Let's see proof of creation (churches, contradiction, theology, science)

[AxisMundi]

Originally Posted by justamere10

Well, perhaps in the "ancient history" books you prefer to read He's not mentioned. But He is in mine, right from Adam and Eve. Can't get much further back until this planet didn't even exist yet...

Actually I fear the process of dying a bit because it might come with discomfort or pain, but I have absolutely no fear of death because I know what waits beyond that experience.

Is that the same "history book" that has been proven wrong time and time again?

Or, like us, is that the "history book" as found in archival and archeological evidences, ie science?

Originally Posted by justamere10

Much study and pondering of the scriptures, some fasting, a whole lot of humble sincere prayer, some meditation, living worthy of a whole lot of experience with the Holy Spirit, etc. You know, simple evidence that the methods and tools of secular science are not capable of detecting.

So you base your beliefs on an ancient, badely written fantasy novel and what could quite possibly be self-delusions?

Gotcha.

[rifleman]

Originally Posted by justamere10
Are you not aware that many Christians, including myself, accept evolution within species?

Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill

If you believe in evolution within species, you should also believe in evolution from one species to the next - because the latter is the natural consequence of the former.

In other words, successful breeding is contingent on having the same or similar DNA. If you accept evolution within species, then you accept that eventually the species will have such different DNA they will no longer be able to breed with the prior version of themselves. This will be a new species.

Thanks Boxcar! BTW, how's the weather down there?

Actually, if we're being exact, there's no such thing as evolution within a species. Technically. If it's a species, and it changes, then it's something else, en-route to being another species. Through several intermediate steps we've given names to.

A species is a defined snap-shot of an always-changing organism's genotype and phenotype. As it's genome moves inexoribly along, each new offspring is, in fact, a sort of "nano-transitional". That genome eventually drifts sufficiently away from the original genotype as to be re-titled. BTW, these nano- and sub-micro- genome changes have now been exactly documented even within the human genome, even within some families.

These mutation- and genetic-drift-based changes have, of course, been tracked in bacterium and drosophila sp. (a fast breeding fruit fly) to prove Evolution. That word again: PROVED. As science defines it. Sorry; no "Changes of Convenience" in that definition allowed!

Initially, we define the slightly changes organism as a "race", then perhaps a "sub-species" and then, finally, when it's phenotypic and genotypic differentiation pleases us in it's uniqueness, and interbreeding is unlikely or impossible, we, not the Church or a Christian acolyte, define it as a new "species".


And that's the way it is, Wednesday, Sept. 30, 2009!

[Astron1000]

Originally Posted by justamere10

Yes, I confess that you are most likely more familiar with the methods and tools of science than I am. But could it be you who is out of your league when it comes to spiritual things, which are the things I tend to write about?

And you do not know who I am. And you have no idea of my experiences, teachings or beliefs. And certainly you've no idea of my spiritual history. Again, I must say, you are being arrogant and presumptuous.

Listen justamere, just because I find your arguments to be logically shaky at best doesn't mean I disagree with you on some important points. Do not demonize me. You'd be very surprised (I suspect) to know who I am and what I believe.

I have a great respect for those who seek out truth about the world and our place within it. But I have very little patience with dogma. Because what I find, over and over again, is that loyal adherents to a particular dogma do not have any respect for anyone who is a seeker of truth. And it's because they believe they already have the truth.

[StopSpamming]

What part of creationism is correct?

We all know Genesis is full of errors.

When creating Adam this god only picked up some dust. For Eve, he needed the rib of Adam. So was Adam actually scr**ing himself when he fathered 2 sons?

If Earth would be 6000 odd years old, the skies at night would be empty as light from stars would not have reached us yet.

If all species were created ready made, why do we have vestigial structures or vestigial organs?
Why do snakes have leg buds?
Why does an ostrich have wings and hollow feathers?
Why do our eyes need glasses?
Why are albinos born?
Why are some humans born with a tail or as hermaphrodites?

[Astron1000]

Originally Posted by StopSpamming

If Earth would be 6000 odd years old, the skies at night would be empty as light from stars would not have reached us yet.

Well, technically not really, since all stars within 6000 light years of us would be seen, which is nearly all of them visible to the naked eye. But hey, I agree with you on the larger issue!

From a scientific perspective the Andromeda Galaxy (M31) would not be visible to us for another 2 million+ years if the Earth/Universe were only 6,000 years old. But wait, there it is! Easily visible to the naked eye this time of year!

This of itself constitutes a problem with creationsim.

[rifleman]

Originally Posted by justamere10

Yes, I confess that you are most likely more familiar with the methods and tools of science than I am. But could it be you who is out of your league when it comes to spiritual things, which are the things I tend to write about?

Years ago, I visited a Tarot Card reader on the request of a "spiritualistic" friend of mine, when she was a mentally dishevelled and confused twenty-something. The Card reader didn't like my somewhat incredulous impression of her abilities... Perhaps I wasn't tuned in to "The spiritualistic side"???

I had examined the spiritual side of many arguments and discussions among my various arts degree friends. I found it lacking in that it required too much faith in someone else doing your thinking for you. If things were too hard to "figure", or there wasn't an immediate solution, then it was "spiritual", which defaulted to a God or "The Gods" in many cases. I saw it as a cop-out, a refusal to take on the harder effort of finding out what was really going on.

By that time, I was fast en-route out of blindered Christianity. I and other atheists are today free to think and question and advance our knowledge endlessly throughout our entire lives. You have apparently not yet made that important transition.

[kb09]

Originally Posted by justamere10

Don't believe it.

Because, if we lump agnostics in with atheists, everyone else in the world believes in a God of some name and description, atheists cling to their faith in their belief that there is no such entity as God. They cling too to a hope that life/consciousness ceases when the physical body dies.

Does everybody see an example of this? I like to call it "theists in a box."

Isn't it so much easier to put a group of people in a box and place a label on them?

Simply put, an atheist does have any faith toward the supernatural. It's quite the opposite.

Atheism literally means, without (A) belief (theist). Do you want me to get where the root words came from and the way to say it in latin too?

Originally Posted by justamere10

To me that's not a reasonable belief considering all the evidence washing over and through them every waking moment like undetected radio waves, undetected because they fail to tune themselves in.

This is quite laughable. You do realize that the "belief" you are sticking to atheist is in fact your religious view? Your belief (IMO) is not reasonable considering all of the evidence that is to the contrary. It is just as irrational to claim there is no God than to claim there is.

Originally Posted by justamere10

In some courts of law it requires only the testimony of two people to convict and sentence to death a victim of lawyers. Yet it is likely that most atheists scorn and ignore the testimony of everyone in the world other than that of fellow travelers who share the atheist beliefs.

That scenario isn't something you'd find within U.S. law so that's not really a reasonable scheme. You're going to have to do better than that.

Originally Posted by justamere10

1. Yes, I understand that you have "no better way to explain this" other than to state your own belief that the soul is the brain and what I call the "conscience" or "light of Christ" is produced by the physical brain. Just your beliefs that's all.

Actually, this is all provable. You should look up the term neuroscience in conjunction with consciousness, feeling, and emotion. I would say Google is your friend, but wouldn't want to offend anybody.

And likewise, what you stated is purely belief. The only difference between our "beliefs" is that I can back mine up with verifiable evidence. Can you?

P.S. The bible doesn't count. You should already know why (hint: you can't use the bible to prove the bible. It just doesn't work in the real world).

Originally Posted by justamere10

The scientific method and manufactured tools are not designed to and cannot detect the soul. (Though I read a long time ago of an experiment where an actual minute weight loss was detected at the moment of death).

That's the same as saying that the tools of science can't detect Zeus, or Athena, or [insert God/Goddess/Deity/Spiritual Force of choice]. We have to give them equal footing also.

Originally Posted by justamere10

2. Yes, of course the taste of salt when it arrives at the conscious level is a function of the brain. The point is that there are things that are very difficult to describe adequately to someone who has not yet experienced that thing for themselves.

Difficult but not impossible. Understand the difference and understand what empathy is. Besides, I've already experienced the "gifts of the spirit" and it's nothing that I'd want to go back to. You act as if we have never stepped foot in a church or don't know what spirituality is.

The reason most of us are atheists is because of experience within the church, Christianity, etc.

Originally Posted by justamere10

3. Did I say something about "saved"? I tend to compare spiritual impressions to radio waves. In order to detect and interpret them in conscious awareness you must turn on a receiver. Atheists deny that they have such a thing as a built in receiver so they don't tune in, or at least don't fine tune to the point where spiritual promptings become intelligible, or they consider them to be a function of the physical brain, or perhaps they just ignore them because such things don't fit into their world view. As scriptures say: they have eyes to see but see not, and ears to hear but choose to hear not.

*Sigh*

I'm really not going to bother to answer this right now (seeing as how this whole discussion is starting to make my temples throb), but basically your using the No Scotsman's Fallacy.

Originally Posted by justamere10

6. You write: "Just because a large segment of society believes something does not make it true nor right." But when that "segment" of society happens to be everyone in the world except those relatively few persons who choose as you do to believe that there is no God, it should give thinking atheists reason to wonder about what it really is they have placed their faith and hope in. (No God when almost everyone else in the world over the ages says there is? No life after the death of the physical body, when there is a gathering body of evidence that there is, and none that there isn't? Seems like a pretty shaky foundation to me...)

Again, just because a large group of people believe something, does not make it any more right nor true.

Plus, depending on what religion it is you are talking about, some are polytheistic and have a different meaning of afterlife (or afterlife's).

Also, not everyone who believes in God believes in your God. So in reality, the amount of people who believe in your God is comparatively smaller than what you bloat it to be. Do you really want to continue on with this numbers game?

Originally Posted by justamere10

I bear you my absolutely firm testimony that God lives and Jesus is the Christ.

Which just means you believe that they exist.

Originally Posted by justamere10

But you choose to ignore that.

I don't ignore it, I just don't see any evidence for it. Give me evidence and you'll have belief.

If God is such a great and all-powerful being, why the hell does he have to use such ambiguous methods to reach his creation? It's as if he doesn't want us to believe. But, whatever, I guess he works in mysterious ways huh?

Originally Posted by justamere10

You bear your testimony that God and Jesus Christ are myths.

Now your just putting words in my mouth. I never said they were myths, I said I do not believe in them. And in case of Jesus, I believe a historical Jesus existed, but, not the turn water into wine, walk on water, Demi-God that Christianity has made him to be.

Originally Posted by justamere10

But that is not persuasive because you have nothing to back that up and I have my personal relationship with God witnessing His existence to me each time I pray/talk to Him.

But I respect your right to believe as you will...

I think I have a whole lot to back my non-belief up with, but it's not like you'd objectively look at the evidence I provide. So why bother?

Furthermore, you don't respect my belief (or lack thereof) because you intentionally and wrongly interpret what the word atheist actually means and seek to convert the world. That's the difference between you and I. I genuinely respect and have no problem with your belief in God - As long as your not trying to force it on me. But you and many theists (don't worry, you're not alone) seem to have a problem with my disbelief. You can't live and let live and that's what irks me.

You wouldn't have so many in-your-face atheists if you didn't have so many in-your-face Christians.

Originally Posted by yeshuasavedme

No, that is not true. The life/soul is in the blood, not in the brain -see below.
Morality =conscience [with-wisdom] is the Light of Christ, which every human being that comes into the world has, innately.

Prove it without scripture please.

Originally Posted by yeshuasavedme

From the time that you become aware of right and wrong, and can choose evil or good, of your own freewill [which is the time of your coming to be "awake and aware", biblicaly speaking], you have that Light, "conscience", lighting you; whether you continously reject that Light, or begin to seek that Light [and He who seeks, finds Christ] determines your eternal state in the future regeneration of the heavens and earth.

After Cain killed his brother Abel, the brain of Abel was not alive [buried in a grave, with no electric signals], but the soul/blood of Abel was in the earth [in Sheol] crying out with his voice, to YHWH, for vengeance for his blood.

Gen 4:10 And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood [the voice of your brother's soul] crieth [is calling out ] unto me from the earth/adamah [from Sheol, of earth's hollow].
Gen 4:11 And now [art] thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth [the mouth of Sheol opens to receive the departed souls of earth] to receive thy brother's blood/soul/life from thy hand;

Lev 17:11 For the life of the flesh [is] in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it [is] the blood [that] maketh an atonement for the soul.


Enoch sees the soul/life/blood of Abel, crying out to YHWH, from Sheol
Abel's prophecy of vengeance for his blood/life/soul by YHWH, was recorded in Jasher [Moses wrote the main body of Jasher as a compilation of the patriarch's records, from which compilation Moses redacted the Genesis account]:

Jesus calls Abel a prophet, whose blood would be requited from "this evil generation" =the sons of wrath/sons of the devil, who became sons of the devil by allowing the devil to control them by believing his lies;, which Jesus [as God the Word, pre-incarnate] warned Cain about, in Genesis 4:
Gen 4:6 And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? Gen 4:7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee [shall be] his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

Cain did not rule over him =satan, lying at his "door" [his heart's door] telling him lies about his brother and about YHWH, and so "satan entered Cain", as he entered Judas, and Cain became a "child of wrath", as Judas did.

Luk 11:49,50 Therefore also said the wisdom of God [the writings of Enoch, in 1 Enoch], "I will send them prophets and apostles, and [some] of them they shall slay and persecute":
That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation [the children of wrath are one generation of sons of the devil, according to Scripture, just as the children of God are all brethren and one generation of the righteous, in Scripture];


So, no, the brain is not the soul, and as long as the blood is flowing through a body, the soul is in that body.

Ok so basically just a bunch of scripture with no real justification to your claims? Jesus kid, you're going to have to do better than that.

Originally Posted by justamere10

Actually I fear the process of dying a bit because it might come with discomfort or pain, but I have absolutely no fear of death because I know what waits beyond that experience.

You don't know. You believe.

No one "knows" what happens to them after they are dead because no one has ever come back to tell about it.

[agnostic soldier]

Originally Posted by justamere10

There you go again, you declare that anything Christians believe is based on a "myth". You can't prove that but you expect us to magically use the tools of science to prove that God exists.

For your information, that "myth" that is actually true took place when this planet was in an idyllic Garden of Eden state where the physical laws you believe so firmly in do not necessarily apply. It is my belief that this earth is getting very close to the prophesied time when it will be changed back to a Garden of Eden state, the whole planet this time, mountains levelled, valleys filled, etc.

Justamere10, you claim that creationism is true, and not a myth, but can you give proof that your creation account is true. What constitutes as proof is that which can and has been proven through the scientific method. The problem in saying that your creation account(or any creation account for that matter) is true is that one, it is untestable and two, there is no evidence which empirically substantiates its truth. Thus, it follows that creationism is a myth.

[bennyboo<3seattle<3]

Originally Posted by kb09

Does everybody see an example of this? I like to call it "theists in a box."

Isn't it so much easier to put a group of people in a box and place a label on them?

Simply put, an atheist does have any faith toward the supernatural. It's quite the opposite.

Atheism literally means, without (A) belief (theist). Do you want me to get where the root words came from and the way to say it in latin too?



This is quite laughable. You do realize that the "belief" you are sticking to atheist is in fact your religious view? Your belief (IMO) is not reasonable considering all of the evidence that is to the contrary. It is just as irrational to claim there is no God than to claim there is.



That scenario isn't something you'd find within U.S. law so that's not really a reasonable scheme. You're going to have to do better than that.



Actually, this is all provable. You should look up the term neuroscience in conjunction with consciousness, feeling, and emotion. I would say Google is your friend, but wouldn't want to offend anybody.

And likewise, what you stated is purely belief. The only difference between our "beliefs" is that I can back mine up with verifiable evidence. Can you?

P.S. The bible doesn't count. You should already know why (hint: you can't use the bible to prove the bible. It just doesn't work in the real world).



That's the same as saying that the tools of science can't detect Zeus, or Athena, or [insert God/Goddess/Deity/Spiritual Force of choice]. We have to give them equal footing also.



Difficult but not impossible. Understand the difference and understand what empathy is. Besides, I've already experienced the "gifts of the spirit" and it's nothing that I'd want to go back to. You act as if we have never stepped foot in a church or don't know what spirituality is.

The reason most of us are atheists is because of experience within the church, Christianity, etc.



*Sigh*

I'm really not going to bother to answer this right now (seeing as how this whole discussion is starting to make my temples throb), but basically your using the No Scotsman's Fallacy.



Again, just because a large group of people believe something, does not make it any more right nor true.

Plus, depending on what religion it is you are talking about, some are polytheistic and have a different meaning of afterlife (or afterlife's).

Also, not everyone who believes in God believes in your God. So in reality, the amount of people who believe in your God is comparatively smaller than what you bloat it to be. Do you really want to continue on with this numbers game?



Which just means you believe that they exist.



I don't ignore it, I just don't see any evidence for it. Give me evidence and you'll have belief.

If God is such a great and all-powerful being, why the hell does he have to use such ambiguous methods to reach his creation? It's as if he doesn't want us to believe. But, whatever, I guess he works in mysterious ways huh?



Now your just putting words in my mouth. I never said they were myths, I said I do not believe in them. And in case of Jesus, I believe a historical Jesus existed, but, not the turn water into wine, walk on water, Demi-God that Christianity has made him to be.



I think I have a whole lot to back my non-belief up with, but it's not like you'd objectively look at the evidence I provide. So why bother?

Furthermore, you don't respect my belief (or lack thereof) because you intentionally and wrongly interpret what the word atheist actually means and seek to convert the world. That's the difference between you and I. I genuinely respect and have no problem with your belief in God - As long as your not trying to force it on me. But you and many theists (don't worry, you're not alone) seem to have a problem with my disbelief. You can't live and let live and that's what irks me.

You wouldn't have so many in-your-face atheists if you didn't have so many in-your-face Christians.



Prove it without scripture please.



Ok so basically just a bunch of scripture with no real justification to your claims? Jesus kid, you're going to have to do better than that.



You don't know. You believe.

No one "knows" what happens to them after they are dead because no one has ever come back to tell about it.

i love u haha. u said everything how i wouldve and that made for a fun read tbh xD.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by kb09

If God is such a great and all-powerful being, why the hell does he have to use such ambiguous methods to reach his creation? It's as if he doesn't want us to believe. But, whatever, I guess he works in mysterious ways huh?

I was going to stay out of this discussion . . . but I cannot count the times I have heard this very complaint from frustrated atheists/agnostics. The problem lies in thinking that belief is the desired objective instead of one of the motivators to achieve the desired objective. We want our children to believe in us and that we love them and have their best interests at heart . . . so they will listen to us and learn the self-control and judgment to be responsible adults. It is no different for us as spiritual children. The goal is NOT the belief . . . it is the self-control and judgment to be responsible spiritual adults. Our children have to become self-reliant . . . not obedient robots. So do we.

If it were absolutely unambiguous and irrefutable that God exists and wants X,Y,Z. etc. . . . we would simply obey and not develop our own motivations and judgment. We would not have to figure things out for ourselves and come to the right decisions on our own . . . we would not be self-reliant . . . and would remain robot obeyers. IF that were what God wanted . . . we would already have been made that way . . .without all this free will, confusion and nonsense. God wants self-directed mature adults being responsible because that is what WE want to be.