The god who is is not - and the cross he died on is also a symbol for the justice of human beings. There's no need for god to die with us - he could also break us - but he dies with us, because he loves us.

The double talk you wrap yourself up in is not armour. When the god is dead, it is dead for all time and never existed. That truth unravels your explainations and excuses. It doesn't need to chase you down every rabbit hole you have dug.

I tried to re read his post to see if it makes any sense at all and it simply doesn't.

It looks like the post of a mad man, which would explain believing in an invisible creator

You are following the normal rules of propagada of Commies, Nazis and other mindmanipulating and terrorizing organisations. If they don't have any longer any argument or idea how to justify what's not justifyable, because they are just simple wrong, then they try to kill the reputation of their selfdefined enemies or this persons directly themselves. Whatelse to expect on a day like good friday? But tell me something else: Why do you think is it necessarry that everyone has the same ideas about your not existing pseudogod? And who writes your atheistic fatwas?

Reminds me of Michael moore

So what?

 

[emilynghiem]

That's only stupid because of your own lack of knowledge, what seems to give you a wrong impression about the stupidity of other people, who try to touch your own frustrated emptyness, intentional ignorance and agressive arrogance.

If you would use the including "or" (in Latin "vel", logical sign "v" - in Kantors mathematics called "union" sign "U" - in computer science called "or" sign "or") then the sentence "or god did it" is anything else than stupid.

Lots of people fought and fight with god. Lots of them live in the illusion they could not win against god. But they win and crucify him or bring his people in concentration camps like Auschwitz-Birkenau. God dies many deaths. He died this days also in Brussels many deaths caused from people speaking and believing nonsense about this what they think what god is. They forget that no one needs to defend an allmighty entity and they forget: Who kills a human being kills a universe. You are by the way right: God is not existing. He died on a cross today. The god who is is not - and the cross he died on is also a symbol for the justice of human beings. There's no need for god to die with us - he could also break us - but he dies with us, because he loves us.

The double talk you wrap yourself up in is not armour. When the god is dead, it is dead for all time and never existed. That truth unravels your explainations and excuses. It doesn't need to chase you down every rabbit hole you have dug.

I tried to re read his post to see if it makes any sense at all and it simply doesn't.

It looks like the post of a mad man, which would explain believing in an invisible creator

You are following the normal rules of propagada of Commies, Nazis and other mindmanipulating and terrorizing organisations. If they don't have any longer any argument or idea how to justify what's not justifyable, because they are just simple wrong, then they try to kill the reputation of their selfdefined enemies or this persons directly themselves. Whatelse to expect on a day like good friday? But tell me something else: Why do you think is it necessarry that everyone has the same ideas about your not existing pseudogod? And who writes your atheistic fatwas?

Dear zaangalewa
After many discussions with sealybobo for the most part sealybobo is just naturally NONTHEISTIC.
the slight "anti-theist" bias is in reaction to the same bias that theists have projected onto atheists.
So that problem will take a MUTUAL agreement to heal, between atheists and theists to quit judging each other.
Until there is a truce called, you will see a bit of bias and edge/defensiveness in people on both sides
who are used to being slammed by the other.

if we could take sealybobo out of that context and talk freely,
we'd likely focus more on the content and meaning of what people say and see going on in the world.

For all the biases, bickering and "baiting' to stop I assume the world would have to call a truce and agree to coexist in peace.
And maybe over time, these past issues would heal and people could talk freely without backbiting and bullying each other.

It just takes time. But from what I've seen so far,
sealybobo is more concerned with solving the problems not bashing people for them.
That just happens to come with the territory and the media format of interacting online in a free for all. of course
that language is going to come out and distract from the real meat of the discussion and points we could actually clarify and agree on
underneath the terms that different groups use to symbolize certain concepts.

I don't have any idea why you say this to me. It's for me personally completly unimportant what someone believes. Sealbody is able to communicate so he can tell me on his own what he thinks. And I am on my own nothing what I would call "theist". I'm a Catholic - a normal Christian like a huge number of hundreds of millions other Christians. And I don't have any idea what you call "solving problems". I live my life and my life is for no one any problem. And it's for me personally also not important wether someone agrees or disagrees with anything what I say or not - nor would I know what kind of concepts of what kinds of groups had to do anything with anything else what I say to someone or not. Oh by the way: Did you hear that the Romans crucified Jesus today about 2000 years ago? That's not good, isn't it?

(A) Dear @zanngalewa maybe you are neutral and it doesn't affect you if people identify as theist or nontheist.
But I have friends who do have issues with this, and it gets in the way of solving problems.

The division between Christian and nonchristian has even become politicized as dividing left and right,
rich and poor, to badmouth each other in the media and cost millions in lawsuits, hate campaigns, and lobbying
that could otherwise be invested in agreed solutions if both sides of these conflicts could communicate!

So this is costing us time, money, resources and relationships.

(B) as for Jesus being crucified, if that hadn't happened then all of humanity could not be saved.
It was a necessary sacrifice. What was "not good" was the vicious cycle of sin and suffering
that could not be broken without divine intervention.

So this is like saying is it bad to have to induce a coma and cut up a patient, and cause
the patient months of painful recovery, in order to conduct the operation to save the patient's heart?

In the case of Jesus dying and being resurrected, the point is to break the cycle
of sin and suffering permanently so we never have to go through that again.
the harmony between God and man, God's will and laws and man's are reconciled.

so that part is GOOD that the lasting benefits outweigh the pain suffering
and sacrifice it took to establish that.

In the process, it is tragic and causes suffering for each of the individual
steps and stages to happen.

Humanity goes through cycles of grief from denial and projection,
to numbness and anger, before arriving at a higher state of spiritual peace.

The journey itself is a good thing, but some of the painful fearful
things that have to take place along the way are regrettable and not ideally what we want to happen in the longrun.

(C) the main key factor in the Bible and Christianity
is the transforming power and grace of FORGIVENESS
to heal hearts and minds, the physical body and personal relationships and humanity collectively.

By restoring faith in love, of truth justice and peace, then we can receive these blessings
that God/Life offers for the taking. So the whole process of humanity is to learn from
and forgive the past so we can build a society and life of harmony we really are designed for anyway.

The point is to restore the natural harmony and balance that was lost,
and all the "bad things" along the way are part of learning from experience and consequences
so we understand the difference and can CHOOSE more effective ways by free will reason and conscience.

 

[emilynghiem]

You detractors to the big bang keep referring to an equilibrium that was supposed to have existed.

You have quantifiable evidence that there was something else that existed prior to this space-time continuum started up?

That assumption is stupid. No scientists theory I have seen suggested that the precursor to our universe, the "ball", was just sitting around for some unspecified period of our time before the bang. It makes more sense to me that the so called "ball" was building all along with some unknown force applied to this incomplete "ball" to keep it in check. At some point all hell broke loose as the "ball" reached a certain point outside the density/pressure needed to contain it. It could not be contained just as the unknown force reached it's opposite and relative decreasing strength needed to contain the "ball".

This theory could be compared to having a bottle of compressed gas sent upwards while more and more pressure is added to the bottle on the inside of the cylinder and the atmospheric pressure is steadily decreasing as the cylinder goes skyward. At some point in altitude ascended to the cylinder explodes because the strength to hold it intact is not enough.

That is just one possibility of how our current universe could have started to expand. You can see I did not need to refer to any god like creature in my theory.

Where's your quantifiable proof for this or is just more scientific creationism theology?

*****CHUCKLE*****

From a little less than 400,000 years backward the theories abound. Many even have this universe a small as the size of a dime or an atom.

The event asks several foundational questions such as when was this universe "this universe" and not some extension of a previous universe.

Was the "ball" as I call it or the point of the singularity actually the beginning of this universe? Some suggest that the stuff of the beginning was an assortment of strings vibrating specific tones within the dense soup of these strings. Some speculate that the shape of the beginning was flat and not spherical. For my purposes the moment that matter assumed the form of atoms we are familiar with was the actual start of this universe.

In any case there was no "place" for a god as there was nothing in these four dimensions before this universe took nothing's place. There was only absolute darkness.

There are theories that many potential universes attempt to start forming but fail.

Like I said there are many theories attempting to explain the how, what and where of the start of this universe. I know of none that seriously attempt to add a god to these equations.

View attachment 68887

So what you're saying is that you have nothing except some scientific theologies, which are most likely wrong, to hold up as a banner of quantitative truth in your scientific crusade of empirical reasoning..... Perhaps you should call upon a nebulous fairy or the galactic unicorn to assist you in your fight for scientific truth as you wave your wand of quantitative analysis. Yet in the end you still have nothing while I and other people who have faith have God and all of Gods works to point to as proof of God's existence.

*****HAPPY SMILE*****

Dear @DamagedEagle

When Spiritual Healing is proven scientifically to work naturally and universally,
then all things can be worked out for the better. Better understanding between science and
religion will be established. And more problems can be solved by applying this knowledge
because it not only heals mind and body of sickness, addiction, abuse and other ills,
but also brings healing to racial, religions and political relations instead of wasting resources fighting wars
and committing crime and violence tied to social ills and poverty/lack of access to resources and help.

I think it will change how we operate in the world, and will help all people and groups achieve their higher goals
by eliminating most of the manmade barriers that otherwise get in the way of progress.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

You detractors to the big bang keep referring to an equilibrium that was supposed to have existed.

You have quantifiable evidence that there was something else that existed prior to this space-time continuum started up?

That assumption is stupid. No scientists theory I have seen suggested that the precursor to our universe, the "ball", was just sitting around for some unspecified period of our time before the bang. It makes more sense to me that the so called "ball" was building all along with some unknown force applied to this incomplete "ball" to keep it in check. At some point all hell broke loose as the "ball" reached a certain point outside the density/pressure needed to contain it. It could not be contained just as the unknown force reached it's opposite and relative decreasing strength needed to contain the "ball".

This theory could be compared to having a bottle of compressed gas sent upwards while more and more pressure is added to the bottle on the inside of the cylinder and the atmospheric pressure is steadily decreasing as the cylinder goes skyward. At some point in altitude ascended to the cylinder explodes because the strength to hold it intact is not enough.

That is just one possibility of how our current universe could have started to expand. You can see I did not need to refer to any god like creature in my theory.

Where's your quantifiable proof for this or is just more scientific creationism theology?

*****CHUCKLE*****

From a little less than 400,000 years backward the theories abound. Many even have this universe a small as the size of a dime or an atom.

The event asks several foundational questions such as when was this universe "this universe" and not some extension of a previous universe.

Was the "ball" as I call it or the point of the singularity actually the beginning of this universe? Some suggest that the stuff of the beginning was an assortment of strings vibrating specific tones within the dense soup of these strings. Some speculate that the shape of the beginning was flat and not spherical. For my purposes the moment that matter assumed the form of atoms we are familiar with was the actual start of this universe.

In any case there was no "place" for a god as there was nothing in these four dimensions before this universe took nothing's place. There was only absolute darkness.

There are theories that many potential universes attempt to start forming but fail.

Like I said there are many theories attempting to explain the how, what and where of the start of this universe. I know of none that seriously attempt to add a god to these equations.

View attachment 68887

So what you're saying is that you have nothing except some scientific theologies, which are most likely wrong, to hold up as a banner of quantitative truth in your scientific crusade of empirical reasoning..... Perhaps you should call upon a nebulous fairy or the galactic unicorn to assist you in your fight for scientific truth as you wave your wand of quantitative analysis. Yet in the end you still have nothing while I and other people who have faith have God and all of Gods works to point to as proof of God's existence.

*****HAPPY SMILE*****

Dear @DamagedEagle

When Spiritual Healing is proven scientifically to work naturally and universally,
then all things can be worked out for the better. Better understanding between science and
religion will be established. And more problems can be solved by applying this knowledge
because it not only heals mind and body of sickness, addiction, abuse and other ills,
but also brings healing to racial, religions and political relations instead of wasting resources fighting wars
and committing crime and violence tied to social ills and poverty/lack of access to resources and help.

I think it will change how we operate in the world, and will help all people and groups achieve their higher goals
by eliminating most of the manmade barriers that otherwise get in the way of progress.

I'm not a Christian Scientist or a faith healer.

*****SMILE*****

 

[Hollie]

I think you're a bit confused about beliefs. I noted your attempt to vilify science as a means to support your belief in supernaturalism. Your use of the term "scientific creationism" is consistent with slogans used by fundamentalist christian creation ministries.

The Big Bang theory refers to a cataclysmic event in which there was a major disruption in existing matter and energy. We see evidence for this in the background radiation of the universe. What we do not, and as yet cannot see, is the prior state of existence before the Big Bang. This could be a window for one or more gods, not necessarily your partisan gods. All of the events surrounding that event are not fully understood. But to automatically assign the magic and supernaturalism of your partisan gods as the cause tells we don't have any reason to investigate. How does anyone investigate your magical spirit realms? And you should be aware that there is no requirement for theology regarding investigation of the Big Bang. You're free to invoke miracles of the gods as the cause of existence but miracles of religion are not allowed for science to remain science. Miracles are not verifiable, testable or falsifiable. They are not repeatable, they do not conform to any laws of nature, and they’re not even understandable. Science can never confirm the magic of gods. They are not a matter for science. Science looks for testable and repeatable observations in nature that can be explained without appeals to magic. Once you have used a miracle as an explanation, you have left the realm of science, and you’re simply waving the magic wand of religion.

The tools that science uses to discriminate between valid theories and invalid ones are threefold; evidence, reason and repeatability. A theory that has vast amounts of evidence in its support, and also makes useful predictions or retrodictions when reasoning from it is called a “robust” theory. Claims that rely on magic and supernaturalism and are impossible to use for predictions or retrodictions and have no evidence at all are called religious claims.

And this is how we discriminate between competing theories, not prejudice based on which one “suits our belief.”

My preference is based on using the tools of evidence and reason that allow any objective analyst to discriminate between my position and yours. Your preference is based purely on which best fits your a priori religious commitment.

View attachment 68851

In the end all you have are theories which may or may not be true. The faith you place your theology is no better than the people you criticize and vilify by suggesting they believe in unicorns and fairies as you and others have in this post and countless others on this forum. Yet in turn many people of your ilk blindly say you follow the teachings of science while not even studying the teachings of said scientific faith. Your, and others of your ilk, lack of respect for other beliefs belittles the name of science and what is stands for as you crusade against other beliefs. I know this to be true because it's obvious you don't even know what beliefs are as you accuse me of 'waving a magic wand' as you attempt to make me a sacrificial offering on your alter of empirical scientific truth.

Unfortunately for you I'm well studied in the arts of science and if you'd have bothered to take the suggestion I've handed out to many of your fellow crusaders you'd find out that your sword is broken and my belief in God stands firm.

*****CHUCKLE*****

There's no reason to lash out. In your need to vilify science, I simply required you to offer a competing theory for the gods. The fact is, while it may offend your religious sensibilities, the personal beliefs of religionists regarding the physical sciences is not at issue. It’s the strength of the theory and the volume of evidence that religious extremists take issue with. The methods of science have only been better supported and confirmed as the methods of scientific testing have become more exacting. It's remarkable to see the time and effort ID'iot creationists spend attacking science and investigation as a cover for their wholly inadequate appeals to gods and supernaturalism.

Science is a process of discovery that relies on factual data, physical evidence and evidence is a core component to those disciplines and the tools employed to explore them. The above is in opposition to the claims of theism which offers nothing of substance to support its claims. In fact, the claims of Arks, seas parting, gravity defying, and other supernatural events de jour are in conflict with every known process of nature.

There is a segment of the world (primarily literalist religionists) who will forever insist that evidence for the processes of science do not exist, regardless of the evidence itself.

There is another segment of the world that does not care one way or the other.

But the relevant segment of the world consists of those who are intimately familiar with the actual evidence. These include the overwhelming majority of practicing scientists in all fields.

View attachment 68855

Your biggest mistake is thinking I don't respect science and the scientific method.

I'd suggest that you should reevaluate what's being put forth here and determine what or who is being put under attack by myself.

However I don't put much faith in your current abilities to accomplish that task.

Perhaps if you wield a scientific sword of truth and ride a dragon of empirical evidence your can vanquish your foes banishing them forevermore into a black hole of cosmic entropy.

*****CHUCKLE*****





Don't count on it though.

The issues being addressed here are not philosophical and retreating to "magic" as an answer for anything is futile.The natural world (to exclude your clams to supernatural inventions) are entirely scientific issues. The natural, ie:, rational world, can be discussed, explored and understood without any necessity of recourse to supernaturalism.

This is why religionists, supernaturalists, ect. tend to run screaming from actual discussion of the science involved and instead insist that the issues are philosophical or theological. They must set up and knock down irrelevant straw men, otherwise they are directly faced with their lack of scientific evidence or argument.

Scientists do not operate on the sort of unquestioning theistic faith that is meant in these kinds of debates. Non-theists, scientists, rely on empirical data, evidence, and assiduous peer-review and falsification (at least good scientists do). This does not mean that fundies do not leap back and forth into and out of faith to suit their arguments-- they do so all the time.


Perhaps if you wrapped your bibles in duct tape (a double wide, so to speak), you could thump your foes into oblivion.

*****CHUCKLE******

 

[emilynghiem]

You detractors to the big bang keep referring to an equilibrium that was supposed to have existed.

You have quantifiable evidence that there was something else that existed prior to this space-time continuum started up?

That assumption is stupid. No scientists theory I have seen suggested that the precursor to our universe, the "ball", was just sitting around for some unspecified period of our time before the bang. It makes more sense to me that the so called "ball" was building all along with some unknown force applied to this incomplete "ball" to keep it in check. At some point all hell broke loose as the "ball" reached a certain point outside the density/pressure needed to contain it. It could not be contained just as the unknown force reached it's opposite and relative decreasing strength needed to contain the "ball".

This theory could be compared to having a bottle of compressed gas sent upwards while more and more pressure is added to the bottle on the inside of the cylinder and the atmospheric pressure is steadily decreasing as the cylinder goes skyward. At some point in altitude ascended to the cylinder explodes because the strength to hold it intact is not enough.

That is just one possibility of how our current universe could have started to expand. You can see I did not need to refer to any god like creature in my theory.

Where's your quantifiable proof for this or is just more scientific creationism theology?

*****CHUCKLE*****

From a little less than 400,000 years backward the theories abound. Many even have this universe a small as the size of a dime or an atom.

The event asks several foundational questions such as when was this universe "this universe" and not some extension of a previous universe.

Was the "ball" as I call it or the point of the singularity actually the beginning of this universe? Some suggest that the stuff of the beginning was an assortment of strings vibrating specific tones within the dense soup of these strings. Some speculate that the shape of the beginning was flat and not spherical. For my purposes the moment that matter assumed the form of atoms we are familiar with was the actual start of this universe.

In any case there was no "place" for a god as there was nothing in these four dimensions before this universe took nothing's place. There was only absolute darkness.

There are theories that many potential universes attempt to start forming but fail.

Like I said there are many theories attempting to explain the how, what and where of the start of this universe. I know of none that seriously attempt to add a god to these equations.

View attachment 68887

So what you're saying is that you have nothing except some scientific theologies, which are most likely wrong, to hold up as a banner of quantitative truth in your scientific crusade of empirical reasoning..... Perhaps you should call upon a nebulous fairy or the galactic unicorn to assist you in your fight for scientific truth as you wave your wand of quantitative analysis. Yet in the end you still have nothing while I and other people who have faith have God and all of Gods works to point to as proof of God's existence.

*****HAPPY SMILE*****

Dear @DamagedEagle

When Spiritual Healing is proven scientifically to work naturally and universally,
then all things can be worked out for the better. Better understanding between science and
religion will be established. And more problems can be solved by applying this knowledge
because it not only heals mind and body of sickness, addiction, abuse and other ills,
but also brings healing to racial, religions and political relations instead of wasting resources fighting wars
and committing crime and violence tied to social ills and poverty/lack of access to resources and help.

I think it will change how we operate in the world, and will help all people and groups achieve their higher goals
by eliminating most of the manmade barriers that otherwise get in the way of progress.

View attachment 68892

I'm not a Christian Scientist or a faith healer.

*****SMILE*****

1. Faith healing is NOT the same as spiritual healing.
Most people use faith healing to mean the fraudulent religious practice for show or profit.
Real spiritual healers have denounced the false faith healing as dangerous for denying
medicine and trying to blame people if they don't get certain results; so this is conditional and that's why it fails -- it is basing faith on whether people get a certain result or not, where people go around trying to dictate and make things happen, which isn't how the healing process works. The false faith healing doesn't involve people changing or correcting anything on the inside, so why should any symptoms change if they haven't solve the problems blocking the healing?
This is like comparing bad science to real science. Or lazy math errors to the right answers and ways of working through the math. These are not the same thing, they are the opposite, but the purpose of both of them is to learn by comparison so we can follow the right steps.

The real spiritual healing is free, natural and works alongside science and medicine,
it does not add conditions or require anyone to deny or neglect medical care.. The point is to identify unresolved issues, memories or conflicts that need to be forgiven in order to free up the mind and body to heal themselves naturally instead of being obstructed or infested with negative energy that causes illness. The more we forgive, the more positive healing energy can flow through and help restore healthy mind body and relationships. This is natural cause and effect, that all humans experience regardless of our religious or political affiliations or views.

2. I have atheist and nonchristian friends who have gone through this type of spiritual healing
prayer that is based on FORGIVENESS, and it still works the same way. One of my atheist friends teaches forgiveness and "free grace in life" as just natural psychology, but the impact it has had on him is the equivalent of how Christians and religious people minister to others, teaching from their own experience what works and why.

You do not need to be Christian to learn how to use spiritual healing which is natural.

Just like you don't have to be a scientist to use gravity that follows certain laws of nature.
Those are going to work anyway. It's just a matter of people learning how to work with the natural healing process where it works for us (instead of the laws of science, or gravity, working against us!)

The same laws of gravity that explain why books sit on the shelf instead of flying up
also explain why those same books would slide to the floor if the shelf isn't straight.

Getting the right or wrong results is not the fault of the laws of gravity, but whether we follow and apply them consistently. The same with why spiritual healing succeeds while "faith healing" fails by making verbal demands without addressing or curing the spiritual causes.

The more we understand how the healing process works, we can troubleshoot it when it fails. And get better results over time, the more we apply and perfect the process.

Anyone can learn because this is consistent with nature and science.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

The issues being addressed here are not philosophical and retreating to "magic" as an answer for anything is futile.The natural world (to exclude your clams to supernatural inventions) are entirely scientific issues. The natural, ie:, rational world, can be discussed, explored and understood without any necessity of recourse to supernaturalism.

As I recall you or one of the scientific crusaders said recently that the laws of the natural universe did not apply when the big bang happened.

Where was your natural, ie, rational world that can be discussed, explored, and understood at that time?

*****CHUCKLE*****

This is why religionists, supernaturalists, ect. tend to run screaming from actual discussion of the science involved and instead insist that the issues are philosophical or theological. They must set up and knock down irrelevant straw men, otherwise they are directly faced with their lack of scientific evidence or argument.

I'm still here.

*****CHUCKLE*****

But then you've never bothered to find out what my beliefs are now have you?

You assume and attack with your scientific sword of truth which I easily deflect with my knowledge of God.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Scientists do not operate on the sort of unquestioning theistic faith that is meant in these kinds of debates. Non-theists, scientists, rely on empirical data, evidence, and assiduous peer-review and falsification (at least good scientists do). This does not mean that fundies do not leap back and forth into and out of faith to suit their arguments-- they do so all the time.

Did the scientists ask for scientifically illiterate pawns like you to attack the masses of those who have faith or are you doing this all on your own?

Perhaps if you wrapped your bibles in duct tape (a double wide, so to speak), you could thump your foes into oblivion.

*****CHUCKLE******

Which bibles would those be?

So far I haven't had to resort to anything except my knowledge of science and the scientific method to prove my faith in God.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Hollie]

The issues being addressed here are not philosophical and retreating to "magic" as an answer for anything is futile.The natural world (to exclude your clams to supernatural inventions) are entirely scientific issues. The natural, ie:, rational world, can be discussed, explored and understood without any necessity of recourse to supernaturalism.

As I recall you or one of the scientific crusaders said recently that the laws of the natural universe did not apply when the big bang happened.

Where was your natural, ie, rational world that can be discussed, explored, and understood at that time?

*****CHUCKLE*****

This is why religionists, supernaturalists, ect. tend to run screaming from actual discussion of the science involved and instead insist that the issues are philosophical or theological. They must set up and knock down irrelevant straw men, otherwise they are directly faced with their lack of scientific evidence or argument.

I'm still here.

*****CHUCKLE*****

But then you've never bothered to find out what my beliefs are now have you?

You assume and attack with your scientific sword of truth which I easily deflect with my knowledge of God.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Scientists do not operate on the sort of unquestioning theistic faith that is meant in these kinds of debates. Non-theists, scientists, rely on empirical data, evidence, and assiduous peer-review and falsification (at least good scientists do). This does not mean that fundies do not leap back and forth into and out of faith to suit their arguments-- they do so all the time.

Did the scientists ask for scientifically illiterate pawns like you to attack the masses of those who have faith or are you doing this all on your own?

Perhaps if you wrapped your bibles in duct tape (a double wide, so to speak), you could thump your foes into oblivion.

*****CHUCKLE******

Which bibles would those be?

View attachment 68897

So far I haven't had to resort to anything except my knowledge of science and the scientific method to prove my faith in God.

*****CHUCKLE*****

You might be interested to learn that a major disruption in matter and energy is what caused the expansion of the universe. Classical laws of physics...such as Conservation of Energy only came into being after Planck time...which is 10exp-43 seconds after the big bang. Before that time, due to the immense density of the universe, science has no firm idea what "laws" prevailed. We only know that they begat the laws of physics as we know them today.

The obvious conclusion is that Conservation of Energy did not play a part in the Big Bang...it was a by-product. If you have had any training in physics, you would know the implication of this.

Nothing known to science accounts for magic, supernatural intervention or the hand of your gods (or other, more powerful gods), snapping their eternal digits and magically creating all of existence.

Now would be the appropriate time to post your General Theory of Supermagical Creation.

You have a workable theory, right? I'm sure the National Science Foundation would be delighted to peer review your data. You have data, right?



*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Damaged Eagle]

You might be interested to learn that a major disruption in matter and energy is what caused the expansion of the universe. Classical laws of physics...such as Conservation of Energy only came into being after Planck time...which is 10exp-43 seconds after the big bang. Before that time, due to the immense density of the universe, science has no firm idea what "laws" prevailed. We only know that they begat the laws of physics as we know them today.

Wow!!!!! Did you just look that up? You assume I didn't know that?

The obvious conclusion is that Conservation of Energy did not play a part in the Big Bang...it was a by-product. If you have had any training in physics, you would know the implication of this.

I'm sure with time we will all come to comprehend how and why God works the way God does.

Nothing known to science accounts for magic, supernatural intervention or the hand of your gods (or other, more powerful gods), snapping their eternal digits and magically creating all of existence.

Who said anything about magic or supernatural intervention except yourself?

God is and does what God chooses to do.

Now would be the appropriate time to post your General Theory of Supermagical Creation.

You have a workable theory, right? I'm sure the National Science Foundation would be delighted to peer review your data. You have data, right?

*****CHUCKLE*****

Sure!!!!! It was a miracle and with more scientific analysis and study we will know how God accomplished that miracle someday.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Mudda]

God doesn't even bother showing you any proof of its existence.

View attachment 68665

The proof is all around you.

*****CHUCKLE*****

So you have nothing, got it.

I have everything! My proof of God's existence is all around me.

What do you have with your scientific creation theology other than being able to say 'I don't know' when asked a simple question?

I'm still going with a miracle happened.

*****CHUCKLE*****

In other words, you don't know either so you make something up. Got it.

Do you know what my beliefs about God are?

If not then I'll suggest my answer is more substantial than yours.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Only queers like Poison.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

View attachment 68665

The proof is all around you.

*****CHUCKLE*****

So you have nothing, got it.

I have everything! My proof of God's existence is all around me.

What do you have with your scientific creation theology other than being able to say 'I don't know' when asked a simple question?

I'm still going with a miracle happened.

*****CHUCKLE*****

In other words, you don't know either so you make something up. Got it.

Do you know what my beliefs about God are?

If not then I'll suggest my answer is more substantial than yours.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Only queers like Poison.

Does this mean you have nothing substantial left to contribute to the discussion?

*****ROFLMAO*****

 

[Hollie]

You might be interested to learn that a major disruption in matter and energy is what caused the expansion of the universe. Classical laws of physics...such as Conservation of Energy only came into being after Planck time...which is 10exp-43 seconds after the big bang. Before that time, due to the immense density of the universe, science has no firm idea what "laws" prevailed. We only know that they begat the laws of physics as we know them today.

Wow!!!!! Did you just look that up? You assume I didn't know that?

The obvious conclusion is that Conservation of Energy did not play a part in the Big Bang...it was a by-product. If you have had any training in physics, you would know the implication of this.

I'm sure with time we will all come to comprehend how and why God works the way God does.

Nothing known to science accounts for magic, supernatural intervention or the hand of your gods (or other, more powerful gods), snapping their eternal digits and magically creating all of existence.

Who said anything about magic or supernatural intervention except yourself?

God is and does what God chooses to do.

Now would be the appropriate time to post your General Theory of Supermagical Creation.

You have a workable theory, right? I'm sure the National Science Foundation would be delighted to peer review your data. You have data, right?

*****CHUCKLE*****

Sure!!!!! It was a miracle and with more scientific analysis and study we will know how God accomplished that miracle someday.

*****CHUCKLE*****

I think gazing at magic crystals is a poor substitute for deriving knowledge.

But still nothing on your General Theory of Supermagical Creation. That's disappointing as how does one study the gods without a blueprint for their "design"?

Many gods exist. Just read your ancient Greek literature. If your gods (let's call them 1st order gods), inhabiting your magical 1st order spirit realms didn't create themselves, then the magical gods inhabiting magical 2nd order spirit realms must have created your magical 1st order gods and their magical spirit realms.

We're then left to require an entire hierarchy of 3rd order, 4th order, etc., gods to an infinity of super-super magical gods and spirit realms as the creators of the subordinate magical spirit realms.

It seems we need a miracle to allow you to present a coherent argument for your hierarchy of gods.


*****guffaw*****

 

[Hollie]

So you have nothing, got it.

I have everything! My proof of God's existence is all around me.

What do you have with your scientific creation theology other than being able to say 'I don't know' when asked a simple question?

I'm still going with a miracle happened.

*****CHUCKLE*****

In other words, you don't know either so you make something up. Got it.

Do you know what my beliefs about God are?

If not then I'll suggest my answer is more substantial than yours.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Only queers like Poison.

View attachment 68903

Does this mean you have nothing substantial left to contribute to the discussion?

*****ROFLMAO*****

I'd have to suggest that your posting of pictures depicting people gazing at magic crystals kinda' suggests that your gods inhabit the realm of carnival barkers and tarot card readers.

 

[zaangalewa]

The double talk you wrap yourself up in is not armour. When the god is dead, it is dead for all time and never existed. That truth unravels your explainations and excuses. It doesn't need to chase you down every rabbit hole you have dug.

I tried to re read his post to see if it makes any sense at all and it simply doesn't.

It looks like the post of a mad man, which would explain believing in an invisible creator

You are following the normal rules of propagada of Commies, Nazis and other mindmanipulating and terrorizing organisations. If they don't have any longer any argument or idea how to justify what's not justifyable, because they are just simple wrong, then they try to kill the reputation of their selfdefined enemies or this persons directly themselves. Whatelse to expect on a day like good friday? But tell me something else: Why do you think is it necessarry that everyone has the same ideas about your not existing pseudogod? And who writes your atheistic fatwas?

Dear zaangalewa
After many discussions with sealybobo for the most part sealybobo is just naturally NONTHEISTIC.
the slight "anti-theist" bias is in reaction to the same bias that theists have projected onto atheists.
So that problem will take a MUTUAL agreement to heal, between atheists and theists to quit judging each other.
Until there is a truce called, you will see a bit of bias and edge/defensiveness in people on both sides
who are used to being slammed by the other.

if we could take sealybobo out of that context and talk freely,
we'd likely focus more on the content and meaning of what people say and see going on in the world.

For all the biases, bickering and "baiting' to stop I assume the world would have to call a truce and agree to coexist in peace.
And maybe over time, these past issues would heal and people could talk freely without backbiting and bullying each other.

It just takes time. But from what I've seen so far,
sealybobo is more concerned with solving the problems not bashing people for them.
That just happens to come with the territory and the media format of interacting online in a free for all. of course
that language is going to come out and distract from the real meat of the discussion and points we could actually clarify and agree on
underneath the terms that different groups use to symbolize certain concepts.

I don't have any idea why you say this to me. It's for me personally completly unimportant what someone believes. Sealbody is able to communicate so he can tell me on his own what he thinks. And I am on my own nothing what I would call "theist". I'm a Catholic - a normal Christian like a huge number of hundreds of millions other Christians. And I don't have any idea what you call "solving problems". I live my life and my life is for no one any problem. And it's for me personally also not important wether someone agrees or disagrees with anything what I say or not - nor would I know what kind of concepts of what kinds of groups had to do anything with anything else what I say to someone or not. Oh by the way: Did you hear that the Romans crucified Jesus today about 2000 years ago? That's not good, isn't it?

(A) Dear @zanngalewa maybe you are neutral and it doesn't affect you if people identify as theist or nontheist.
But I have friends who do have issues with this, and it gets in the way of solving problems.

The division between Christian and nonchristian

?

has even become politicized as dividing left and right,

Christians are traditionalists in most cases. Traditions depend on histories and futures not on directions like left or right.

rich and poor,

?

to badmouth each other in the media and cost millions in lawsuits, hate campaigns, and lobbying
that could otherwise be invested in agreed solutions if both sides of these conflicts could communicate!

I'm not a citizen of the USA.

So this is costing us time, money, resources and relationships.

Who is "us"? US tax payers?

(B) as for Jesus being crucified, if that hadn't happened

Do you try to tell me now something about my own religion?

then all of humanity could not be saved.

Humanity could not be saved? It's yours to save your humanity.

It was a necessary sacrifice. What was "not good" was the vicious cycle of sin and suffering
that could not be broken without divine intervention.

So this is like saying is it bad to have to induce a coma and cut up a patient, and cause
the patient months of painful recovery, in order to conduct the operation to save the patient's heart?

In the case of Jesus dying and being resurrected, the point is to break the cycle
of sin and suffering permanently so we never have to go through that again.
the harmony between God and man, God's will and laws and man's are reconciled.

Lots of strange thoughts for me. I do not know why you try to tell me strange ideas about my own religion.

so that part is GOOD that the lasting benefits outweigh the pain suffering
and sacrifice it took to establish that.

In the process, it is tragic and causes suffering for each of the individual
steps and stages to happen.

Humanity goes through cycles of grief from denial and projection,
to numbness and anger, before arriving at a higher state of spiritual peace.

I'm a Christian - not a humanist. Humanity is for me only a kind of weaker form of Christianity.

The journey itself is a good thing, but some of the painful fearful
things that have to take place along the way are regrettable and not ideally what we want to happen in the longrun.

I don't know what you are speaking about now.

(C) the main key factor in the Bible and Christianity
is the transforming power and grace of FORGIVENESS

What should I forgive you?

to heal hearts and minds, the physical body and personal relationships and humanity collectively.

If you like to do so - do it. But why should someone else do so? Most people are happy if they find the same left and right sock in the morning.

By restoring faith in love, of truth justice and peace, then we can receive these blessings
that God/Life offers for the taking..

We receive what god gives us only because god loves us and gives.

So the whole process of humanity is to learn from
and forgive the past so we can build a society and life of harmony we really are designed for anyway.

The point is to restore the natural harmony and balance that was lost,

We lost paradise. And there's an angel with a sword of flames in front of the door.

and all the "bad things" along the way are part of learning from experience and consequences

It's better to learn from the experiences of others. In this case no one would drink alcohol or use drugs for example.

so we understand the difference and can CHOOSE more effective ways by free will reason and conscience.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

You might be interested to learn that a major disruption in matter and energy is what caused the expansion of the universe. Classical laws of physics...such as Conservation of Energy only came into being after Planck time...which is 10exp-43 seconds after the big bang. Before that time, due to the immense density of the universe, science has no firm idea what "laws" prevailed. We only know that they begat the laws of physics as we know them today.

Wow!!!!! Did you just look that up? You assume I didn't know that?

The obvious conclusion is that Conservation of Energy did not play a part in the Big Bang...it was a by-product. If you have had any training in physics, you would know the implication of this.

I'm sure with time we will all come to comprehend how and why God works the way God does.

Nothing known to science accounts for magic, supernatural intervention or the hand of your gods (or other, more powerful gods), snapping their eternal digits and magically creating all of existence.

Who said anything about magic or supernatural intervention except yourself?

God is and does what God chooses to do.

Now would be the appropriate time to post your General Theory of Supermagical Creation.

You have a workable theory, right? I'm sure the National Science Foundation would be delighted to peer review your data. You have data, right?

*****CHUCKLE*****

Sure!!!!! It was a miracle and with more scientific analysis and study we will know how God accomplished that miracle someday.

*****CHUCKLE*****

I think gazing at magic crystals is a poor substitute for deriving knowledge.

But still nothing on your General Theory of Supermagical Creation. That's disappointing as how does one study the gods without a blueprint for their "design"?

Many gods exist. Just read your ancient Greek literature. If your gods (let's call them 1st order gods), inhabiting your magical 1st order spirit realms didn't create themselves, then the magical gods inhabiting magical 2nd order spirit realms must have created your magical 1st order gods and their magical spirit realms.

We're then left to require an entire hierarchy of 3rd order, 4th order, etc., gods to an infinity of super-super magical gods and spirit realms as the creators of the subordinate magical spirit realms.

It seems we need a miracle to allow you to present a coherent argument for your hierarchy of gods.


*****guffaw*****

Still haven't went back and read the entire thread eh?

I've only referred to one God.

It's you who have to attempt to put things in place that are not there, as you are attempting to do in this your most current post, as you hold high your banner of quantitative truths and wave your wand of quantitative analysis.

Does the burden of righteous empirical data weigh heavily on you as it did and does with the global warming crowd as they used their wands of quantitative truths to corrupt data to make their science fit the objectives?

Perhaps the evidence of Gods existence is right before you as you demonize those who believe while pounding on your 'pristine' pulpit of scientific achievement while condemning people who believe in God.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Damaged Eagle]

I have everything! My proof of God's existence is all around me.

What do you have with your scientific creation theology other than being able to say 'I don't know' when asked a simple question?

I'm still going with a miracle happened.

*****CHUCKLE*****

In other words, you don't know either so you make something up. Got it.

Do you know what my beliefs about God are?

If not then I'll suggest my answer is more substantial than yours.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Only queers like Poison.

View attachment 68903

Does this mean you have nothing substantial left to contribute to the discussion?

*****ROFLMAO*****

I'd have to suggest that your posting of pictures depicting people gazing at magic crystals kinda' suggests that your gods inhabit the realm of carnival barkers and tarot card readers.

You're free to attack those little pictures all you want.

*****ROFLMAO*****





Toro! Toro!

 

[Hollie]

You might be interested to learn that a major disruption in matter and energy is what caused the expansion of the universe. Classical laws of physics...such as Conservation of Energy only came into being after Planck time...which is 10exp-43 seconds after the big bang. Before that time, due to the immense density of the universe, science has no firm idea what "laws" prevailed. We only know that they begat the laws of physics as we know them today.

Wow!!!!! Did you just look that up? You assume I didn't know that?

The obvious conclusion is that Conservation of Energy did not play a part in the Big Bang...it was a by-product. If you have had any training in physics, you would know the implication of this.

I'm sure with time we will all come to comprehend how and why God works the way God does.

Nothing known to science accounts for magic, supernatural intervention or the hand of your gods (or other, more powerful gods), snapping their eternal digits and magically creating all of existence.

Who said anything about magic or supernatural intervention except yourself?

God is and does what God chooses to do.

Now would be the appropriate time to post your General Theory of Supermagical Creation.

You have a workable theory, right? I'm sure the National Science Foundation would be delighted to peer review your data. You have data, right?

*****CHUCKLE*****

Sure!!!!! It was a miracle and with more scientific analysis and study we will know how God accomplished that miracle someday.

*****CHUCKLE*****

I think gazing at magic crystals is a poor substitute for deriving knowledge.

But still nothing on your General Theory of Supermagical Creation. That's disappointing as how does one study the gods without a blueprint for their "design"?

Many gods exist. Just read your ancient Greek literature. If your gods (let's call them 1st order gods), inhabiting your magical 1st order spirit realms didn't create themselves, then the magical gods inhabiting magical 2nd order spirit realms must have created your magical 1st order gods and their magical spirit realms.

We're then left to require an entire hierarchy of 3rd order, 4th order, etc., gods to an infinity of super-super magical gods and spirit realms as the creators of the subordinate magical spirit realms.

It seems we need a miracle to allow you to present a coherent argument for your hierarchy of gods.


*****guffaw*****

Still haven't went back and read the entire thread eh?

I've only referred to one God.

It's you who have to attempt to put things in place that are not there, as you are attempting to do in this your most current post, as you hold high your banner of quantitative truths and wave your wand of quantitative analysis.

Does the burden of righteous empirical data weigh heavily on you as it did and does with the global warming crowd as they used their wands of quantitative truths to corrupt data to make their science fit the objectives?

Perhaps the evidence of Gods existence is right before you as you demonize those who believe while pounding on your 'pristine' pulpit of scientific achievement while condemning people who believe in God.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Yes, you mentioned one of the gods. However, your partisan gods are only several of the thousands of gods that have come and gone. You've offered nothing in your gods that supplants the existence of the gods who preceded your gods.

I'm aghast that you're denying us the details of the "General Theory of Magical Creation". It seems that would be something valuable to support your claims to gods and the power of crystals. I feel a need to point out that you're attempting to denigrate science by equating it with philosophical arguments that promote unsubstantiated claims to partisan gods and supermagicalism. The flaw in your argument is that you need to reduce the process of science and the consensus it brings to a “philosophical“ argument such as the existence of gods. There is nothing philosophical about the scientific method. Science relies on evidence, testing, falsifying and repeatable results to interpret data. Those elements are not available in the case of hearsay evidence with admitted varying levels of claimed authenticity as it relates to claims of gods.

Until theology or ID'iot creationism can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, a beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge? Even the more strident arguments of intelligent design only seem to serve as foils for complexity, not as alternative mechanisms. In physics, when infinity shows up as a result of equations, the equations are not considered solved; they are considered to have no real-world validity. Supernatural intervention as a function seems to have a similar deadening effect..

Im actually fascinated by you folks who gaze at Magic crystals. Do you caress and talk to the crystals while wearing colorful costumes?


Crystal Ball - Absolute Soul Secrets



*****SNORT*****

 

[sealybobo]

The double talk you wrap yourself up in is not armour. When the god is dead, it is dead for all time and never existed. That truth unravels your explainations and excuses. It doesn't need to chase you down every rabbit hole you have dug.

I tried to re read his post to see if it makes any sense at all and it simply doesn't.

It looks like the post of a mad man, which would explain believing in an invisible creator

You are following the normal rules of propagada of Commies, Nazis and other mindmanipulating and terrorizing organisations. If they don't have any longer any argument or idea how to justify what's not justifyable, because they are just simple wrong, then they try to kill the reputation of their selfdefined enemies or this persons directly themselves. Whatelse to expect on a day like good friday? But tell me something else: Why do you think is it necessarry that everyone has the same ideas about your not existing pseudogod? And who writes your atheistic fatwas?

Dear zaangalewa
After many discussions with sealybobo for the most part sealybobo is just naturally NONTHEISTIC.
the slight "anti-theist" bias is in reaction to the same bias that theists have projected onto atheists.
So that problem will take a MUTUAL agreement to heal, between atheists and theists to quit judging each other.
Until there is a truce called, you will see a bit of bias and edge/defensiveness in people on both sides
who are used to being slammed by the other.

if we could take sealybobo out of that context and talk freely,
we'd likely focus more on the content and meaning of what people say and see going on in the world.

For all the biases, bickering and "baiting' to stop I assume the world would have to call a truce and agree to coexist in peace.
And maybe over time, these past issues would heal and people could talk freely without backbiting and bullying each other.

It just takes time. But from what I've seen so far,
sealybobo is more concerned with solving the problems not bashing people for them.
That just happens to come with the territory and the media format of interacting online in a free for all. of course
that language is going to come out and distract from the real meat of the discussion and points we could actually clarify and agree on
underneath the terms that different groups use to symbolize certain concepts.

I don't have any idea why you say this to me. It's for me personally completly unimportant what someone believes. Sealbody is able to communicate so he can tell me on his own what he thinks. And I am on my own nothing what I would call "theist". I'm a Catholic - a normal Christian like a huge number of hundreds of millions other Christians. And I don't have any idea what you call "solving problems". I live my life and my life is for no one any problem. And it's for me personally also not important wether someone agrees or disagrees with anything what I say or not - nor would I know what kind of concepts of what kinds of groups had to do anything with anything else what I say to someone or not. Oh by the way: Did you hear that the Romans crucified Jesus today about 2000 years ago? That's not good, isn't it?

(A) Dear @zanngalewa maybe you are neutral and it doesn't affect you if people identify as theist or nontheist.
But I have friends who do have issues with this, and it gets in the way of solving problems.

The division between Christian and nonchristian has even become politicized as dividing left and right,
rich and poor, to badmouth each other in the media and cost millions in lawsuits, hate campaigns, and lobbying
that could otherwise be invested in agreed solutions if both sides of these conflicts could communicate!

So this is costing us time, money, resources and relationships.

(B) as for Jesus being crucified, if that hadn't happened then all of humanity could not be saved.
It was a necessary sacrifice. What was "not good" was the vicious cycle of sin and suffering
that could not be broken without divine intervention.

So this is like saying is it bad to have to induce a coma and cut up a patient, and cause
the patient months of painful recovery, in order to conduct the operation to save the patient's heart?

In the case of Jesus dying and being resurrected, the point is to break the cycle
of sin and suffering permanently so we never have to go through that again.
the harmony between God and man, God's will and laws and man's are reconciled.

so that part is GOOD that the lasting benefits outweigh the pain suffering
and sacrifice it took to establish that.

In the process, it is tragic and causes suffering for each of the individual
steps and stages to happen.

Humanity goes through cycles of grief from denial and projection,
to numbness and anger, before arriving at a higher state of spiritual peace.

The journey itself is a good thing, but some of the painful fearful
things that have to take place along the way are regrettable and not ideally what we want to happen in the longrun.

(C) the main key factor in the Bible and Christianity
is the transforming power and grace of FORGIVENESS
to heal hearts and minds, the physical body and personal relationships and humanity collectively.

By restoring faith in love, of truth justice and peace, then we can receive these blessings
that God/Life offers for the taking. So the whole process of humanity is to learn from
and forgive the past so we can build a society and life of harmony we really are designed for anyway.

The point is to restore the natural harmony and balance that was lost,
and all the "bad things" along the way are part of learning from experience and consequences
so we understand the difference and can CHOOSE more effective ways by free will reason and conscience.

That dude is the perfect example of a horrible spokesperson for religion. Purposely does something knowing it's annoying us.

If that's his attempt to convince or convert.

Maybe those videos are brainwashing videos. Like looking in Medusa's eyes. I won't watch them

 

[sealybobo]

I have everything! My proof of God's existence is all around me.

What do you have with your scientific creation theology other than being able to say 'I don't know' when asked a simple question?

I'm still going with a miracle happened.

*****CHUCKLE*****

In other words, you don't know either so you make something up. Got it.

Do you know what my beliefs about God are?

If not then I'll suggest my answer is more substantial than yours.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Only queers like Poison.

View attachment 68903

Does this mean you have nothing substantial left to contribute to the discussion?

*****ROFLMAO*****

I'd have to suggest that your posting of pictures depicting people gazing at magic crystals kinda' suggests that your gods inhabit the realm of carnival barkers and tarot card readers.

Don't watch those videos those videos are made by his cult and they're brainwashing people who watch enough of them