Zero Probability of Evolution. Atheism wrong?

[gnostic]

So, you were religious and now you're not. I've never seen a testimony, "I had a relationship with God and now I don't."

No one has a relationship with god, BilliardsBall.

The so-called relationship is often based on believing in the books (scriptures) and teachings of the church, through prayers and through belief and faith.

There are no real relationship between god and believers/worshippers.

Relationship involved two or more people, required communication from those people.

God didn’t and never communicate with me, despite my prayers at that time.

As to your question.

Other than believing in the scriptures, in Jesus and believing in his and his disciples’ teachings and praying, but receiving no answers from god, at that time, I really had relationship with the churches and with the ministry and with the people at the church, but not with God.

What you call relationship is illusionary and very tenuous.

 

[Phantasman]

The likelihood that an infinitely complex Creator deity exists but is not discernible from natural phenomenon is negligible (and likely zero). Why be a Theist?

I found this article quite fascinating today:

Stephen Hawking says he knows what happened before the dawn of time

What we "thought" we knew,(even the Big Bang) may be nothing compared to a continuing revealing that will change our perceptions of it. Hawking says that there was a beginning. And time, as we know it, was distorted and different before the beginning. Funny how the scriptures of gnosis says the same thing 2000 years ago,

 

[Darkstorn]

I found this article quite fascinating today:
Stephen Hawking says he knows what happened before the dawn of time

From the article:

"In other words, there is no time before time began as time was always there."

Fascinating indeed.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Theist: A person who believes in the existence of one or more gods.
Atheist: Any person who is not a theist.
Gnostic: A person who claims to know either that one or more gods exist or that no gods exist.
Agnostic: A person who doesn't know whether gods exist or not.

Gnostic theist: A person who claims to know that at least one god exists.
Gnostic atheist: A person who claims to know that gods don't exist.
Agnostic theist: A person who doesn't know if one or more gods exist but believes at least one do.
Agnostic weak atheist: A person who doesn't know if gods do exist and doesn't believe gods do exist.
Agnostic strong atheist: A person who doesn't know gods don't exist but believes they don't exist.

Good questions. I've read the apocrypha and can see it's different than the Bible. Was that your experience after you read both?

The Bible hasn't changed since way back when. I read modern versions that are translated to English straight from Greek and Latin.

But I'm trying to follow your logic and am struggling, perhaps you can help me. It sounds like you are saying above, "We cannot live our life by centuries old documents." Should Americans reject the Constitution and Bill of Rights?

Good questions. I've read the apocrypha and can see it's different than the Bible. Was that your experience after you read both?

The Bible hasn't changed since way back when. I read modern versions that are translated to English straight from Greek and Latin.

But I'm trying to follow your logic and am struggling, perhaps you can help me. It sounds like you are saying above, "We cannot live our life by centuries old documents." Should Americans reject the Constitution and Bill of Rights?

I have read the Bible, but not the ancient Hieroglyphs or any of the Apocrypha. So I can't offer an opinion. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are dynamic and non-apocryphal documents. Their purpose is not to control human freedom, but to protect it from being controlled. Some religious documents set down over 600 set of rules that must be followed. To challenge these rules is to challenge God Himself. Our Constitution can be challenged and amended if the people so decide(through a referendum). This in general, does not happen in a Theocratic society, that is ruled by the will of God and old men. Also, the Constitution is a real document written by man to protect and liberate man. The Bible is a Holy Book of stories, fables, myths, fears, and parables, written by man to enslave and restrict man. I have no problem with being inspired by any book. My problem is when that inspiration becomes a chosen way of life. A Religiosity, if you will. If I patterned my life after the Ferengi Book of Acquisition, you might think me a bit odd. I'm sure you don't pattern your life after a Shakespeare Sonnet or his Spark notes.

I believe that all humans were meant to grow naturally mentally, emotionally, physically, socially(norms and morals), and intellectually, to reach their full potential. It is how these attributes are combined that determines how our unique persona is developed. Change is essential to acquire new knowledge. Without change, we can't evolve. Myths, superstitions, ancient stories, and tales of the supernatural, do not change. Therefore, no new knowledge. Without new knowledge, these developmental growths are retarded. But again, this is just my opinion for what its worth. Hope I'm a bit clearer now. Don

 

[jonathan180iq]

I found this article quite fascinating today:

Stephen Hawking says he knows what happened before the dawn of time

What we "thought" we knew,(even the Big Bang) may be nothing compared to a continuing revealing that will change our perceptions of it. Hawking says that there was a beginning. And time, as we know it, was distorted and different before the beginning. Funny how the scriptures of gnosis says the same thing 2000 years ago,

4 things:

1)You're about to make an argument from ignorance in defense of Theism - Because you don't know something, that means maybe God did it... Am I right? God of the Gaps seems to be the modern theist's favorite deity.

2)A god of the gaps argument does not make deities are any more likely than when I first responded to this thread. Being unable to differentiate between an infinitely complex being and natural phenomenon does nothing to support the existence claim for the complex being.

3)I'd like you to directly quote those scriptures for me.

3) Time isn't Universal and it never has been - not even in our own Galaxy... What Hawkings is saying is nothing new. It has been long theorized in Cosmology that any existence outside of our Universe would not necessarily conform to the same rules that exist within our Universe. We are bound by this existence; not by another. In that same vein, a Multiverse would mean that our branch of seeming infinity would be just one of many, which necessarily requires that time existed before our branch of space came into being, and that it could be completely different to our own. It could also be identical...

 

[Audie]

I found this article quite fascinating today:

Stephen Hawking says he knows what happened before the dawn of time

What we "thought" we knew,(even the Big Bang) may be nothing compared to a continuing revealing that will change our perceptions of it. Hawking says that there was a beginning. And time, as we know it, was distorted and different before the beginning. Funny how the scriptures of gnosis says the same thing 2000 years ago,

What is vaguely funny is how people can find whatever they choose to find in ye Bible. Justification for slavery? A cinch. "Gnosis" was up to date with
modern physics? It's all there.

 

[BilliardsBall]

In my opinion, nobody. I find the concept of hell inherently immoral. But if people have to go there, then I would say it would only be people who did incredible harm to others for their own selfish ends and never actually made up for it in any practical way.


Covered above. The point isn't who I believe should go there, the point is that YOU believe in a system of morality that can reward a lifelong child rapist and punish a kind, generous, charitable person purely on the fact of whether or not they repented on their deathbed to the right God.

Again, I'll ask you, is that just? Is it just to completely absolve an individual of a lifetime of harm and selfishness just because they sincerely repented, while allowing others who have lived entirely selfless lives to be punished eternally for not repenting (or for repenting to the wrong God)?

Simple question. Yes or no?

You are correct, it is not just to punish someone who lived and entirely selfless life. Do you know such a person who isn't Jesus Christ?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Divorce requires the the couple are legally married, the statistics only count legitimate divorces.

Doesnt matter how you squirm and make excuses, the facts are published. You brought up divorce as a comparison, now be a man and accept the conclusions of the statistics.

Also not true although a statistically insignificant few prisoners become Christian in jail the majority are already Christian

I don't think I brought up divorce or prison, I brought up fidelity. I keep meeting atheists who ended dating relationships because the "chemistry was no longer there," aka, moral losers.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I've actually met people who have said that without God they would be free to murder, rape and pillage because they wouldn't have anyone to be held accountable to. Such sentiments I find truly frightening.

I agree. It's not just without God, it's without a moral code or ethical compass. You have a strong moral code, I just point out its axiomatic nature, its God-derived nature, the problem with having such a code without a God and with mindless evolution that says, "enhance survivability" and etc.

 

[BilliardsBall]

We've already discussed this. You told me that the prophecy contains the exact date that Israel would become a nation. Turns out, it actually doesn't.

It's nothing more than a self-fulfilling prophecy carried out by men trying to make it happen.

I thought the same thing, until I realized the prophecy research was carried out AFTER 1948, after atheists first felt the Ezekiel prophecy was void. I gave the link, here it is again at Prophecy Fulfilled: Israel Becomes A Nation In 1948 - as it yields an exact date and not just 1948 CE.

Of course, we also have the anti-Semitic inference when you speak of "self-fulfilled prophecy":

* the Jews would have returned to their ancestral homeland before '48, but held back to self-fulfill prophecy?
* the Jews self-fulfilled prophecy, even the many Jews who are secular and were involved in the restoration of Israel?
* the Jews self-fulfilled the linked Bible prophecies to be in a horrible diaspora, persecuted unto death in dozens of foreign nations?

C'mon!

 

[BilliardsBall]

If Hell exists then no one should go there, even mass murderers and serial rapists do no deserve to be treated with 'eternal fire'.
Heaven does sound awful too. If by some fluke I qualified for entry, I wouldn't want to go to a place with only goody goodies and nice lovely people, How boring! Give me rock stars, rascals, occasional drunks, revolutionaries, etc.

Prison/confinement/seclusion from others is pretty bad, too. Should we unlock all prisons?

 

[BilliardsBall]

No one has a relationship with god, BilliardsBall.

The so-called relationship is often based on believing in the books (scriptures) and teachings of the church, through prayers and through belief and faith.

There are no real relationship between god and believers/worshippers.

Relationship involved two or more people, required communication from those people.

God didn’t and never communicate with me, despite my prayers at that time.

As to your question.

Other than believing in the scriptures, in Jesus and believing in his and his disciples’ teachings and praying, but receiving no answers from god, at that time, I really had relationship with the churches and with the ministry and with the people at the church, but not with God.

What you call relationship is illusionary and very tenuous.

You underscore my point, "People who know God don't walk away, people who didn't know God but only had a church, do" by stating, "I really had relationship with the churches and with the ministry and with the people at the church, but not with God."

My hope is for you to have a relationship with God, someday. Does that make sense to you?

 

[BilliardsBall]

I have read the Bible, but not the ancient Hieroglyphs or any of the Apocrypha. So I can't offer an opinion. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are dynamic and non-apocryphal documents. Their purpose is not to control human freedom, but to protect it from being controlled. Some religious documents set down over 600 set of rules that must be followed. To challenge these rules is to challenge God Himself. Our Constitution can be challenged and amended if the people so decide(through a referendum). This in general, does not happen in a Theocratic society, that is ruled by the will of God and old men. Also, the Constitution is a real document written by man to protect and liberate man. The Bible is a Holy Book of stories, fables, myths, fears, and parables, written by man to enslave and restrict man. I have no problem with being inspired by any book. My problem is when that inspiration becomes a chosen way of life. A Religiosity, if you will. If I patterned my life after the Ferengi Book of Acquisition, you might think me a bit odd. I'm sure you don't pattern your life after a Shakespeare Sonnet or his Spark notes.

I believe that all humans were meant to grow naturally mentally, emotionally, physically, socially(norms and morals), and intellectually, to reach their full potential. It is how these attributes are combined that determines how our unique persona is developed. Change is essential to acquire new knowledge. Without change, we can't evolve. Myths, superstitions, ancient stories, and tales of the supernatural, do not change. Therefore, no new knowledge. Without new knowledge, these developmental growths are retarded. But again, this is just my opinion for what its worth. Hope I'm a bit clearer now. Don

You are a bit clearer now:

"Trust documents that are hundreds of years old if they're correct, like the Bill of Rights, but don't trust any ancient document that tells us how to live, if it interferes with my freedom."

Yet you know of military heroes who died on fields of battle to uphold your Bill of Rights freedoms--they chose to not be free of service to keep you free. Yet you know the British invaded America in 1812 and burnt our capitol and tried to undo the Bill. Yet you know the Bill of Rights and so much more is based on the much-more liberated freedom held by the children of God, who've trusted Jesus for salvation . . .

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You are correct, it is not just to punish someone who lived and entirely selfless life. Do you know such a person who isn't Jesus Christ?

So what you're saying is that unless someone is absolutely perfect, they deserve to be tortured forever (unless that person happens to repent at an appropriate time, even if that person is a lifelong child rapist, in which case they get eternal reward). How could you possibly believe that such a system is moral? It is clearly and grossly immoral.

Is it moral to reward a lifelong paedophile just because they repented in the last few seconds of their life? What is their punishment for a lifetime of paedophilia?

 

[ChristineM]

I don't think I brought up divorce or prison, I brought up fidelity. I keep meeting atheists who ended dating relationships because the "chemistry was no longer there," aka, moral losers.

You brought up fidelity in your attempt to discredit atheism,.

So are you saying fidelity is not a factor in Christian marriage?

I would guess that i know many more atheist than you do, i find them far more moral than almost any christian i have ever met. Thats human morality, not the selective Christian morality that was hijacked and bastardised to exclude any none christian.

IlI take human morality of th christian version anytime.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I don't think I brought up divorce or prison, I brought up fidelity. I keep meeting atheists who ended dating relationships because the "chemistry was no longer there," aka, moral losers.

People who end dating relationships because they find that they are incompatible are moral losers? How's that?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I thought the same thing, until I realized the prophecy research was carried out AFTER 1948, after atheists first felt the Ezekiel prophecy was void. I gave the link, here it is again at Prophecy Fulfilled: Israel Becomes A Nation In 1948 - as it yields an exact date and not just 1948 CE.

Of course, we also have the anti-Semitic inference when you speak of "self-fulfilled prophecy":

* the Jews would have returned to their ancestral homeland before '48, but held back to self-fulfill prophecy?
* the Jews self-fulfilled prophecy, even the many Jews who are secular and were involved in the restoration of Israel?
* the Jews self-fulfilled the linked Bible prophecies to be in a horrible diaspora, persecuted unto death in dozens of foreign nations?

C'mon!

You've already tried this on me before. You have to jump through hoops and carry out a number of mental gymnastics to come up with the date. In our last conversation on the matter you asserted that the Bible states the exact date, which of course, it doesn't.

It's a self-fulfilled prophecy because people worked hard, over long periods of time to make it happen. If they had done it in 1927 or 1962, instead of 1948, you'd most likely still be touting this as a fulfilled Biblical prophecy. If I say I'm going to order a sandwich for lunch, then order a sandwich for lunch, and then the waiter brings me a sandwich for lunch, is that a fulfilled prophecy, or a self-fulfilled one?

I don't know where you come up with your "anti-Semitic inference."

 

[Audie]

I agree. It's not just without God, it's without a moral code or ethical compass. You have a strong moral code, I just point out its axiomatic nature, its God-derived nature, the problem with having such a code without a God and with mindless evolution that says, "enhance survivability" and etc.

Its ok, we already know you are so much better than atheists, you dont have to keep telling us.

 

[Audie]

People who end dating relationships because they find that they are incompatible are moral losers? How's that?

Losers because he, like all of his "faith' are better than atheists. I mean, like, duh?

 

[jonathan180iq]

You've already tried this on me before. You have to jump through hoops and carry out a number of mental gymnastics to come up with the date. In our last conversation on the matter you asserted that the Bible states the exact date, which of course, it doesn't.

It's a self-fulfilled prophecy because people worked hard, over long periods of time to make it happen. If they had done it in 1927 or 1962, instead of 1948, you'd most likely still be touting this as a fulfilled Biblical prophecy. If I say I'm going to order a sandwich for lunch, then order a sandwich for lunch, and then the waiter brings me a sandwich for lunch, is that a fulfilled prophecy, or a self-fulfilled one?

I don't know where you come up with your "anti-Semitic inference."

He doesn't understand the problem with his first sentence here...

I thought the same thing, until I realized the prophecy research was carried out AFTER 1948...

Strange how they were able to predict the accurate date AFTER the event took place, don't you think?