Is there really a god?

[a4a]

Sorry about the wckiness in my post about the bombardier beetle. I tried to write it first in Word and then paste it so Loveshack wouldn't log me out and I'd lose all my work (which has happenend, sadly).

 

I tried to edit out all the html that isn't working but I couldn't. BUmmer.

 

I forgive you ...... although for some reason [new roman times] font html made me feel uneasy for some strange reason........

 

a4a

[a4a]

you are correct. i meant it was the opinion of wizdom that it is sinful. it is wizdoms opinion, undeniably so. perhaps i used the wrong choice of words. i do not believe that it should be a matter of opinion and i agree with you about the screaming that it is wrong affecting gay people. i am as passionate about that as you are. i meant it was wizdoms opinion, that is all.

 

oh yes Newbby..... i realized that, but it was just easier to use your quote to make a point. I hope it is clarified that I was not badgering you and take no offense myself.

a4a

[newbby]

 

oh yes Newbby..... i realized that, but it was just easier to use your quote to make a point. I hope it is clarified that I was not badgering you and take no offense myself.

a4a

sure thing

[Toni_no12002]

Why am i blind?Because i dont believe in god?

You cant prove hes real.If he wasnt then it would be you who was blind.Non of us know if he is really out there.Just because i dont believe in god it doesnt make me a bad person.Are you better than me because you do?NO

 

 

Why do people believe in god?Because it says so in a book?So you feel you can sleep better at night knowing why we are here?If i turned round to everyone now and said that i do believe id be lying.Im not totally against the idea but it all seems a little far fetched, too unreal.

 

As for people who are gay etc i dont personally think theres anything wrong with it.Thats there choice.Is it the devils work because they are gay?Is he whispering in there ear and telling them they are gay if it is not the way god chose us to be.I dont think so.As people have said god gave us free will so i dont think its a sin.

 

We all have brains and if you look at sociology the way people turn out can be down to either the way they are brought up or its inborn.Things like shaking you head when you dont like or want something is inborn in us because its an indication of when babies dont want anymore milk they shake there heads.So personally i think its the way people have been brought up to determine wether they are gay or not.

Take my friends mum she was married had 2 kids ,her husband cheated on her and after a while she got so sick of it ,she turned lesbian.

So i dont think being gay is born in us.But i dont think its a sin.I mean what had god got against it?

[quankanne]

Why do people believe in god?Because it says so in a book?So you feel you can sleep better at night knowing why we are here?If i turned round to everyone now and said that i do believe id be lying.Im not totally against the idea but it all seems a little far fetched, too unreal.

 

hard to put into words, other than, "I do believe." Faith – inexplicable but very real because it's so visceral – is a gift that not everyone has received. I guess it could be called an invitation to a relationship with God, and it can be ignored or turned down just like any invitation. Do I sleep better knowing I have it? I live more securely in myself because I have it, and that affects every waking/sleeping moment of my existence. However, I wouldn't encourage anyone to lie about whether they believe or they don't because in the end, that's a decision you're going to have to come to all on your own. If it seems farfetched, then it's a safe bet to say that you don't believe. If you have doubts, it's prolly safe to say you're being nudged by the One who created you, but only you can decide whether to take that next step or remain in your unbelief. Ideally, yeah, everyone would believe, but that's not how things work ...

 

don't bother to respond to copy and paste-work. I have better things to do than to waste my time on an anti-theistic zealot. No offense to quankanne, and the other decent Christians on this thread.

 

*turns red* to be honest, Señor Pato, I should know better than to rise to this kind of bait planted by people like this, but dammit! It's got all the horror and fascination of a bad car accident – you don't want to look, yet you've just got to.

[Admiral Thrawn]

Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution. That's my point.

 

Nope. Everything could have been created. The history or definative cause of creation of organisms is quite irrelevant to the study of biology.

 

He can claim anything he wants. Evidence suggest he is a liar, and his criminal record supports this.

 

Where are your sources?

 

How is this information being withheld if yo uand I heard about it, and Trudeau has it in a book? People are free to seek any treatment they want, it's just that only products that do what they say they do get FDA approval.

 

People are only as free to seek out alternative medicine as they are informed and as they are available. If government has powers to censor information and prevent the sale of goods, then that would be curtailing that type of freedom wouldn't it?

 

What interest would the government have on picking on Kevin Trudeau and his natural healing? Why dont they just leave him alone and let him be, and whoever wants to listen to him, great, and whoever doesn't, great too.

 

Maybe because the government has a vested interest, due to all the influence peddling, to protect the pocket of the pharmecudical industry?

 

It would seem that you have more in common with Stalin than I do. Are you a closet Commie?

 

Another attempt of an intelligent rebuttle?

 

False. Show me one credible website that has datum supporting this.

 

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp

 

Look at the footnotes.

 

Which is a vapid misunderstanding of how drugs work, and why they are prescribed.

 

Drugs are controlled toxins that put the body in a state of imbalance.

They should only be used in the most urgent of cases otherwise they are more of a liability than an asset - and also a good money maker.

 

 

Exactly. So you dismiss anecdoatl evidence. That being the case, please tell me how you decide which anecdotal evidence is ok to accept, and which isn't. I suspect that anecdotal evidence that supports your preconcieved notions is great, that which doesn't is dismissable.

 

I have not dismissed any ancedontal evidence - I made an intelligent reply to the stupid example you used. You ancedontal evidence is not credible because you cant account for a simple and obvious explanation that there are many Elvis impersenators. Instead of dealing with the topic of hand, you just intend to create a stupid mockery and jeer the whole issue up.

 

It is as stupid as saying you went to Disneyland, and saw Donald Duck - and I'll say, sure, and there is a guy inside the costume. So, you are not dealing with this subject seriously by raising junk.

 

My point is that Fundamentalists are anti-intellectual. And while their core beliefs may be different--Muslim vs. Christian--their agenda is virtually identical and equally dangerous.

 

I think atheists are anti-intellecutal. They ignore ancedontal evidence.

 

As I mentioned, you cannot use Carbon-14 to date a lving thing. It is specious to use a test incorrectly and then claim that the test is flawed.

 

Now you concede it could have been used incorrectly - how convenient.

 

No, we have excellent dating methods to determine age. And science has determined that time machines are impossible.

 

If they are used correctly I guess.

 

 

I didn't say that science has all the answers. Far from it, but we get more and more answers every day. Comparing Relativity (which shows us that time travel is impossible, by the way) to the Flux Capacitor is inane.

 

You seem to think that science can discover all the answers or have a definitive answer to the origin of species - I dont see how.

 

Why is it absurd? AN invisible super-being can do anything it wants. And you'd never know it. That's why any postulation about what a supreme being is or isn't doing is not science.

 

What is absurd is you cant prove that does not exist - and in light of the tons of ancedontal evidence to suggest otherwise, it is even at the expense of the millions of people who have experienced the reality that there is a God, and the millions more who know that there is more to everything than just the natural world.

 

 

Look at the way things are designed? Why mixed and matched flaws?

 

Because of sin. Science claims random probability that things are the way they are. That is horse manure. That is evolution.

 

It hasstood very well for the last 150 years. And the Theory is different than the fact. You can see evolution yourself rightnow, and yet youdeny that it is happening. And you say that I am good at doubting.

 

Seeing mutations does not necessarily mean the theory of evolution is true. God can create something at a fixed point in time and program it to mutate.

The original states of humans and animals, and plants is as they are now.

 

Nope.

 

Easy to say?

 

Or maybe there is no such thing as a haunted house.

 

Well there is plenty of evidence to suggest there is.

 

How is it disrespectful to ask for evidence of one's claims?

 

You are out to jeer evidence not to consider anything seriously, except it fits into your scientific 'parameters' of beliefs.

 

It doesn't matter how fervently someone believes something, it matters that there is evidence or not. ANd extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.

 

And extraordinary evidence is the volume and quality of ancedontal evidence.

[a4a]

Ah the government why yes........... could they cover things up.... sure......

Roswell is real?

 

What if the government is holding back information about evolution, real true facts that point to such things as the missing link.... proof that the bible is ficticious........hummmmmm...

 

What the hell would happen in the world if creationism was proven false?

Complete chaos I think. what do you think?

[Moai]

Nope. Everything could have been created. The history or definative cause of creation of organisms is quite irrelevant to the study of biology.

 

As has been put o you before. It is possible that God created everything an instant ago, with all of our memories in tact. Impossible to prove He didn't.

 

And no, how organisms evolve is central to biology. To say otherwise is to demonstrate your ignorance of the subject.

 

Where are your sources?

 

Google search him.

 

People are only as free to seek out alternative medicine as they are informed and as they are available. If government has powers to censor information and prevent the sale of goods, then that would be curtailing that type of freedom wouldn't it?

 

People can get aall the information they want whenever they want. Trudeau made his stuff up, but there are plenty of sources for natural medicine both on the internet and in your public library.

 

Pharmecutical companies make money by providing drugs that work, not drugs that don't. Simple. Why would school districts require immunizations for children entering school if the government wanted everyone sick?

 

Why would companies want everyone sick? People calling in sick is terrible for production and costs companies billions every year. Trudeau's assertion is fallacious on its face.

 

What interest would the government have on picking on Kevin Trudeau and his natural healing? Why dont they just leave him alone and let him be, and whoever wants to listen to him, great, and whoever doesn't, great too.

 

BUt he makes claims that are false and can keep people sick or kill them. That's why he got into trouble for his book, and had to rephrase his claims. There are laws against such things.

 

Maybe because the government has a vested interest, due to all the influence peddling, to protect the pocket of the pharmecutical industry?

 

Funny that the government would spend billions educating citizens about eating right, excercise, and annual checkups, and doctors encourage proper eating and preventative medicine for patients, as well as seek new ways to help those that are sick, when all the while they really want to keep people ill. Such reasoning is nonsenseand insulting to thinking people everywhere.

 

Another attempt of an intelligent rebuttle?

 

You're the one who thinks that corporations are evil and manipulative. Just like Commies.

 

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp

 

Look at the footnotes.

 

I have that tract, actually. ANd it is one of the best examples of how stupid Creationists are there is. Hilarious.

 

Equating Jack Chick with the biology department at Harvard, Oxford--basically every major university in the planet is laughable at best, truly sad at worst.

 

Drugs are controlled toxins that put the body in a state of imbalance.

They should only be used in the most urgent of cases otherwise they are more of a liability than an asset - and also a good money maker.

 

Sources?

 

I have not dismissed any ancedontal evidence - I made an intelligent reply to the stupid example you used. You ancedontal evidence is not credible because you cant account for a simple and obvious explanation that there are many Elvis impersenators. Instead of dealing with the topic of hand, you just intend to create a stupid mockery and jeer the whole issue up.

 

Again you make my point for me. Which is the more rational explanation: Haunted Houses, or irrational explanations for phenomena not understood by the person experienceing them, or hallucinations?

 

I again ask why you what grounds you reject my seeing Elvis and not other anecdotal evidence? WHy didn't you suggest that I saw Elvis' ghost, since you believe in ghosts?

 

It is as stupid as saying you went to Disneyland, and saw Donald Duck - and I'll say, sure, and there is a guy inside the costume. So, you are not dealing with this subject seriously by raising junk.

 

Haunted houses and ghosts are equally junk. Explain why anecdotal evidence is ok in one instance and not another.

 

I think atheists are anti-intellecutal. They ignore ancedontal evidence.

 

Well, intellectuals are the one ignoring anecdotal evidence. There are rules to logical thought. I just follow them. You are entitled to your opinion, certainly, but no thinking person will ever take you seriously.

 

Now you concede it could have been used incorrectly - how convenient.

 

No, I told you that from the beginning and you reiterated it. How is it "convenient" to use a test for its purpose? If I used a thermometer to test the ph level of something it wouldn't work. Does that mean thermometers are useless? Also, if you were to point out to me that thermometers are not used in testing ph, would it be rational and fair for me to suggest that was "convenient" on your part?

 

I see you accuse others of twisting your arguments around just to be contentious, when in point of fact it is you who are so doing.

 

If they are used correctly I guess.

 

Exactly. I am still waiting for you to tell me how all the dating methods that show an ancient earth are all wrong the same way.

 

You seem to think that science can discover all the answers or have a definitive answer to the origin of species - I dont see how.

 

Testing and observation. Simple.

 

What is absurd is you cant prove that does not exist - and in light of the tons of ancedontal evidence to suggest otherwise, it is even at the expense of the millions of people who have experienced the reality that there is a God, and the millions more who know that there is more to everything than just the natural world.

 

No, they believe, they do not know. It is not incumbent upon me to prove something DOESN'T exist, it is up to the person making the assertion to prove that it DOES.

 

Because of sin. Science claims random probability that things are the way they are. That is horse manure. That is evolution.

 

Incorrect. Evolution is not random. If you knew anything about it you would know that.

 

Seeing mutations does not necessarily mean the theory of evolution is true.

 

I cannot say this any clearer. Again, in plain english, the THEORY OF EVOLUTION explains the FACT of evolution. Seeing mutations is exactly how we know evolution is a fact.

 

God can create something at a fixed point in time and program it to mutate.

The original states of humans and animals, and plants is as they are now.

 

Your last sentence makes no sense. Can you please explain?

 

Easy to say?

 

Well there is plenty of evidence to suggest there is.

 

No, there are stories and wives tales, which has been explained to you over and over is not evidence.

 

You are out to jeer evidence not to consider anything seriously, except it fits into your scientific 'parameters' of beliefs.

 

And extraordinary evidence is the volume and quality of ancedontal evidence.

 

No, the number of people who believe something is not indicative of its truth. I didn't make this up, it is a fallacy that has been well-known for centuries, but you would rather believe fairy tales than accept the hard work and dedication of thousends over the centuries who codified logical thought. You are invalidating THEM, youare jeering THEM, and you seem to have no difficulty invalidating the entire medical profession and all of the work and dedicaion doctors put in to HELP you--but I am a jerk because I don't believe in ghosts. Whatever.

[Toni_no12002]

hard to put into words, other than, "I do believe." Faith – inexplicable but very real because it's so visceral – is a gift that not everyone has received. I guess it could be called an invitation to a relationship with God, and it can be ignored or turned down just like any invitation. Do I sleep better knowing I have it? I live more securely in myself because I have it, and that affects every waking/sleeping moment of my existence. However, I wouldn't encourage anyone to lie about whether they believe or they don't because in the end, that's a decision you're going to have to come to all on your own. If it seems farfetched, then it's a safe bet to say that you don't believe. If you have doubts, it's prolly safe to say you're being nudged by the One who created you, but only you can decide whether to take that next step or remain in your unbelief. Ideally, yeah, everyone would believe, but that's not how things work ...

 

Maybe thats why they did the bible in the first place so people will feel that they have a reason to live!Maybe it is the truth nobody knows.sometimes i just feel that people have wrote the bible to give a reason for why were here because it gives people hope.Does that make sense?

 

People are always searching for the answer to why we are here but no one really knows.To be honest i dont think we will ever know.The bible is written by humans,we can exaggerate things.So it isnt proof god exists.

[konfused]

I've been reading and responding to this thread for a long while now. I don't agree with hardly anything you have to say. I lean towards the atheistic end of the spectrum. But I never want to pass the threshhold of no return. Being that rigid scares the bejeepers out of me. So I am curious to hear your testimony. I'd like to hear about the event that molded you into the person I've come to know as Admiral Thrawn. I realize it may be very personal so I won't knock it - Promise. I just want to hear it.

[a4a]

I've been reading and responding to this thread for a long while now. I don't agree with hardly anything you have to say. I lean towards the atheistic end of the spectrum. But I never want to pass the threshhold of no return. Being that rigid scares the bejeepers out of me. So I am curious to hear your testimony. I'd like to hear about the event that molded you into the person I've come to know as Admiral Thrawn. I realize it may be very personal so I won't knock it - Promise. I just want to hear it.

 

 

Just like people will continue to throw a pinch of salt over their shoulder if they should spill salt, or not walk under ladders, or cross their fingers.

 

An insurance policy of sorts.??? I will admit I thought that too (being rigid), but realized maybe I was purchasing the wrong insurance policy. There are many religions to choose from. You cannot choose all of them to follow to insure yourself.

[Admiral Thrawn]

If there were no God There would be no music

 

There would be no dream To be dreaming of

 

What a dreadful thought Of an empty future

 

If there were no God There would be no love

 

If there were no God There would be no children

 

There would be no joy To relieve our tears

 

Not a tender hand To provide us comfort

 

No consoling heart To subdue our fears

 

 

But we know, that God is with us.

 

But we know his majesty

 

Reigning now, the King eternal, Yes, we know the victory.

 

 

If there were no God There would be no sunshine

 

There would be no rain To reflect the earth

 

There would be no jewels. To display their value.

 

There would be no thought. Of enduring words

 

If there were no God. There would be no creation.

 

There would be no light. There could be no breath.

 

No surpassing joy. Nothing in existance.

 

If there were no God. All would be death.

 

But we know, that God is with us.

 

And we know his majesty.

 

Reigning now, the King eternal, Yes we know, the victory.

 

Sung in Acapella.

[converse02]

If you can't prove God exists and never can, why bother believeing it in?

 

I say Xenu is God. Worship him or your'll burn in hell. Xenu is responsible for life, creation, and all the beauty in the universe. No one can prove Xenu isn't God. If you don't believe Xenu is God, well you'll know the truth when you die and when you'll be frying in the pits of the hell.

 

Now replace the word Xenui with Jesus, Allah, Zeus, Odin, Vishna, Ra, and so forth. These sentences remain as nonsensical and unbelievable as the original. Why bother believeing in it?

 

Man does not need religion. The millions of happy and successful atheists in the world and in history has proven that.

 

To choose creationism, a myth written by men, over evolution, which is based on the teeth of evidence, is either utter insanity or pure ignorance. Nearly EVERY science that can even remotely be related to evolution, not just biology, but geology (rock strata), anthropology (fossils), radiometric dating, genetics, embrology, every one, has evidence in support of evolution because evolution really happened. It is studied in every major university on the planet because it gets results and it works. The theory of evolution is as real of the theory of gravity. It's just unfortunate the uneducated here don't even understand what the words "scientific theory" or hypothesis mean, much less the finer concepts of genetics.

[a4a]

If you can't prove God exists and never can, why bother believeing it in?

 

I say Xenu is God. Worship him or your'll burn in hell. Xenu is responsible for life, creation, and all the beauty in the universe. No one can prove Xenu isn't God. If you don't believe Xenu is God, well you'll know the truth when you die and when you'll be frying in the pits of the hell.

 

Now replace the word Xenui with Jesus, Allah, Zeus, Odin, Vishna, Ra, and so forth. These sentences remain as nonsensical and unbelievable as the original. Why bother believeing in it?

 

Man does not need religion. The millions of happy and successful atheists in the world and in history has proven that.

 

.

 

I truly think people need insurance that if there is an eternity that they will be ok. The majority of religions (in general) are fear based.

 

IMHO men who fear what they do not truly know do need religion.

 

I would love to know how believers can discount other religions, many are so similar. The christian religion is the real newbie on the block of religions. So many of the rituals are pagan in nature.

 

Need more coffee to ponder this. All I can say it is nice to not have the fear of god in me.

 

a4a- I want a donut

[Admiral Thrawn]

If you can't prove God exists and never can, why bother believeing it in?

 

The converse could be said, if you cant prove God doesn't exist, why not bother believing in God - hello?

 

There is plenty of ancedontal evidence, today, of people who have experienced Jesus Christ, who have been healed, or touched in some way where their lives have changd. My God gets results done that helps people and changes their lives for the better.

 

I say Xenu is God. Worship him or your'll burn in hell. Xenu is responsible for life, creation, and all the beauty in the universe. No one can prove Xenu isn't God. If you don't believe Xenu is God, well you'll know the truth when you die and when you'll be frying in the pits of the hell.

 

Now replace the word Xenui with Jesus, Allah, Zeus, Odin, Vishna, Ra, and so forth. These sentences remain as nonsensical and unbelievable as the original. Why bother believeing in it?

 

Simple, because they do not exist. There is no ancedontal evidence of people to show how their faith in these idols have produced tangable results. While the preponderence of evidence shows that Jesus Christ works.

 

Man does not need religion. The millions of happy and successful atheists in the world and in history has proven that.

 

They all have an empty void inside without Christ and are miserable.

 

To choose creationism, a myth written by men, over evolution, which is based on the teeth of evidence, is either utter insanity or pure ignorance. Nearly EVERY science that can even remotely be related to evolution, not just biology, but geology (rock strata), anthropology (fossils), radiometric dating, genetics, embrology, every one, has evidence in support of evolution because evolution really happened. It is studied in every major university on the planet because it gets results and it works. The theory of evolution is as real of the theory of gravity. It's just unfortunate the uneducated here don't even understand what the words "scientific theory" or hypothesis mean, much less the finer concepts of genetics.

 

Invent a time-machine and prove evolution is true.

[a4a]

The converse could be said, if you cant prove God doesn't exist, why not bother believing in God - hello?

 

And which came first the chicken or the egg? Or was the chicken created from a rib of a pig?

 

 

There is plenty of ancedontal evidence, today, of people who have experienced Jesus Christ, who have been healed, or touched in some way where their lives have changd. My God gets results done that helps people and changes their lives for the better.

 

Does this include the grilled cheese sandwiches with the image of the virgin Mary? Or the Kudzu on the telephone pole in the shape of the jesus? (not kidding big hub bub here about that one, I see elephants in the kudzu shapes

 

 

Simple, because they do not exist. There is no ancedontal evidence of people to show how their faith in these idols have produced tangable results. While the preponderence of evidence shows that Jesus Christ works.

 

Oh my dear man, you are dead wrong here, many religions can show evidence, you need to really study other religions before you can state such a thing! Shame on you... Make your list of modern day "miracles" please omit sliced bread and indoor plumbing.

 

 

 

They all have an empty void inside without Christ and are miserable.

 

Alas, again you contradict yourself. You have posted you have a void, the

need for touch, cuddle parties ect. You suffer from a void as well. Your life is far from perfect yet you believe......why are you not fulfilled if you truly believe your above statement.....

 

 

 

Invent a time-machine and prove evolution is true.

 

I do not doubt that in the far off or maybe not to far off future it could happen.....You never know what science will find and discover.

[Admiral Thrawn]

As has been put o you before. It is possible that God created everything an instant ago, with all of our memories in tact. Impossible to prove He didn't.

 

Not God as descirbed in the Bible. Creationalism is supported in the Bible and Evolution is not. If we want to make statements between science and theology then either we are at least talking about the same God here, or we are wasting our time.

 

And no, how organisms evolve is central to biology. To say otherwise is to demonstrate your ignorance of the subject.

 

I will say otherwise. Science as based on empiracal, non-extrapolated and non-hypotehtical study of facts of how things work. Cells, can be observed under a microscope. We have electron microscopes. We have tools to observe the envirionment and make objective analysis. That is where there is no disagreement between science and theology.

 

Evolution is not part of that science, because it is making an anti-theist arguement and it is still based, no matter how you cut it, on something that can not be observed with a machine. The solution, as absurd as it sounds, is a time-machine. People did not understand atoms, or smaller objects until tools were developed in order to understand them better. As soon as the technology of observation improved, so have the theories 'evolved' into what they are now. For example, the smallest object may be conceptually different now, than it was a few hundred yeasrs ago because we have better technology.

 

What I am saying is that you need tools and technology to make empiracal observations about the environment. I am not being absurd to suggest that evolution is the only part of science where empiracal observation in an actually environment is impossible unless a time-machine is invented and used. Until then, without the benefit of a time-machine, even the evolution theory may just be as good as what people thought the smallest particle was before microscopes were invented.

 

People can get aall the information they want whenever they want. Trudeau made his stuff up, but there are plenty of sources for natural medicine both on the internet and in your public library.

 

Right, but they are quite hidden. If there were a 'miracle cure' for something, with natural medicine, or antidonal evidence of such a cure, it would not likely be broadcasted on the front page of the newspaper.

 

Pharmecutical companies make money by providing drugs that work, not drugs that don't. Simple. Why would school districts require immunizations for children entering school if the government wanted everyone sick?

 

Ok, the drugs may work for the specific problem that they are used for. But, excessive use may mean that there are side-effects, or toxins accumulating in the blood that may cause other problems down the road.

It would benefit drug companies who sell drugs, if people get sick again in the future as a result for taking their drugs, or if they needed more drugs than they needed before. If drugs really made people more sick, then there would likely be lawsuits going around against the culprit - which in fact, there are. But, you dont see many lawsuits out against natural medicines now, do you?

 

Why would companies want everyone sick? People calling in sick is terrible for production and costs companies billions every year. Trudeau's assertion is fallacious on its face.

 

The Medical and Pharmacutical industry rely on sick people in order to increase sales. THOSE COMPANIES MOAI, I never said every company, and unless you are playing stupid, you know what I meant anyway.

 

BUt he makes claims that are false and can keep people sick or kill them. That's why he got into trouble for his book, and had to rephrase his claims. There are laws against such things.

 

Interesting nobody who got sick or killed has started a lawsuit against Kevin Trudeau, as most of his persecution if from the FDA or a Government Organization, rather than a private class-action lawsuit.

 

 

Funny that the government would spend billions educating citizens about eating right, excercise, and annual checkups, and doctors encourage proper eating and preventative medicine for patients, as well as seek new ways to help those that are sick, when all the while they really want to keep people ill. Such reasoning is nonsenseand insulting to thinking people everywhere.

 

Really, there are more McDonald's advertisements on TV than on living healthy.

 

 

You're the one who thinks that corporations are evil and manipulative. Just like Commies.

 

You should rent the DVD 'The Corporation', it sounds like you are ignorant and need to hear from a documented perspective.

 

 

I have that tract, actually. ANd it is one of the best examples of how stupid Creationists are there is. Hilarious.

 

Equating Jack Chick with the biology department at Harvard, Oxford--basically every major university in the planet is laughable at best, truly sad at worst.

 

There are valid points brought up in the tract. Rather than lauging at it or mocking the credentials of the author, why dont you confront the evidence on it against evolution one by one. Obviously if you cant do that, and all you can do is jeer, then the tract is true, right?

 

Again you make my point for me. Which is the more rational explanation: Haunted Houses, or irrational explanations for phenomena not understood by the person experienceing them, or hallucinations?

 

Normal people do not have hallucinations, unless they have a mental problem or are on drugs? So, naturally, that is the first question. If that is answered, then there is a second question, how many people have 'seen' this, was it just one or more? What are their motivations for saying what they are seeing? Once the credibility of the witnesses are ascertained - and there is no financial benefit for making claims - or 'sexing something up' that may have been some minor phenominon, then, once can conclude, that yes, that house may be Haunted. There obviously be a process of shifting through ancedontal evidence to confirm that it could really mean there is a 'Haunted House', just like there is a process of obtaining and shifting through evidence in science - that's why lots of experiments have to be done in science as opposed to just one or two to prove things, right?

 

So, the double-standard applied here, is you are treating ancedontal evidence lightly by not considering a system to ensure the claims are credible and defy any rational explanation, and are experienced by enough people.

 

I again ask why you what grounds you reject my seeing Elvis and not other anecdotal evidence? WHy didn't you suggest that I saw Elvis' ghost, since you believe in ghosts?

 

Your example does not do justice to a rational process of analysing evidence. First of all, I never necessarily rejected your experience of seeing Elvis, I merely interpreted it that you may have seen an Imposter. Since you would not be able to distinguish the true Elvis from an Imposter, than that holds as the explanation. However, the fact that you experienced Elvis is certainly accepted, but it does not prove that what you saw was actually Elvis.

 

 

Haunted houses and ghosts are equally junk. Explain why anecdotal evidence is ok in one instance and not another.

 

As I said, just like in science, you have to apply a process that would critically look at ancedontal evidence and it would confirm at best, that the person in question is really having an experience of something and seeing something. If there is no rational explanation of what that person is seeing or experiencing, and it can not be concluded that the person has ulterior motives, is on drugs, or has a mental problem, then it has to be concluded what he or she experienced is authentically what they believed they experienced. Now people can interpret it any which way they want, but allot of times, there is no rational scientific explanation.

[Admiral Thrawn]

I've been reading and responding to this thread for a long while now. I don't agree with hardly anything you have to say. I lean towards the atheistic end of the spectrum. But I never want to pass the threshhold of no return. Being that rigid scares the bejeepers out of me. So I am curious to hear your testimony. I'd like to hear about the event that molded you into the person I've come to know as Admiral Thrawn. I realize it may be very personal so I won't knock it - Promise. I just want to hear it.

 

There is no event or magical or miracolous experience to write about other than saying that I am impressed with the character of God as expressed by Jesus asking the Father to forgive the Roman solidiers who were crucifying Him when looking at a Gospel movie. The love that God has for us, is like how Jesus loved the Roman soliders - unconditional and absolute love - it is that love that drew me closer to God. I realised that God is really love. I'm impressed by what Jesus has said on His Sermon on the mount, his teachings to love your enemies, and the higher road that all His teaching expouse.

 

I have had an interest for the things of God and a hunger for things that are beyond this world and developed an apetite and interest of studying the Bible, from Genesis, going to church, and spending time in prayer. At it's zenith, I used to spend 2 hours of prayer and worship in the morning, volunteer to play the Trombone for church, an Old Testament Bible study around 6:00p.m., and soft-Bible study (Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Eccleasities, Song of Solomon, or soft Aprocrapha books). I felt the presence of God when I went to church and when I worshipped God.

 

This is part of my life, and part of a journey of life, as opposed to a single miracle or single event.

[Admiral Thrawn]

To: Moai and D'Arthur and Toni.

 

As you can read from my last post to Moai, you guys can not simply assume that it is not the case that there is a failure to come up with a scientific-rational explanation, in a genuine and credible case where the person is not under the influence of drugs (or, for that matter has ever aken drugs before), and has absolutely no mental illness. That assumption would be unreasonable without dealing with the evidence on a case-by-case basis, so summarily dismissing a bunch of cases into pre-set category explanations just doesn't cut it.

 

IN conclusion, people have both seen and experienced God, myself included, to support the view that God exists, miracles are real, and that God is doing things in people's lives. The Christian God of the Bible.

[d'Arthez]

I made my points. Next time, address me with my proper handle Admiral Thrawn. You responded:

quack, quack, quack quack quack, quack! quack - quack quack quack.

Quac? quack quack and quack quack quack.

 

 

 

Quack!

 

 

 

But, quack quack quack quack. Quack quack quack quach and also quack quack quack.

 

As for any discussion with you, that is pointless. I'd rather talk to a Chinese farmer. Or heat a cup of coffee, by shouting at it.

[Admiral Thrawn]

I made my points. Next time, address me with my proper handle Admiral Thrawn. You responded:

 

 

As for any discussion with you, that is pointless. I'd rather talk to a Chinese farmer. Or heat a cup of coffee, by shouting at it.

 

Quack! Quack!

[konfused]

There is no event or magical or miracolous experience to write about other than saying that I am impressed with the character of God as expressed by Jesus asking the Father to forgive the Roman solidiers who were crucifying Him when looking at a Gospel movie. The love that God has for us, is like how Jesus loved the Roman soliders - unconditional and absolute love - it is that love that drew me closer to God. I realised that God is really love. I'm impressed by what Jesus has said on His Sermon on the mount, his teachings to love your enemies, and the higher road that all His teaching expouse.

 

I have had an interest for the things of God and a hunger for things that are beyond this world and developed an apetite and interest of studying the Bible, from Genesis, going to church, and spending time in prayer. At it's zenith, I used to spend 2 hours of prayer and worship in the morning, volunteer to play the Trombone for church, an Old Testament Bible study around 6:00p.m., and soft-Bible study (Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Eccleasities, Song of Solomon, or soft Aprocrapha books). I felt the presence of God when I went to church and when I worshipped God.

 

This is part of my life, and part of a journey of life, as opposed to a single miracle or single event.

 

I also feel the presence of God. Even tonight, as a nonbeliever, I went to a Nazarene Church for a chili cookoff and some bluegrass. "Sweet By and By" and "Amazing Grace" in acappella cause my soul to stir. I get a warm feeling and feel very at peace. You would probably call that the Holy Spirit. I don't try to define it but rather just try to focus it onto positive outcomes. As far as the Big Bang and Evolution, they have no bearing on my ability to be rekindled by such events. That is when I know I've been touched by God. Whether at a church or on top of a mountain watching a sunset you always know it's God. But I can't believe the Bible because as I look around the church I see all Christians who are experiencing the same Holy Spirit. And I know exactly why they are there. I see all their charity and hospitality. I see their compassion and love. But I can't fathom the belief that all those wonderful people think I'm going to Hell because I don't proclaim Jesus as Lord. That's where I have to leave the Bible behind.

[HotCaliGirl]

Next time' date=' address me with my proper handle Admiral Thrawn...I'd rather... heat a cup of coffee, by shouting at it.[/quote']

Quack! Quack!

You guys quack me up!

[Moai]

Not God as descirbed in the Bible. Creationalism is supported in the Bible and Evolution is not. If we want to make statements between science and theology then either we are at least talking about the same God here, or we are wasting our time.

 

It is possible that the god described in the Bible isn't a god at all. I know you believe that he is, and that's fine for you. BUt billions of people disagree with you.

 

I will say otherwise. Science as based on empiracal, non-extrapolated and non-hypotehtical study of facts of how things work. Cells, can be observed under a microscope. We have electron microscopes. We have tools to observe the envirionment and make objective analysis. That is where there is no disagreement between science and theology.

 

Yes, and these very same tools show us that evolution is a fact.

 

Evolution is not part of that science, because it is making an anti-theist arguement and it is still based, no matter how you cut it, on something that can not be observed with a machine.

 

No, the study of evolution makes no argument for or against god. And not only can you see evolution with your own eyes--you don't need any tools--we also have DNA evidence. Which, as I am sure you are aware, is microscopic.

 

The solution, as absurd as it sounds, is a time-machine. People did not understand atoms, or smaller objects until tools were developed in order to understand them better.

 

Actually, atoms have never been seen by anybody. We developed atomic weapons without having seen one.

 

The fossil record is a kind of time machine, by the way.

 

As soon as the technology of observation improved, so have the theories 'evolved' into what they are now. For example, the smallest object may be conceptually different now, than it was a few hundred yeasrs ago because we have better technology.

 

What I am saying is that you need tools and technology to make empiracal observations about the environment. I am not being absurd to suggest that evolution is the only part of science where empiracal observation in an actually environment is impossible unless a time-machine is invented and used. Until then, without the benefit of a time-machine, even the evolution theory may just be as good as what people thought the smallest particle was before microscopes were invented.

 

Actually, it is absurd to suggest that we need a time machine. We have the fossil record, we have observed speciation events already, and see them all the time. We can study the fossil record, we can study the DNA evidence, etc. Evolution is not only a fact, the theory we have that explains it is one of the best ones we have--if not the best one.. And I am sure that as more and more information is gathered the theory will change (all theories do), but that won't change evolution being a fact. Theories explain facts.

 

Right, but they are quite hidden. If there were a 'miracle cure' for something, with natural medicine, or antidonal evidence of such a cure, it would not likely be broadcasted on the front page of the newspaper.

 

In medicine, as in all areas of science, anecdotal evidence is useless. Look it up if you don't believe me.

 

 

Ok, the drugs may work for the specific problem that they are used for. But, excessive use may mean that there are side-effects, or toxins accumulating in the blood that may cause other problems down the road.

It would benefit drug companies who sell drugs, if people get sick again in the future as a result for taking their drugs, or if they needed more drugs than they needed before. If drugs really made people more sick, then there would likely be lawsuits going around against the culprit - which in fact, there are. But, you dont see many lawsuits out against natural medicines now, do you?

 

Because "natural" medicines make no claims as to their effectiveness. That's why the FDA can't touch them.

 

Modern medicine has wiped out polio (much tot he chagrin of companies that make leg braces, huh?) and small pox. To suggest that companies want to keep you sick is such a bizarre, paranoid idea I starting to suspect that you are being facetious is suggesting such a thing.

 

 

The Medical and Pharmacutical industry rely on sick people in order to increase sales. THOSE COMPANIES MOAI, I never said every company, and unless you are playing stupid, you know what I meant anyway.

 

Yeah, I know what you meant, and the whole idea is ludicrous. They rely on making drugs that are effective, so people will buy them and use them and get better.

 

It is true that if everyone was healthy we wouldn't need drug companies, but that is never going to happen. People get sick. They always will, adn there will always be a need for medicine. And drug companies make money by providing people with ways to improve the quality of their lives. Make all the paranoid assertions you want, but there is no evidence for your and Trudeau's position. Have you any idea how many billions of dollars in productivity are lost because people get sick and cannot work? Way more than what drug companies make.

 

 

Interesting nobody who got sick or killed has started a lawsuit against Kevin Trudeau, as most of his persecution if from the FDA or a Government Organization, rather than a private class-action lawsuit.

 

He doesn't suggest anything--besides wearing white indoors and saying that sunblock is harmful and the sun is not(!). Saying stupid things is not illegal, but he had to stop making claims for sures because he was lying, and he got caught. You'd think when he was in court he would have presented his "cures" and had them tested, but he didn't. Big Surprise.

 

He claims that vinegar cures heartburn. If that were so, why don't vinegar companies advertise vinegar as a cure? They don't because it isn't. WHat Trudeau says about how digestion works is so wrong it would be funny if he was kidding.

 

Really, there are more McDonald's advertisements on TV than on living healthy.

 

You have got to be kidding. McDonald's is a for profit business, in charge of their own advertising. Advertising for eating right comes from taxes. Who do you think has more money? Sheesh.

 

You should rent the DVD 'The Corporation', it sounds like you are ignorant and need to hear from a documented perspective.

 

Oh, I'll run right out and rent that.

 

There are valid points brought up in the tract. Rather than lauging at it or mocking the credentials of the author, why dont you confront the evidence on it against evolution one by one. Obviously if you cant do that, and all you can do is jeer, then the tract is true, right?

 

I can. First, you don't use Carbon-14 dating to date teh age of lava. Second, Piltdown Man was a hoax and was shown to be so by--SHOCKER--evolutionary biologists, not Creationists. The argument about circular reasoning as far as dating fossils and the age of geologic strata is silly and misinformed.

 

There is absolutely no evidence against evolution in the entire tract--as there is no evidence against evolution anywhere.

 

Normal people do not have hallucinations, unless they have a mental problem or are on drugs?

 

Yes, they do. Your eyes play tricks on you all the time. ANd WANTING to see a ghost is probably the most important component in seeing one.

 

So, naturally, that is the first question. If that is answered, then there is a second question, how many people have 'seen' this, was it just one or more? What are their motivations for saying what they are seeing? Once the credibility of the witnesses are ascertained - and there is no financial benefit for making claims - or 'sexing something up' that may have been some minor phenominon, then, once can conclude, that yes, that house may be Haunted.

 

Nope. Stories grow in the telling, and the need someone has to see something may cause them to see things that aren't there. It happens all the time. As I mentioned before, it doesn't matter how ardently someone believes something, or even that in their mind they are certain they are telling the truth. None of those things make their statements any more believable or valid.

 

There obviously be a process of shifting through ancedontal evidence to confirm that it could really mean there is a 'Haunted House', just like there is a process of obtaining and shifting through evidence in science - that's why lots of experiments have to be done in science as opposed to just one or two to prove things, right?

 

No, nobody siftes through anecdotal evidence, since it isn't used in science. Someone makes a claim that a house is haunted, scientists come in, and lo and behold explain the "noises" or "vapors" or whatever. Every time. There is no such thing as a haunted house, nor are there such things as ghosts.

 

In fact, why would houses be haunted? Surely a ghost could go anywhere it wants to, since they could avoid hell and heaven, right? THey are certainly powerful if they existed--which they don't.

 

So, the double-standard applied here, is you are treating ancedontal evidence lightly by not considering a system to ensure the claims are credible and defy any rational explanation, and are experienced by enough people.

 

If there is a system that is testable, fine. But there isn't. By definition science gives rational explanations.

 

Your example does not do justice to a rational process of analysing evidence. First of all, I never necessarily rejected your experience of seeing Elvis, I merely interpreted it that you may have seen an Imposter. Since you would not be able to distinguish the true Elvis from an Imposter, than that holds as the explanation. However, the fact that you experienced Elvis is certainly accepted, but it does not prove that what you saw was actually Elvis.

 

Exactly. ANd the same goes for ghosts.

 

 

As I said, just like in science, you have to apply a process that would critically look at ancedontal evidence and it would confirm at best, that the person in question is really having an experience of something and seeing something. If there is no rational explanation of what that person is seeing or experiencing, and it can not be concluded that the person has ulterior motives, is on drugs, or has a mental problem, then it has to be concluded what he or she experienced is authentically what they believed they experienced. Now people can interpret it any which way they want, but allot of times, there is no rational scientific explanation.

 

No, you are incorrect. There is a rational explanation every single time. It may not convince the ardent believer, but that doesn't mean the explanation is not valid. Anecdotal evidence is considered in the sense that when someone "sees" something that is considered a claim, and the claim is investigated. When it is determined that there is no evidence for the claim, it is dismissed. Just because someone says that they saw something doesn't mean they did, and no matter how honest they are or how many people claim to have seen "something" means absolutely nothing. That is the essence of investigation.

[wizdom]

quankanne I loved the way you replied to toni it was very loving, you showed compassion and still stood firm in what you believe. I really believe before you responded you asked the question what would Jesus do and you were lead by the Holy Spirit in your response. It was not judgemental or condesending at all. God bless you.

 

I do want to say as far as Me believing in Jesus and not the xenu Jesus Christ is the only one who died and rose again and is not laying in a Tomb somewhere. That's why I believe in God. Not because someone made Him up. i would really like to know where did the atoms and particles that evolved into creation and nature evolve from or where they always there? If they were always there it is safe to say that God was always there right? That's a question that keeps me wondering. I don't have anything wrong with science it has taught us a lot about GOd's creation but it does not disprove the fact that GOd created it.