If God doesn't exist...

[zaangalewa]

Choosing to reverse, inverse and totally misinterpret posts qualifies one to go unanswered. You do not understand. Perhaps because this is not your first language. If that is the case, you would be well advised not to engage in complex debates while lacking basic skills.

Stop to try to tell me bullshit! Start to think! I don't have any problem if you need some time to find a good result for your intellectual problems. Anyway I don't expect answers within parts of seconds in everything what has to do with spirituality. When we discussed in Germany about this problem the most people were propagators of death penalty. But we gave our parlamentarians the order to decide this question only with the voice of their own conscience. The result was clear and the decision was always good.

 

[ChrisL]

Choosing to reverse, inverse and totally misinterpret posts qualifies one to go unanswered. You do not understand. Perhaps because this is not your first language. If that is the case, you would be well advised not to engage in complex debates while lacking basic skills.

What would you expect? That is all they have left!

 

[Boss]

Let's see boss challenge all that, but watch him try

I don't need to challenge anything. I am not a religious person, I am a spiritualist. Religions are man-made constructs which demonstrate intrinsic human spiritual connection. It's man's way of coping, not with fear or death, but with his own spiritual awareness that he cannot deny.

Now... You and Chris deny your spiritual awareness but there is an underlying reason. You've articulated that you disbelieve because of peer pressure. You weren't cool or hip, people thought you were a square because you believed in God. So in order to feel like you're not such a total loser, you abandoned your spirituality. Now all the cool people like you and think you're alright.

Chris, I strongly suspect, had an incident in her life where someone judged her or condemned her for something she did and she can't get over that. Her way of coping is to attack all things Christian. She comes here armed with atheist talking points, ready to do battle daily in her personal jihad. She has trained herself to believe there is no spirit or soul, that things like love are simply emotional and mean nothing, really. It's just a word people say when chemical shit happens in their brains... nothing else.

Religion is a mixed bag. There are admirable religious people who are good and there are despicable religious people who are bad. However, people who disconnect spiritually have a giant hole they can never fill. They try to fill it by being promiscuous or drinking and doing drugs. They fill their lives with immoral and sick perversions, searching for something that is missing, something they can't ever seem to find. They tell their friends and family they are happy and things are fine, but they know deep down inside they are living a lie. Non-spiritual people suffer more from depression, commit suicide more often, become addicts of some kind and struggle with social and psychological disparity more than those who are spiritually-inclined... not by just a little bit, but nearly 10 to 1.

Our spirituality plays such an important role in who we are as humans that world renown psychiatrist, Sigmund Freud once said... "If God didn't exist, man would have to invent Him." It's hard wired into our DNA. Now... that's not an endorsement for "God" of Abraham or the Bible, but rather, "God" in the generic sense of Spiritual Nature. The "logic" of which, is very simple... Physical nature, by it's own laws and parameters of physics, cannot possibly have created itself. Something greater, therefore, must exist.

Same reason parents wait as long as possible before telling their kids there is no Santa. Sure, it'd be much nicer if I believed but I can't get myself to believe something I don't. And sure we'd be happier if we thought we had a God looking out for us. Who wouldn't? Or to think a heaven is waiting for us.

But I don't fill the hole with drinking because I have Christian friends who drink more than I do.

People who believe in God don't commit suicide because they think they'll go to hell.

Deep down we are living a lie? No. That's what we did back when we believed.

And trust me dude, I'm not missing anything other than church services.

And what is it you think you benefit from that me and Chris are missing by believing in generic God? You think that makes you a happier person? You'll say yes but deep down I doubt that.

And peer pressure isn't that important but it did help meeting other atheists who helped me realize I wasn't alone. The peer pressure comes from theists not atheists. The 1 atheist you refer to opened my eyes. I was still an atheist when I left his home. If I believed in God I wouldn't care what he said but he made a lot of sense.

I'm glad religion fills the huge gaping hole you just admitted your life would have if you didn't believe.

Again, this isn't about Christianity. I have often said, Atheists are sometimes bigger believers in God than some Christians. Some people use Christianity as a shield against criticism or moral judgement. They've convinced themselves they can live however they please as long as they claim to be Christian. They will walk right past a homeless mother and her children to enter a brothel and sleep with a prostitute. They'll get drunk as a skunk on Saturday night and be on the front pew Sunday morning.

But the human intrinsic belief in a Spiritual God is not like Santa, who is incidentally based on a real person... a Saint, as a matter of fact. Our spiritual connection is undeniable and has been a part of humanity for as long as we have evidence of humanity existing. We cannot say the same for legends like Santa or even religions like Christianity.

And what is it you think you benefit from that me and Chris are missing by believing in generic God? You think that makes you a happier person? You'll say yes but deep down I doubt that.

Well, because I used to not be very spiritual at all. I was raised in a religious family but my father was a complete hypocrite who lived anything BUT a Christian life. When I became a teenager, I completely rebelled and for a while, I guess you could say I was an Atheist. I drank, did drugs, was promiscuous... just a totally wicked person... and I thought I was happy as a lark. I didn't need no stinkin' God messing up my FUN!

The problem was, I was never fulfilled as a person. There was something missing. I could never put my finger on it and seems like bad shit kept happening to me over and over. Relationships failed, things didn't go as planned, bad luck seemed to follow me like a big black cloud. For a long time, I chalked it up to "shit happens" and kept moving on. In 1986, I had a very traumatic personal experience which should have taken my life. There is no rational explanation for why I am still here. This gave me pause and caused me to slow down and think. What I discovered was life changing. It's not "in my head" and it's not "my imagination". You can believe that, and I am sure you do, but I know different.

 

[james bond]

1. Indoctrination into Religion

Is it coincidence that people tend to stay with whatever religion they were raised in, and this religion tends to be whatever religion is dominant in the community/nation where they live? If people were genuinely convinced by the arguments which apologists offered, shouldn't the distribution of religions around the globe be a bit more even?

The high and consistent degree of religious concentrations suggests that people believe their religion because that's the one they were indoctrinated into and which is consistently reinforced around them. People acquire a religion before critical thinking skills and that religion is promoted without most people noticing. That's really not a very good reason to believe that a religion is true, is it?


2. Indoctrination into Anti-Atheist Bigotry
If you keep being told that people who don't believe in your god are evil, immoral, and a threat to the stable social order, then you would never dream of dropping your theistic religion. Who wants to be immoral or simply regarded by the rest of society as immoral? This is very much what atheists face, especially in America, and it's hard not to see theconstant indoctrination into anti-atheist bigotry as a reason why people stick to their religions. Children learn in public schools that America is a nation for people who believe in God and this message is reinforced throughout their lives by preachers, politicians, and community leaders of all sorts.

3. Peer and Family Pressure
Religion can be enormously important to families and communities, creating a tremendous amount of pressure to conform to religious expectations. People who step outside those expectations are not simply choosing a different way of life, but can in fact be perceived as rejecting one of the most important bonds which keep a family or community together. Even if this is never communicated in so many words, people do learn that certain ideas, ideologies, and practices should be treated as vital to communal bonds and should therefore not be questioned. The role of peer pressure and familial pressure in maintaining at least a veneer of religiosity for many people cannot be denied.

4. Fear of Death
Many religious theists try to argue atheists into believing in a god through the fear of what will happen after dying — either going to hell or simply ceasing to exist. This arguably reveals something very important about the believers themselves: they, too, must fear death as the cessation of existence and believe not because there are any good reasons to think there is an afterlife, but rather out of wishful thinking. People don't want to think that physical death is the end of all experiences, emotions, and thoughts so they insist on believing that somehow their "mind" will continue to exist without any physical brain in an eternity of sustained bliss — or even will be reincarnated in a new form.

5. Wishful Thinking
The wish that physical death isn't the end of life probably isn't the only example of wishful thinking behind religious and theistic belief. There are a number of other ways in which people profess beliefs that appear to be more about what they wish were true than what they can support through good evidence and logic. Many Christians, for example, seem to wish quite strongly that there exists a place of eternal punishment awaiting all those who dare to deny them political and cultural dominion in America. Many conservative believers from many religions seem to wish that there is a god which wants them to exercise unchecked power over women and minorities.

6. Fear of Freedom and Responsibility
One of the most disturbing aspects of many people's religious beliefs is the manner in which these beliefs make it possible for believers to avoid taking personal responsibility for what's going on. They don't have to be responsible for ensuring that justice is done because God will provide that. They don't have to be responsible for solving environmental problems because God will do that. They don't have to be responsible for developing strong moral rules because God has done that. They don't have to be responsible for developing sound arguments in defense of their positions because God has done that. Believers deny their own freedom because freedom means responsibility and responsibility means that if we fail, no one will rescue us.

7. Lack of Basic Skills in Logic and Reasoning
Most people don't learn nearly as much about logic, reason, and constructing sound arguments as they should. Even so, the quality of arguments typically offered by believers as justification for their religious and theistic beliefs are remarkable for just how atrocious they are. If only one basic logical fallacy is committed, it can be considered an achievement. Given how important believers claim the existence of their god and truth of their religion are, you'd think that they would invest a lot of effort into constructing the best possible arguments and finding the best possible evidence. Instead, they invest a lot of effort into constructing circular rationalizations and finding anything that sounds even remotely plausible.

Not theists, but people like yourselves.

 

[james bond]

Evos: The geographic and rock layers of the earth support a gradual development of life. Darwin expected that if fossils were found in Precambrian rocks they would show a gradual development.

Not true. Stephen Jay Gould states, "the Precambrian fossils that actually were found after Darwin’s death." Also, evos are basing their "religion" on old books such as Charles Lyell's Principles of Geology (1830) and Charles Darwin's Origin of Species (1859).

Evos: The fossil record proves evolution is true. For example,the fact that primate or ape-like fossils are not found in Devonian layers proves that apes had not evolved yet.

False. If there were ape-like fossils found, then it would be ignored by evos (anything that contradicts evolution is ignored) or say it was planted. Creationists say that the layers are based on geography, not time.

Let's look at the layers. Even their names are based on geography, not time.

Geologic Strata - The distinctive characteristic of a layer might be the kind of minerals found in it, or the kind of. There is something unique about the layer that geologists recognize and think is significant.

Geologists, like biologists, like to classify similar things by giving a name to a group of similar things. This makes it easier to study the rocks, and talk to other geologists about the rocks.

Devonian Layer - It is named after Devon, England, where rocks from this period were first studied.There are lots of fish fossils in this layer, but noprimate fossils, as evolutionists love to point out. Why is this? Is it because primates did not exist anywhere in the world when the Devonian rocks were formed? Or was it because apes don’t live where fish live?

To find fossils of extinct primates, paleontologists go to Tanzania or Kenya; but they don’t find fish fossils there. Is that because fish did not exist when
Homo habilis or Australopithecus Afarensis lived? Or is it because fish don’t live on dry land where Homo habilis or Australopithecus Afarensis lived?

Fossils are formed when things get buried rapidly by a landslide, sandstorm, tsunami, flood, or any other disaster that might bury things. The things that get buried are the things that happened to be at the place that got buried.

On rare occasions, things get buried out of place. Someone might have caught a fish and brought it back to camp just before a rockslide buried the camp, causing a fish fossil to be foundmysteriously out of place. But that’s a rare anomaly. Fossil-bearing strata overwhelmingly tend to contain fossils associated with a particular habitat. In fact, that’s how paleontologists determine what the habitat was like.

Geographic Names
There are a few exceptions, but generally speaking, strata have geographic names. For example,

The Jurassic is named after the Jura Mountains within the European Alps, where limestone strata from the period was first identified.

The Mississippian is so named because rocks with this age are exposed in the Mississippi River valley.

The Pennsylvanian is named after the American state of Pennsylvania, where rocks with this age are widespread.

Notice that each layer is associated with an age. Why is that? Mississippian rocks are supposedly older than Pennsylvanian rocks; but Pennsylvania was a state before Mississippi was. Chronologically, the two names make no sense. That’s because the names are based on geography, not time.

More, as I get time.

I'll make a couple of points here.
1. How do you explain the starfilled sky?
2. "Even their names are based on geography, not time." , think that's stretching the truth quite a bit
Archean time period from the Greek for beginning.
Protorezoic time period Greek for earlier life
Phanerozoic time period Greek for visible life. the list goes on but you get my drift.
3. If you claim science supress data I would like proof of that statement. Not "If there were ape-like fossils found, then it would be ignored by evos"
4. The fact that you admit to these layers, proves my point that the earth is older then 6000 years. Fossilazation in itself is a process wich is understood to take a minimum of 10000 years. Coal, oil are known to be biological in origin. and take hundred of thousands of years minimally, a few exeptions not withstanding. These are natural processes know and understood by science.
5. Ill make this point again. I can use different tracks to disprove a young earth. You might say they're both believe systems, but my belief system does seem to offer a tremendous amount of cooberating facts. I accept since you have faith you don't feel the need to prove what you belief. But if, and I'm talking about creatonism, you feel the need to use the Bible as the ultimate proof in a scientific world. I think it reasonable that the bible needs to go trough the same scrutiny as any scientific theory before you can actually put it in a classroom for instance.

1. I guess by "starfilled sky," you mean is it based on time. NDT corrected perfectionist Director James Cameron in one of the scenes of his movie Titanic. Yes, I agree with that but what does have to do with our discussion?
2. With few exceptions, the names of the strata layers are mostly based on location. Maybe you're so stuck on the names being associated with time because evolutionists have thoroughly indoctrinated generations of students to believe that rock layers are associated with time, not places. The names follow Occam's Razor -- The kinds of plants and animals present when the rocks were formed depends on geography (that is, ecological zone), not time. That’s why most have geographic names.
3. I claim science suppress creation and creation scientists. Science does not accept the supernatural since 1795.

One of the best known “human ancestors” is an Australopithecus afarensis skeleton called Lucy. What does she look like? A human skull? Uhh... no.

This is one of the best photos of the "250" hominid fossils:

4. Nope. The layers are based on catastrophism, not unifamitarianism. There was a global flood and our earth was shaped within months not millions or billions of years.
5. I already sketched the outline of my arguments, so please proceed with yours. It does not have to be in detail.

.1. sketched my point on the stars I'll do it again. If Genesis contents the earth is 6000 years old. Then logicaly the night sky should only have stars in it that are 6000 lightyears or less away, very local in cosmic terms.
2. Again the time periods I gave are not just based in time but even as my original point said, in the evolutionare fase of life. Sometimes in the type of rock found.( Cretacious) after large quantities of chalk found dating from that period. Sometimes geograpicaly. I'm not stuck on the naming. You brought it up, siting it as proof of the fact that science doesn't find time a factor when naming a strata. While geology is tightly intertwined with the theory of evolution as the names of some of the geolical periods prove.
3. Science has added some very unpopular ideas since before it was science. Evolution was one of them when it was introduced. So was plate tectonics, the big bang and numerous others we consider common knowledge. Supressing anything in it is extremely difficult if not impossible. Since any theory brought out by science constantly has to stand the test of reality. A scientist who can disprove an accepted theory becomes a hero to science. Claiming it supresses ideas is simply untrue.
4.Prominent Hominid Fossils
The link provided brings you to a site with homonid fossils and a description of what they found.Most are fragments but some are considerably more then that. And remember I don't have to prove that all of them are homonids just one is sufficient to invalidate Genesis.

1. Oh, that's what you meant. LOL. This has been answered by science and math.

The Earth being 6,000 years old is based on observation. Astronomers have observed that about every 30 years a star dies and explodes into a supernova (ICR September, 1998). If the universe were billions of years old, it would equal to about several hundred million supernovas. However, astronomers have observed less than 300 supernovas in the universe. This limited number of supernovas shows that the universe is less than 10,000 years old, just like the Bible says.

Next, how do you calculate the distance between a star and earth that is lightyears away? Please answer.

Here is what I learned in school. Using trigonometry, if you have two observation points, then you can calculate the distance to a third point. This is what surveyors do.

What we can do is take a point on the Earth and another point very far away such as the distance of the sun from earth which is 93 million miles away. At the speed of light, it takes around 8 minutes for the sun's rays to reach earth. This means that the diameter of earth’s orbit around the sun is 16 light minutes. So, if you look at a star today and then looked at it 6 months later, it would be 16 light minutes away, amiright? This star would be approx. 186 million miles away; Not a problem when you're traveling at the speed of light.

So what's the problem? The reason I use the distance of the earth and sun is to point out a problem. How do you measure distance to something that is lightyears away when you are on earth? Earth is about 8,000 miles in diameter. We can use trig to calculate the third point, i.e. the star, but you are trying to measure a star that is very far away when physically you can only set up a point 8,000 miles away. It is the narrow triangle problem.

Are you following me? You stated that you can measure 6000 lightyears away which is very local in cosmic terms. Just how do you do that?

2. I think you are admitting that your evolutionary time periods were calculated by evolutionists based on the layer and somehow they concluded it showed millions of years difference. It sounds like circular reasoning. The dinosaur fossils are 100 million years old because they are found in rocks that were formed 100 million years ago. The rocks are known to be 100 million years old because they contain the bones of dinosaurs that died 100 million years ago. When the evos get two different time periods between the rock and the fossil, what do they use?

.What I stated was the layers of rock found and what scientists found, i.e. fossils, is based on the what was there at the time the things got buried and the rock formed. Occam's razor.

3 and 4. What do these prominent Hominid fossils show anyway?

 

[james bond]

To help forkup, here's what "science" says about lightyear and age of our universe. This is very sketchy science. No one knows what happens to light at these great distances as we know that it is related to time. I'm willing to bet a cyber beer that the distance to our closest star is wrong. Science is usually wrong with their hypotheses.

What is a light year?

 

[zaangalewa]

Choosing to reverse, inverse and totally misinterpret posts qualifies one to go unanswered. You do not understand. Perhaps because this is not your first language. If that is the case, you would be well advised not to engage in complex debates while lacking basic skills.

What would you expect? That is all they have left!

What is "all" and who is "they" and what means "left" in this egocentralized thought about the worlds all around you?

 

[zaangalewa]

Sensing the universe and the wonder of it does not require dogma.

I find all kinds of things wondrous. Doesn't have to do anything with superstitious beliefs though. For example, I find history to be fascinating and wondrous and I would love to visit some historical sites around the world some day. I also find the universe and how it was created and how vast it is to be wondrous, but that doesn't mean I have to believe that some "entity" created it all.

So where did life originate? Why do you exist? Where are you going? Why are you here? How do you know this?

Oh my "god." Go back to grade school and learn about evolution, will ya?

LittleNipper

Short intermezzo and some dirty and quick explanations:

Q:Where did life originate?
A: The theory of evolution is able to say "in a first cell", because every lifeform has a common ancestor with every other lifeform. Saint Francis would say: "We are all brothers and sisters" like brother worm and sister bee for example.

Q: Why do you exist?
A: The theory of evolution is not able to give here an answer.

Q: Where are you going?
A: For the theory of evolution life is only able to exist in combination with death - while paradise and heaven are a place full of life without death.

Q: Why are you here?
A: The theory of evolution denies the existance of plans (teleology) in nature. The philosophy of the theory of evolution would say: We are on no special reason here in this world and we go a way without any definable end, except the end of the own life.

Q: How do you know this?
A: We know something in natural science because we agree on plausible reasons (in mathematics for example) or because we are able to ask the reality all around (for example in experiments). In biology for example we compare similiar structures and categorize this structures. For example we compare the hand of a Gorilla with the hand of a human being and try to find the common elements and the different elements. The more common elements and the less different elements the more is something like we are. A Gorilla is more similiar (near) - a bee and a worm are not so similiar (far).
The very big problem of the theory of evolution are the experiments in genetics because all lifeforms on our planet are using the same code for reproduction. Nature makes changes littlest step by littlest step. We make it ... I fear "crazy". I personally don't have the impression in the Eldorado "genetics" is a good knowledge really existing. Sometimes I have in this context the imagination children are playing with fire in a dry barn full of dry straw surrounded from a dry world without exit.

 

[Militants]

Christ are cp injured.

 

[forkup]

Evos: The geographic and rock layers of the earth support a gradual development of life. Darwin expected that if fossils were found in Precambrian rocks they would show a gradual development.

Not true. Stephen Jay Gould states, "the Precambrian fossils that actually were found after Darwin’s death." Also, evos are basing their "religion" on old books such as Charles Lyell's Principles of Geology (1830) and Charles Darwin's Origin of Species (1859).

Evos: The fossil record proves evolution is true. For example,the fact that primate or ape-like fossils are not found in Devonian layers proves that apes had not evolved yet.

False. If there were ape-like fossils found, then it would be ignored by evos (anything that contradicts evolution is ignored) or say it was planted. Creationists say that the layers are based on geography, not time.

Let's look at the layers. Even their names are based on geography, not time.

Geologic Strata - The distinctive characteristic of a layer might be the kind of minerals found in it, or the kind of. There is something unique about the layer that geologists recognize and think is significant.

Geologists, like biologists, like to classify similar things by giving a name to a group of similar things. This makes it easier to study the rocks, and talk to other geologists about the rocks.

Devonian Layer - It is named after Devon, England, where rocks from this period were first studied.There are lots of fish fossils in this layer, but noprimate fossils, as evolutionists love to point out. Why is this? Is it because primates did not exist anywhere in the world when the Devonian rocks were formed? Or was it because apes don’t live where fish live?

To find fossils of extinct primates, paleontologists go to Tanzania or Kenya; but they don’t find fish fossils there. Is that because fish did not exist when
Homo habilis or Australopithecus Afarensis lived? Or is it because fish don’t live on dry land where Homo habilis or Australopithecus Afarensis lived?

Fossils are formed when things get buried rapidly by a landslide, sandstorm, tsunami, flood, or any other disaster that might bury things. The things that get buried are the things that happened to be at the place that got buried.

On rare occasions, things get buried out of place. Someone might have caught a fish and brought it back to camp just before a rockslide buried the camp, causing a fish fossil to be foundmysteriously out of place. But that’s a rare anomaly. Fossil-bearing strata overwhelmingly tend to contain fossils associated with a particular habitat. In fact, that’s how paleontologists determine what the habitat was like.

Geographic Names
There are a few exceptions, but generally speaking, strata have geographic names. For example,

The Jurassic is named after the Jura Mountains within the European Alps, where limestone strata from the period was first identified.

The Mississippian is so named because rocks with this age are exposed in the Mississippi River valley.

The Pennsylvanian is named after the American state of Pennsylvania, where rocks with this age are widespread.

Notice that each layer is associated with an age. Why is that? Mississippian rocks are supposedly older than Pennsylvanian rocks; but Pennsylvania was a state before Mississippi was. Chronologically, the two names make no sense. That’s because the names are based on geography, not time.

More, as I get time.

I'll make a couple of points here.
1. How do you explain the starfilled sky?
2. "Even their names are based on geography, not time." , think that's stretching the truth quite a bit
Archean time period from the Greek for beginning.
Protorezoic time period Greek for earlier life
Phanerozoic time period Greek for visible life. the list goes on but you get my drift.
3. If you claim science supress data I would like proof of that statement. Not "If there were ape-like fossils found, then it would be ignored by evos"
4. The fact that you admit to these layers, proves my point that the earth is older then 6000 years. Fossilazation in itself is a process wich is understood to take a minimum of 10000 years. Coal, oil are known to be biological in origin. and take hundred of thousands of years minimally, a few exeptions not withstanding. These are natural processes know and understood by science.
5. Ill make this point again. I can use different tracks to disprove a young earth. You might say they're both believe systems, but my belief system does seem to offer a tremendous amount of cooberating facts. I accept since you have faith you don't feel the need to prove what you belief. But if, and I'm talking about creatonism, you feel the need to use the Bible as the ultimate proof in a scientific world. I think it reasonable that the bible needs to go trough the same scrutiny as any scientific theory before you can actually put it in a classroom for instance.

1. I guess by "starfilled sky," you mean is it based on time. NDT corrected perfectionist Director James Cameron in one of the scenes of his movie Titanic. Yes, I agree with that but what does have to do with our discussion?
2. With few exceptions, the names of the strata layers are mostly based on location. Maybe you're so stuck on the names being associated with time because evolutionists have thoroughly indoctrinated generations of students to believe that rock layers are associated with time, not places. The names follow Occam's Razor -- The kinds of plants and animals present when the rocks were formed depends on geography (that is, ecological zone), not time. That’s why most have geographic names.
3. I claim science suppress creation and creation scientists. Science does not accept the supernatural since 1795.

One of the best known “human ancestors” is an Australopithecus afarensis skeleton called Lucy. What does she look like? A human skull? Uhh... no.

This is one of the best photos of the "250" hominid fossils:

4. Nope. The layers are based on catastrophism, not unifamitarianism. There was a global flood and our earth was shaped within months not millions or billions of years.
5. I already sketched the outline of my arguments, so please proceed with yours. It does not have to be in detail.

.1. sketched my point on the stars I'll do it again. If Genesis contents the earth is 6000 years old. Then logicaly the night sky should only have stars in it that are 6000 lightyears or less away, very local in cosmic terms.
2. Again the time periods I gave are not just based in time but even as my original point said, in the evolutionare fase of life. Sometimes in the type of rock found.( Cretacious) after large quantities of chalk found dating from that period. Sometimes geograpicaly. I'm not stuck on the naming. You brought it up, siting it as proof of the fact that science doesn't find time a factor when naming a strata. While geology is tightly intertwined with the theory of evolution as the names of some of the geolical periods prove.
3. Science has added some very unpopular ideas since before it was science. Evolution was one of them when it was introduced. So was plate tectonics, the big bang and numerous others we consider common knowledge. Supressing anything in it is extremely difficult if not impossible. Since any theory brought out by science constantly has to stand the test of reality. A scientist who can disprove an accepted theory becomes a hero to science. Claiming it supresses ideas is simply untrue.
4.Prominent Hominid Fossils
The link provided brings you to a site with homonid fossils and a description of what they found.Most are fragments but some are considerably more then that. And remember I don't have to prove that all of them are homonids just one is sufficient to invalidate Genesis.

1. Oh, that's what you meant. LOL. This has been answered by science and math.

The Earth being 6,000 years old is based on observation. Astronomers have observed that about every 30 years a star dies and explodes into a supernova (ICR September, 1998). If the universe were billions of years old, it would equal to about several hundred million supernovas. However, astronomers have observed less than 300 supernovas in the universe. This limited number of supernovas shows that the universe is less than 10,000 years old, just like the Bible says.

Next, how do you calculate the distance between a star and earth that is lightyears away? Please answer.

Here is what I learned in school. Using trigonometry, if you have two observation points, then you can calculate the distance to a third point. This is what surveyors do.

What we can do is take a point on the Earth and another point very far away such as the distance of the sun from earth which is 93 million miles away. At the speed of light, it takes around 8 minutes for the sun's rays to reach earth. This means that the diameter of earth’s orbit around the sun is 16 light minutes. So, if you look at a star today and then looked at it 6 months later, it would be 16 light minutes away, amiright? This star would be approx. 186 million miles away; Not a problem when you're traveling at the speed of light.

So what's the problem? The reason I use the distance of the earth and sun is to point out a problem. How do you measure distance to something that is lightyears away when you are on earth? Earth is about 8,000 miles in diameter. We can use trig to calculate the third point, i.e. the star, but you are trying to measure a star that is very far away when physically you can only set up a point 8,000 miles away. It is the narrow triangle problem.

Are you following me? You stated that you can measure 6000 lightyears away which is very local in cosmic terms. Just how do you do that?

2. I think you are admitting that your evolutionary time periods were calculated by evolutionists based on the layer and somehow they concluded it showed millions of years difference. It sounds like circular reasoning. The dinosaur fossils are 100 million years old because they are found in rocks that were formed 100 million years ago. The rocks are known to be 100 million years old because they contain the bones of dinosaurs that died 100 million years ago. When the evos get two different time periods between the rock and the fossil, what do they use?

.What I stated was the layers of rock found and what scientists found, i.e. fossils, is based on the what was there at the time the things got buried and the rock formed. Occam's razor.

3 and 4. What do these prominent Hominid fossils show anyway?

1. The narrow triangle problem is solved from making 2 measurements 6 months spread AKA at a different time in its orbit. The point is not like you suggest 8000 miles but rather the orbital distance of the Earth traveling around the Sun. In other words the earth as a vastly different position in space in 6 months . Methods of Measuring Stellar Distances
This links describes in 3 other methods used in detail.
2. So you think it's bioligist deciding how to name strata? You flipped your argument btw. First it was the naming is geographical now it's, because it's not geograpical it's Biological it has to be a conspiracy. And let's look at the fossil record alot of it is buried deep and I mean very deep in the floor, 6000 years is a hell of a short time to bury something in some cases 2000 meters in the ground and turn it into stone. Do you have any idea what natural phenomona would be able to do that?
3. I've made this point alot already but I'll say it again. I've given you multiple proofs and by no means all of them, in different branches of science, going from astronomy to geoligy,physics, chemistry, etc. So far the best you've come back with is that either my data is wrong, altough it's accepted by an OVERWHELMING majority in the scientific world, or it's a conspiracy of the scientific community.I have kept my explanations general and simple to give you room to ask questions and I've answered nearly all of them In return you have given me nothing but some very conveluted assumptions from ppl lived for 950 years in Biblical times to the naming of strata proves geoligist don't accept evolution because some layers are named for locations. Or it's a conspiracy.At no point where you able to give any real accepted scientific data to cooberate this. As i said before you are entitled to your beliefs, but I think it's safe to say, that those beliefs don't stand the test of reality as science does.

 

[forkup]

Evos: The geographic and rock layers of the earth support a gradual development of life. Darwin expected that if fossils were found in Precambrian rocks they would show a gradual development.

Not true. Stephen Jay Gould states, "the Precambrian fossils that actually were found after Darwin’s death." Also, evos are basing their "religion" on old books such as Charles Lyell's Principles of Geology (1830) and Charles Darwin's Origin of Species (1859).

Evos: The fossil record proves evolution is true. For example,the fact that primate or ape-like fossils are not found in Devonian layers proves that apes had not evolved yet.

False. If there were ape-like fossils found, then it would be ignored by evos (anything that contradicts evolution is ignored) or say it was planted. Creationists say that the layers are based on geography, not time.

Let's look at the layers. Even their names are based on geography, not time.

Geologic Strata - The distinctive characteristic of a layer might be the kind of minerals found in it, or the kind of. There is something unique about the layer that geologists recognize and think is significant.

Geologists, like biologists, like to classify similar things by giving a name to a group of similar things. This makes it easier to study the rocks, and talk to other geologists about the rocks.

Devonian Layer - It is named after Devon, England, where rocks from this period were first studied.There are lots of fish fossils in this layer, but noprimate fossils, as evolutionists love to point out. Why is this? Is it because primates did not exist anywhere in the world when the Devonian rocks were formed? Or was it because apes don’t live where fish live?

To find fossils of extinct primates, paleontologists go to Tanzania or Kenya; but they don’t find fish fossils there. Is that because fish did not exist when
Homo habilis or Australopithecus Afarensis lived? Or is it because fish don’t live on dry land where Homo habilis or Australopithecus Afarensis lived?

Fossils are formed when things get buried rapidly by a landslide, sandstorm, tsunami, flood, or any other disaster that might bury things. The things that get buried are the things that happened to be at the place that got buried.

On rare occasions, things get buried out of place. Someone might have caught a fish and brought it back to camp just before a rockslide buried the camp, causing a fish fossil to be foundmysteriously out of place. But that’s a rare anomaly. Fossil-bearing strata overwhelmingly tend to contain fossils associated with a particular habitat. In fact, that’s how paleontologists determine what the habitat was like.

Geographic Names
There are a few exceptions, but generally speaking, strata have geographic names. For example,

The Jurassic is named after the Jura Mountains within the European Alps, where limestone strata from the period was first identified.

The Mississippian is so named because rocks with this age are exposed in the Mississippi River valley.

The Pennsylvanian is named after the American state of Pennsylvania, where rocks with this age are widespread.

Notice that each layer is associated with an age. Why is that? Mississippian rocks are supposedly older than Pennsylvanian rocks; but Pennsylvania was a state before Mississippi was. Chronologically, the two names make no sense. That’s because the names are based on geography, not time.

More, as I get time.

I'll make a couple of points here.
1. How do you explain the starfilled sky?
2. "Even their names are based on geography, not time." , think that's stretching the truth quite a bit
Archean time period from the Greek for beginning.
Protorezoic time period Greek for earlier life
Phanerozoic time period Greek for visible life. the list goes on but you get my drift.
3. If you claim science supress data I would like proof of that statement. Not "If there were ape-like fossils found, then it would be ignored by evos"
4. The fact that you admit to these layers, proves my point that the earth is older then 6000 years. Fossilazation in itself is a process wich is understood to take a minimum of 10000 years. Coal, oil are known to be biological in origin. and take hundred of thousands of years minimally, a few exeptions not withstanding. These are natural processes know and understood by science.
5. Ill make this point again. I can use different tracks to disprove a young earth. You might say they're both believe systems, but my belief system does seem to offer a tremendous amount of cooberating facts. I accept since you have faith you don't feel the need to prove what you belief. But if, and I'm talking about creatonism, you feel the need to use the Bible as the ultimate proof in a scientific world. I think it reasonable that the bible needs to go trough the same scrutiny as any scientific theory before you can actually put it in a classroom for instance.

1. I guess by "starfilled sky," you mean is it based on time. NDT corrected perfectionist Director James Cameron in one of the scenes of his movie Titanic. Yes, I agree with that but what does have to do with our discussion?
2. With few exceptions, the names of the strata layers are mostly based on location. Maybe you're so stuck on the names being associated with time because evolutionists have thoroughly indoctrinated generations of students to believe that rock layers are associated with time, not places. The names follow Occam's Razor -- The kinds of plants and animals present when the rocks were formed depends on geography (that is, ecological zone), not time. That’s why most have geographic names.
3. I claim science suppress creation and creation scientists. Science does not accept the supernatural since 1795.

One of the best known “human ancestors” is an Australopithecus afarensis skeleton called Lucy. What does she look like? A human skull? Uhh... no.

This is one of the best photos of the "250" hominid fossils:

4. Nope. The layers are based on catastrophism, not unifamitarianism. There was a global flood and our earth was shaped within months not millions or billions of years.
5. I already sketched the outline of my arguments, so please proceed with yours. It does not have to be in detail.

.1. sketched my point on the stars I'll do it again. If Genesis contents the earth is 6000 years old. Then logicaly the night sky should only have stars in it that are 6000 lightyears or less away, very local in cosmic terms.
2. Again the time periods I gave are not just based in time but even as my original point said, in the evolutionare fase of life. Sometimes in the type of rock found.( Cretacious) after large quantities of chalk found dating from that period. Sometimes geograpicaly. I'm not stuck on the naming. You brought it up, siting it as proof of the fact that science doesn't find time a factor when naming a strata. While geology is tightly intertwined with the theory of evolution as the names of some of the geolical periods prove.
3. Science has added some very unpopular ideas since before it was science. Evolution was one of them when it was introduced. So was plate tectonics, the big bang and numerous others we consider common knowledge. Supressing anything in it is extremely difficult if not impossible. Since any theory brought out by science constantly has to stand the test of reality. A scientist who can disprove an accepted theory becomes a hero to science. Claiming it supresses ideas is simply untrue.
4.Prominent Hominid Fossils
The link provided brings you to a site with homonid fossils and a description of what they found.Most are fragments but some are considerably more then that. And remember I don't have to prove that all of them are homonids just one is sufficient to invalidate Genesis.

1. Oh, that's what you meant. LOL. This has been answered by science and math.

The Earth being 6,000 years old is based on observation. Astronomers have observed that about every 30 years a star dies and explodes into a supernova (ICR September, 1998). If the universe were billions of years old, it would equal to about several hundred million supernovas. However, astronomers have observed less than 300 supernovas in the universe. This limited number of supernovas shows that the universe is less than 10,000 years old, just like the Bible says.

Next, how do you calculate the distance between a star and earth that is lightyears away? Please answer.

Here is what I learned in school. Using trigonometry, if you have two observation points, then you can calculate the distance to a third point. This is what surveyors do.

What we can do is take a point on the Earth and another point very far away such as the distance of the sun from earth which is 93 million miles away. At the speed of light, it takes around 8 minutes for the sun's rays to reach earth. This means that the diameter of earth’s orbit around the sun is 16 light minutes. So, if you look at a star today and then looked at it 6 months later, it would be 16 light minutes away, amiright? This star would be approx. 186 million miles away; Not a problem when you're traveling at the speed of light.

So what's the problem? The reason I use the distance of the earth and sun is to point out a problem. How do you measure distance to something that is lightyears away when you are on earth? Earth is about 8,000 miles in diameter. We can use trig to calculate the third point, i.e. the star, but you are trying to measure a star that is very far away when physically you can only set up a point 8,000 miles away. It is the narrow triangle problem.

Are you following me? You stated that you can measure 6000 lightyears away which is very local in cosmic terms. Just how do you do that?

2. I think you are admitting that your evolutionary time periods were calculated by evolutionists based on the layer and somehow they concluded it showed millions of years difference. It sounds like circular reasoning. The dinosaur fossils are 100 million years old because they are found in rocks that were formed 100 million years ago. The rocks are known to be 100 million years old because they contain the bones of dinosaurs that died 100 million years ago. When the evos get two different time periods between the rock and the fossil, what do they use?

.What I stated was the layers of rock found and what scientists found, i.e. fossils, is based on the what was there at the time the things got buried and the rock formed. Occam's razor.

3 and 4. What do these prominent Hominid fossils show anyway?

As to 3 and 4. It shows that Archeoligical digs have turned up a clear record of progressivly more advanced homonid species. In the case of the latter homonids to the point of digging them up with tools next to it.

 

[forkup]

To help forkup, here's what "science" says about lightyear and age of our universe. This is very sketchy science. No one knows what happens to light at these great distances as we know that it is related to time. I'm willing to bet a cyber beer that the distance to our closest star is wrong. Science is usually wrong with their hypotheses.

What is a light year?

Ok light has a measurable speed. A light year is the distance that light can travel in the course of a year. Pretty staightforward.If you know how many seconds there's in a year. And you know how far light travels in a second it's a simple multiplication. Where's the assumption here?

 

[Damaged Eagle]

...and science holds the answer to all questions....

Then what kick started the universe?

OK. And what kick started GOD, smartypants?

What part of my being a pantheist don't you understand?

There isn't an answer to ANY of this,...

Are you saying that science has to rely on miracles?

...and what difference does it make?

It appear to make at least 112 pages worth of difference to some people.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[sealybobo]

Evos: The geographic and rock layers of the earth support a gradual development of life. Darwin expected that if fossils were found in Precambrian rocks they would show a gradual development.

Not true. Stephen Jay Gould states, "the Precambrian fossils that actually were found after Darwin’s death." Also, evos are basing their "religion" on old books such as Charles Lyell's Principles of Geology (1830) and Charles Darwin's Origin of Species (1859).

Evos: The fossil record proves evolution is true. For example,the fact that primate or ape-like fossils are not found in Devonian layers proves that apes had not evolved yet.

False. If there were ape-like fossils found, then it would be ignored by evos (anything that contradicts evolution is ignored) or say it was planted. Creationists say that the layers are based on geography, not time.

Let's look at the layers. Even their names are based on geography, not time.

Geologic Strata - The distinctive characteristic of a layer might be the kind of minerals found in it, or the kind of. There is something unique about the layer that geologists recognize and think is significant.

Geologists, like biologists, like to classify similar things by giving a name to a group of similar things. This makes it easier to study the rocks, and talk to other geologists about the rocks.

Devonian Layer - It is named after Devon, England, where rocks from this period were first studied.There are lots of fish fossils in this layer, but noprimate fossils, as evolutionists love to point out. Why is this? Is it because primates did not exist anywhere in the world when the Devonian rocks were formed? Or was it because apes don’t live where fish live?

To find fossils of extinct primates, paleontologists go to Tanzania or Kenya; but they don’t find fish fossils there. Is that because fish did not exist when
Homo habilis or Australopithecus Afarensis lived? Or is it because fish don’t live on dry land where Homo habilis or Australopithecus Afarensis lived?

Fossils are formed when things get buried rapidly by a landslide, sandstorm, tsunami, flood, or any other disaster that might bury things. The things that get buried are the things that happened to be at the place that got buried.

On rare occasions, things get buried out of place. Someone might have caught a fish and brought it back to camp just before a rockslide buried the camp, causing a fish fossil to be foundmysteriously out of place. But that’s a rare anomaly. Fossil-bearing strata overwhelmingly tend to contain fossils associated with a particular habitat. In fact, that’s how paleontologists determine what the habitat was like.

Geographic Names
There are a few exceptions, but generally speaking, strata have geographic names. For example,

The Jurassic is named after the Jura Mountains within the European Alps, where limestone strata from the period was first identified.

The Mississippian is so named because rocks with this age are exposed in the Mississippi River valley.

The Pennsylvanian is named after the American state of Pennsylvania, where rocks with this age are widespread.

Notice that each layer is associated with an age. Why is that? Mississippian rocks are supposedly older than Pennsylvanian rocks; but Pennsylvania was a state before Mississippi was. Chronologically, the two names make no sense. That’s because the names are based on geography, not time.

More, as I get time.

I'll make a couple of points here.
1. How do you explain the starfilled sky?
2. "Even their names are based on geography, not time." , think that's stretching the truth quite a bit
Archean time period from the Greek for beginning.
Protorezoic time period Greek for earlier life
Phanerozoic time period Greek for visible life. the list goes on but you get my drift.
3. If you claim science supress data I would like proof of that statement. Not "If there were ape-like fossils found, then it would be ignored by evos"
4. The fact that you admit to these layers, proves my point that the earth is older then 6000 years. Fossilazation in itself is a process wich is understood to take a minimum of 10000 years. Coal, oil are known to be biological in origin. and take hundred of thousands of years minimally, a few exeptions not withstanding. These are natural processes know and understood by science.
5. Ill make this point again. I can use different tracks to disprove a young earth. You might say they're both believe systems, but my belief system does seem to offer a tremendous amount of cooberating facts. I accept since you have faith you don't feel the need to prove what you belief. But if, and I'm talking about creatonism, you feel the need to use the Bible as the ultimate proof in a scientific world. I think it reasonable that the bible needs to go trough the same scrutiny as any scientific theory before you can actually put it in a classroom for instance.

1. I guess by "starfilled sky," you mean is it based on time. NDT corrected perfectionist Director James Cameron in one of the scenes of his movie Titanic. Yes, I agree with that but what does have to do with our discussion?
2. With few exceptions, the names of the strata layers are mostly based on location. Maybe you're so stuck on the names being associated with time because evolutionists have thoroughly indoctrinated generations of students to believe that rock layers are associated with time, not places. The names follow Occam's Razor -- The kinds of plants and animals present when the rocks were formed depends on geography (that is, ecological zone), not time. That’s why most have geographic names.
3. I claim science suppress creation and creation scientists. Science does not accept the supernatural since 1795.

One of the best known “human ancestors” is an Australopithecus afarensis skeleton called Lucy. What does she look like? A human skull? Uhh... no.

This is one of the best photos of the "250" hominid fossils:

4. Nope. The layers are based on catastrophism, not unifamitarianism. There was a global flood and our earth was shaped within months not millions or billions of years.
5. I already sketched the outline of my arguments, so please proceed with yours. It does not have to be in detail.

.1. sketched my point on the stars I'll do it again. If Genesis contents the earth is 6000 years old. Then logicaly the night sky should only have stars in it that are 6000 lightyears or less away, very local in cosmic terms.
2. Again the time periods I gave are not just based in time but even as my original point said, in the evolutionare fase of life. Sometimes in the type of rock found.( Cretacious) after large quantities of chalk found dating from that period. Sometimes geograpicaly. I'm not stuck on the naming. You brought it up, siting it as proof of the fact that science doesn't find time a factor when naming a strata. While geology is tightly intertwined with the theory of evolution as the names of some of the geolical periods prove.
3. Science has added some very unpopular ideas since before it was science. Evolution was one of them when it was introduced. So was plate tectonics, the big bang and numerous others we consider common knowledge. Supressing anything in it is extremely difficult if not impossible. Since any theory brought out by science constantly has to stand the test of reality. A scientist who can disprove an accepted theory becomes a hero to science. Claiming it supresses ideas is simply untrue.
4.Prominent Hominid Fossils
The link provided brings you to a site with homonid fossils and a description of what they found.Most are fragments but some are considerably more then that. And remember I don't have to prove that all of them are homonids just one is sufficient to invalidate Genesis.

1. Oh, that's what you meant. LOL. This has been answered by science and math.

The Earth being 6,000 years old is based on observation. Astronomers have observed that about every 30 years a star dies and explodes into a supernova (ICR September, 1998). If the universe were billions of years old, it would equal to about several hundred million supernovas. However, astronomers have observed less than 300 supernovas in the universe. This limited number of supernovas shows that the universe is less than 10,000 years old, just like the Bible says.

Next, how do you calculate the distance between a star and earth that is lightyears away? Please answer.

Here is what I learned in school. Using trigonometry, if you have two observation points, then you can calculate the distance to a third point. This is what surveyors do.

What we can do is take a point on the Earth and another point very far away such as the distance of the sun from earth which is 93 million miles away. At the speed of light, it takes around 8 minutes for the sun's rays to reach earth. This means that the diameter of earth’s orbit around the sun is 16 light minutes. So, if you look at a star today and then looked at it 6 months later, it would be 16 light minutes away, amiright? This star would be approx. 186 million miles away; Not a problem when you're traveling at the speed of light.

So what's the problem? The reason I use the distance of the earth and sun is to point out a problem. How do you measure distance to something that is lightyears away when you are on earth? Earth is about 8,000 miles in diameter. We can use trig to calculate the third point, i.e. the star, but you are trying to measure a star that is very far away when physically you can only set up a point 8,000 miles away. It is the narrow triangle problem.

Are you following me? You stated that you can measure 6000 lightyears away which is very local in cosmic terms. Just how do you do that?

2. I think you are admitting that your evolutionary time periods were calculated by evolutionists based on the layer and somehow they concluded it showed millions of years difference. It sounds like circular reasoning. The dinosaur fossils are 100 million years old because they are found in rocks that were formed 100 million years ago. The rocks are known to be 100 million years old because they contain the bones of dinosaurs that died 100 million years ago. When the evos get two different time periods between the rock and the fossil, what do they use?

.What I stated was the layers of rock found and what scientists found, i.e. fossils, is based on the what was there at the time the things got buried and the rock formed. Occam's razor.

3 and 4. What do these prominent Hominid fossils show anyway?

We are just figuring out that most of the stars we see are in fact entire galaxys. The universe is that big and we are that small

 

[sealybobo]

Let's see boss challenge all that, but watch him try

I don't need to challenge anything. I am not a religious person, I am a spiritualist. Religions are man-made constructs which demonstrate intrinsic human spiritual connection. It's man's way of coping, not with fear or death, but with his own spiritual awareness that he cannot deny.

Now... You and Chris deny your spiritual awareness but there is an underlying reason. You've articulated that you disbelieve because of peer pressure. You weren't cool or hip, people thought you were a square because you believed in God. So in order to feel like you're not such a total loser, you abandoned your spirituality. Now all the cool people like you and think you're alright.

Chris, I strongly suspect, had an incident in her life where someone judged her or condemned her for something she did and she can't get over that. Her way of coping is to attack all things Christian. She comes here armed with atheist talking points, ready to do battle daily in her personal jihad. She has trained herself to believe there is no spirit or soul, that things like love are simply emotional and mean nothing, really. It's just a word people say when chemical shit happens in their brains... nothing else.

Religion is a mixed bag. There are admirable religious people who are good and there are despicable religious people who are bad. However, people who disconnect spiritually have a giant hole they can never fill. They try to fill it by being promiscuous or drinking and doing drugs. They fill their lives with immoral and sick perversions, searching for something that is missing, something they can't ever seem to find. They tell their friends and family they are happy and things are fine, but they know deep down inside they are living a lie. Non-spiritual people suffer more from depression, commit suicide more often, become addicts of some kind and struggle with social and psychological disparity more than those who are spiritually-inclined... not by just a little bit, but nearly 10 to 1.

Our spirituality plays such an important role in who we are as humans that world renown psychiatrist, Sigmund Freud once said... "If God didn't exist, man would have to invent Him." It's hard wired into our DNA. Now... that's not an endorsement for "God" of Abraham or the Bible, but rather, "God" in the generic sense of Spiritual Nature. The "logic" of which, is very simple... Physical nature, by it's own laws and parameters of physics, cannot possibly have created itself. Something greater, therefore, must exist.

Same reason parents wait as long as possible before telling their kids there is no Santa. Sure, it'd be much nicer if I believed but I can't get myself to believe something I don't. And sure we'd be happier if we thought we had a God looking out for us. Who wouldn't? Or to think a heaven is waiting for us.

But I don't fill the hole with drinking because I have Christian friends who drink more than I do.

People who believe in God don't commit suicide because they think they'll go to hell.

Deep down we are living a lie? No. That's what we did back when we believed.

And trust me dude, I'm not missing anything other than church services.

And what is it you think you benefit from that me and Chris are missing by believing in generic God? You think that makes you a happier person? You'll say yes but deep down I doubt that.

And peer pressure isn't that important but it did help meeting other atheists who helped me realize I wasn't alone. The peer pressure comes from theists not atheists. The 1 atheist you refer to opened my eyes. I was still an atheist when I left his home. If I believed in God I wouldn't care what he said but he made a lot of sense.

I'm glad religion fills the huge gaping hole you just admitted your life would have if you didn't believe.

Again, this isn't about Christianity. I have often said, Atheists are sometimes bigger believers in God than some Christians. Some people use Christianity as a shield against criticism or moral judgement. They've convinced themselves they can live however they please as long as they claim to be Christian. They will walk right past a homeless mother and her children to enter a brothel and sleep with a prostitute. They'll get drunk as a skunk on Saturday night and be on the front pew Sunday morning.

But the human intrinsic belief in a Spiritual God is not like Santa, who is incidentally based on a real person... a Saint, as a matter of fact. Our spiritual connection is undeniable and has been a part of humanity for as long as we have evidence of humanity existing. We cannot say the same for legends like Santa or even religions like Christianity.

And what is it you think you benefit from that me and Chris are missing by believing in generic God? You think that makes you a happier person? You'll say yes but deep down I doubt that.

Well, because I used to not be very spiritual at all. I was raised in a religious family but my father was a complete hypocrite who lived anything BUT a Christian life. When I became a teenager, I completely rebelled and for a while, I guess you could say I was an Atheist. I drank, did drugs, was promiscuous... just a totally wicked person... and I thought I was happy as a lark. I didn't need no stinkin' God messing up my FUN!

The problem was, I was never fulfilled as a person. There was something missing. I could never put my finger on it and seems like bad shit kept happening to me over and over. Relationships failed, things didn't go as planned, bad luck seemed to follow me like a big black cloud. For a long time, I chalked it up to "shit happens" and kept moving on. In 1986, I had a very traumatic personal experience which should have taken my life. There is no rational explanation for why I am still here. This gave me pause and caused me to slow down and think. What I discovered was life changing. It's not "in my head" and it's not "my imagination". You can believe that, and I am sure you do, but I know different.

You do know there are a lot of atheists that don't drink do drugs aren't promiscuous or wicked, right?

You weren't an atheist you were a wicked theist. Guilt got you.

 

[Boss]

You do know there are a lot of atheists that don't drink do drugs aren't promiscuous or wicked, right?

You weren't an atheist you were a wicked theist. Guilt got you.

I personally think you can be an atheist and also be spiritual. To me, "atheist" simply means "not theist" or "not religious". My very religious sister calls me her atheist brother. I don't consider myself an atheist because I do believe in a higher power... I'll even refer to that power as "God" sometimes.

 

[sealybobo]

You do know there are a lot of atheists that don't drink do drugs aren't promiscuous or wicked, right?

You weren't an atheist you were a wicked theist. Guilt got you.

I personally think you can be an atheist and also be spiritual. To me, "atheist" simply means "not theist" or "not religious". My very religious sister calls me her atheist brother. I don't consider myself an atheist because I do believe in a higher power... I'll even refer to that power as "God" sometimes.

Yup. If it ain't Jesus it's atheist. But notice how you consider yourself one of them even tHough they disagree? Reminds me of gays who say they are Christians.

You tell that sister in law her religion is holding us back. You tell her it's how they control us. Tell her sealybobo said so

 

[Boss]

We are just figuring out that most of the stars we see are in fact entire galaxys. The universe is that big and we are that small

We're certainly not "just figuring that out" ...We've known this for the better part of the last century. Where we are at now is at the limits of our physical ability to measure the universe. It's not that we don't have the technology, it's the laws of nature.

Light travels at a constant speed, therefore, we can only see light as far back as 14.5 billion years. The universe may be larger but we can't see it because the light hasn't reached us yet. What's really crazy is, someone living in another part of our universe might be able to see parts of the universe we can never see.

But.. YES... the universe is large on a scale that we can't even relate to. And we humans are infinitesimally small in comparison... but now, think about atoms and quarks and leptons and particles... things so small that we can't comprehend them-- yet they comprise everything physical that we know of.

 

[Boss]

You do know there are a lot of atheists that don't drink do drugs aren't promiscuous or wicked, right?

You weren't an atheist you were a wicked theist. Guilt got you.

I personally think you can be an atheist and also be spiritual. To me, "atheist" simply means "not theist" or "not religious". My very religious sister calls me her atheist brother. I don't consider myself an atheist because I do believe in a higher power... I'll even refer to that power as "God" sometimes.

Yup. If it ain't Jesus it's atheist. But notice how you consider yourself one of them even tHough they disagree? Reminds me of gays who say they are Christians.

You tell that sister in law her religion is holding us back. You tell her it's how they control us. Tell her sealybobo said so

I'm reminded of the Bob Dylan song... Serve Somebody... you can be a sinner or you can be a saint but you gotta serve somebody!

 

[Boss]

But notice how you consider yourself one of them even tHough they disagree?

I don't consider myself one of anyone. I am just me. I believe what I believe. I try to have respect for the spiritual views of others whether they are religious or not. We're all individuals who believe what we believe and I'm fine with that. If it helps you to have a Book with rules and a Boss who tells you what is acceptable, then so be it. As long as you don't start flying airplanes into buildings and sawing off people's heads, I'm cool with it.