Thought it was after Methuselah that God decided "okay im cool lets kill off these stupid humans"
Take a look at what the Bible - the best source we have for this - says. God did it because wickedness increased throughout the world beyond a certain point. Science is showing us that there is structure in nature. Science is showing us that nature adapts to certain structural changes. Science also shows us that nature collapses in areas where the structural changes are too great. The science of psychology shows us that people go mad if their psychological structure gets too far out of whack from what it should be naturally. So, why is science so unwilling to look at the spiritual, structures in the universe? It's in spiritual structures that we see hints of God.  |
|
|
|
As a prelude to recognizing the existence of God, one must recognize that people live and thrive on faith. ---------- From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith?s=t : faith [feyth] noun 1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability. 2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact. 3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims. 4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty. 5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith. 6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith. 7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles. 8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved. ---------- Who among people knows for an absolute fact what is going to happen at any time in the future? Personally, experience has taught me that I can feel confident that some things will happen. Yet, some of the time I have been wrong. Since I didn't know then that I was going to be wrong when I was wrong, how do I know that I am not going to be wrong now? The point? I live by faith. That faith is based on my experience of the way things work in life and the universe. When I am wrong, my experience is tweaked a little, so that the next time circumstances are similar to something I have experienced, the expectations of my faith are also different. I still don't know for a fact what will happen any given moment. So, I live by faith that my experience has provided me with enough information to make correct decisions, and to be comfortable in life. Until I am humble enough to recognize that I live by faith, and that my experiences don't cover all situations and circumstances, I'm never going to be able to find REAL proof for God or anything else. I am only going to wind up deluding myself into beliefs that may or may not be true. |
|
|
|
The logic string proposed here is fundamentally flawed. God by definition is omnipotent, so if the hypothesis begins with "God exists and is omnipotent" the answer to any rule imposed to deny the existence of god can be explained through omnipotence. An Omnipotent entity would not be governed by any laws and could act in ways that contradict each other. I want to add that I do not follow any organized religion but my opinion is slightly biased based on where I was born and my unwavering faith in science. To throw a wrench into our thinking... Might God want a challenge? Perhaps just for sport? Yet one that harms nobody, yet is a true challenge? So, how would God create this challenge? God knows everything except for one little thing. God made us in such a way that He doesn't quite know the innermost, deepest workings of each human heart... especially the hearts of those who believe in Him. Not that He couldn't. But that He hides it from Himself in such a way that there is challenge for Him. This is way more complicated than the way I'm saying it, so don't jump down my throat for not writing a book, and for not describing something, clearly, that might not even be describable in English. God is good, all the time. So, the thing that he made to challenge Himself, is also something that is good. It's good for us, and it is good for Him. And even when we try to fight Him, the challenge has become more interesting for Him, though He never wanted it that way. But now that it IS that way (we attempt to fight God), he has found a method to make it all good for any of us who want to accept Him. Salvation is exciting. Salvation is wonderful. Yet the destruction of those who will not accept salvation, is something that will be long gone in the great future that is awaiting those of us who accept salvation. |
|
|
|
42 pages and not a single mention of this supposed scientific proof. Can someone please link to the paper? What journal was it published in? Where are the data, the methodology, the abstract?
Come on guys, this is by far the greatest discovery in all of science. But for some reason none of the scientific websites are talking about it.
Comeon. It isn't 42 pages. It's just plain old 42, the "Answer to The Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything". |
|
|
|
On a matter as time sensitive as this, the old folks should not vote at all. Let the younger generations have their say in what kind of world they will live in for the rest of their lives. The older generation is directly responsible for what ails much of society today. Yes, I'm playing generation politics here which is unfair and discriminatory but I don't care.
Let's get rid of voting altogether. Go for common law which says freedom for everyone in every way as long as the freedom doesn't: 1. Harm anybody; 2. Damage anyone's property; 3. Break a contract. |
|
|
|
I'll say having children period is immoral, your bringing them into a world where they will feel pain, where their labor will be taxed away at every turn. Better not to have children at all, gives more wealth to the people already living.
Not everyone were born in a test tube, without parents like you...   Now, now. Be gentle. Full Spectrum doesn't realize that he isn't as full as he thinks he is. |
|
|
|
Scientists have far greater imaginations than anyone who can give a reason, like Egypt being around 6,000 years ago. Um, I guess if you want to take mountains of evidence from every imaginable relevant field and then discredit it with a wave of your hand as "imagination" then you have every right to do so. The more you do this the more difficult it is to treat you as if you're serious. If you really want to know more, all you have to do is point that web-browser of yours at the wikipedia series on ancient egypt. There is literally mountains of evidence for dating egyptian kings/queens/dynasties. More and more you're starting to seem like a kid with his hands on his ears and his eyes shut tight saying "no,no,no,no,no" to blockout any sound. If that's the way you live, then you probably can stay inside this world of yours for a pretty long time. However, I really think you're shutting yourself off from the most fascinating and intersting facts about our world. To be an investigative scientist, you have to have imagination. The problem comes about when you let you imagination cloud your interpretation. |
|
|
|
I know through personal evidence that the cosmos does speak, (not verbally, of course) and you only need to know how to listen. For instance, the other day I was debating what happens when you realize karma for what it is...
Human brains have a flaw that is left over from our ancestors - we see patterns. We are so sensitive to recognizing them that we see them even where they don't exist. This pattern recognition isn't something that is conscious; it is the processing that tells us the grass is moving because a predator might be there, that the strange shadows could be holding something that will pounce on us. There was little evolutionary disadvantage to being too paranoid or seeing things that weren't there. This insatiable patterning gives us boogie-men when the lights are out, makes us susceptible to illusion, but more importantly, it makes us ascribe meaning and causality where there is none. We are often able to reason our way out of our misperceptions using our intelligence, but for some, there is no examination of how intellectually a conclusion was reached. Even worse, we can apply attention to something (as the above quote does), and even though we have given it thought, our brains cannot overcome the dissonance that there must be a pattern, a reason, a bigger plan, a conspiracy, or a creator of all things. Superstitions are fun to mock unless they are our own, then we will defend them to our deaths. An atheist can see that religion is a series of con-men taking advantage of this, telling stories about how failure to think certain things upsets a man in the sky who will punish you in a magical land after your die, or alternately you go to a happy place with clouds and only the dead people you like. He will get extremely mad if you believe in the other gods or make the wrong choice or don't follow the rules of the correct book. Good religions are ones who's "Darwinian" rules include converting others, having lots of kids/disciples (along with rules against parental planning), and of course coming to power and eliminating competition. Money is usually involved. A good atheist rejects religion not because they reject morals, empathy, or kindness, but because they seek the observable truth. Atheists are probably more tolerant of religion that religious people are of each other. We will usually let you believe whatever you want up to the point where your self-righteous ass-hattery fucks with our lives. Of course, then there is the rest of the deep examination, that concludes that there are many determinations found through examination of the same things. The consensus that is agreed on isn't always even near what is the truth. That last paragraph is good, though. |
|
|
|
There's only ONE reason why people think that the earth is more than 6,000 years old. It's because some scientists who haven't been there then have said so, over and over until people believe it from hearing it so often. |
|
|
|
The book is not entirely 2000 years old. The first two chapters of in may go all the way back to the beginning, 6000 years ago. If not that far, then they were probably written by Abraham from the verbal tradition that had been passed down. In addition, the first 5 books go back 3500. Lol @ "the beginning 6000 years ago". For a guy who loves the bible so much, you seem to know suprisingly little about the origin of the Old testament. I recommend you check out "The Old Testament with Christine Hayes" on YaleCourses on YouTube. It's entirely free and you can learn a whole lot about this artifact which you hold so dear. And don't pick on the verbal tradition. Those guys had far better memory than we do. And if you say the earth is more than 6000 years old, we don't know that, because the whole time dimension was different before the Great Flood, and the electromagnetic spectrum acted differently, as well. Wow, that second paragraphy displays an almost shocking level of ignorance of basic physics! If the "electromagnetic spectrum" and the "time dimension" were different I guess you may as well say that gravity and strong/weak nuclear forces were different too. Sounds to me like for you, this pre "Great Flood" era actualy belonged to a different universe. Laugh at your own imagination. Nobody was there then. Nobody knows. The Bible is witnesses recounting what they witnessed, not scientists recounting things they didn't witness. Wait a minute, how can it be that both "nobody was there" and that "witneses recounted what they witnessed"? Are you going to tell me next that these bible dudes have explained to you about the "time dimension"? Seriously, try that free yale course by Christine Hayes on OT. It's really good. She doesn't hate the bible, she loves it AND she explains the context of each of the OT books. It's a wonderful lecture series (and it's on YouTube). You might be surprised that the "electromagnetic spectrum" never comes up! http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rlst-145https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLh9mgdi4rNeyuvTEbD-Ei0JdMUujXfyWiAs to what people witnessed, there amazing artifacts from ancient Egyptian kings dating back to about 6000 years ago. So, in your theory, I guess some o fthose people were around before the Earth was created? Scientists have far greater imaginations than anyone who can give a reason, like Egypt being around 6,000 years ago. |
|
|
|
The book is not entirely 2000 years old. The first two chapters of in may go all the way back to the beginning, 6000 years ago. If not that far, then they were probably written by Abraham from the verbal tradition that had been passed down. In addition, the first 5 books go back 3500. Lol @ "the beginning 6000 years ago". For a guy who loves the bible so much, you seem to know suprisingly little about the origin of the Old testament. I recommend you check out "The Old Testament with Christine Hayes" on YaleCourses on YouTube. It's entirely free and you can learn a whole lot about this artifact which you hold so dear. And don't pick on the verbal tradition. Those guys had far better memory than we do. And if you say the earth is more than 6000 years old, we don't know that, because the whole time dimension was different before the Great Flood, and the electromagnetic spectrum acted differently, as well. Wow, that second paragraphy displays an almost shocking level of ignorance of basic physics! If the "electromagnetic spectrum" and the "time dimension" were different I guess you may as well say that gravity and strong/weak nuclear forces were different too. Sounds to me like for you, this pre "Great Flood" era actualy belonged to a different universe. Laugh at your own imagination. Nobody was there then. Nobody knows. The Bible is witnesses recounting what they witnessed, not scientists recounting things they didn't witness. |
|
|
|
Everyone deep down is agnostic to some degree. Even those that believe, must at some time have doubts...as goes for those nonbelievers.
Well, this is absolutely true. Nobody has seen God except the one and only Who He has sent. So, since we haven't seen God, there certainly are aspects about Him that we do not know. What else could this produce but a touch of agnosticism? I don't know who you are talking about? I am an ATHEIST not an agnostic. I do not live in some demon haunted world full of Gods and magical ferries. I have no doubt whatsoever about it. As Heinlein said in Stranger in a Strange Land, "Thou art god." Do you grok it? |
|
|
|
We all struggle to live. A Down's kid is struggling to live even harder. Aborting a kid who is struggling so hard to live sounds cruel to me. |
|
|
|
On the face of it, I disagree that "the thread of salvation through the Messiah runs throughout the whole" of the Bible. I found that the Dead Sea Scrolls support my position:
The messiah, according to Jewish [and early Christian] belief, was not a God that would deliver his people by clearing their way to heaven. The messiah was to be an empowered King who would destroy the enemies of the Jews and regain their Holy Land.
Yet the Messiah was for everyone who believed. So how would an earthly kingship be available to those who had passed already? People want it now. So, they misinterpret a lot. The Revelation in the Bible sets it out rather plainly in some ways. The book of Hebrews is another that helps. St. Paul's writings suggest that we don't know what form we are going to take in Heaven. You know, you base everything off a book that was written when people knew squat about science. Don't you understand that? Your house is built on a foundation of cards. You know? The Bosnian pyramids show that the people of Atlantis knew a whole lot more about science than we give them credit for. And some of their knowledge was so different from ours that we are just beginning to relearn it. Doesn't change the point I just made. Everything you believe, and all your arguments, are based off a book that was written when people thought the sun raced across the sky on a chariot. Those wrong beliefs and ideals are the bible. I'd have more respect for you people if you had any kind of new evidence in the last 2,000 years.  You say "people" like you say "scientists." What I mean is, you can find loads of people who believe all different kinds of things, just like you can find many scientists who understand the same evidence in many different ways. How does that answers to the fact that you base your feelings off a 2000 years book? The guys back then would have thought the smartphone I'm writing this post on is godly if they have had any chance to see it. The book is not entirely 2000 years old. The first two chapters of in may go all the way back to the beginning, 6000 years ago. If not that far, then they were probably written by Abraham from the verbal tradition that had been passed down. In addition, the first 5 books go back 3500. And don't pick on the verbal tradition. Those guys had far better memory than we do. And if you say the earth is more than 6000 years old, we don't know that, because the whole time dimension was different before the Great Flood, and the electromagnetic spectrum acted differently, as well. |
|
|
|
That's a cute guess. And guesses aren't bad things. But for your guesses to amount to knowledge, you have to devise an experiment and get a lot more concrete about things.
These guys are getting really concrete: http://www.iqpr.asia/en/technology/index.htmlThat link wasn't working in my browser. However, I also want to say that while: 1. I don't believe in any God and 2. I think that the canonical conceptualization of God is not relevant for science (ie, by definition God is unobservable, not natural, etc) I don't actually agree with Vod that we should expect science to explain everything. As far as I can tell, there should be plenty of things which are simply not relevant to scientific investigation. Oh yah, for those that are saying that the Bible is 2000 yrs old, I think that's a simplification. Some of the texts seem to go back at least 3000 years, and are probably dervied in part from other ancient texts (Gilgamesh, for example) others weren't written until hundreds of years after Christ's death. Then again, depending on how your philosophy handles linguistic translations and retranslations of those translations, you might say that the English Christian Bible was written as recently as a few hundred years ago. Even 200 years ago a smartphone would have seemed godly Smartphone wouldn't have worked 200 years ago. No way to charge the battery, and no cell towers. Solar cell + Airplane mode That's not the point anyway. Are you really so stupid you don't see the point? Oh come on. Almost everything you say is a joke. So why can't I joke a little? |
|
|
|
It is not true. We cannot sin, because God is almighty and would never let their children sin. God exists, and there is no doubt of it. He is your father. He loves you. And he commands the world. He is all powerfull and nothing goes on without his consent.Accept that you, as sons of God, are gods yourselves. And be happy!  Well, fuck that god then, for commanding/consenting child rape, and cancer, and AIDS... In Isaiah in the Old Testament, there is a place where Isaiah explains that once this world has passed through the Judgment - he doesn't say that it is thrown into the lake of fire, but that is the time he is talking about - none of this life will be remembered or brought to mind. It will be taken entirely out of history, even of God's remembrance. Remember how Jesus is called the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end? There will no longer be any middle. There will no longer be anything left of this life. It will all be the New Heavens and the New Earth. Even the people who don't get saved will be entirely forgotten. Now, I don't like pain any more than anybody else. But I expect that I will die just like everyone else. The pain of death will probably come for me. So, I am not going to deny God in anger for two reasons: 1. I don't want the pain of everlasting hellfire; 2. And, more importantly, I don't want to miss out on that new, wonderful life in the New Heavens and the New Earth. |
|
|
|
Atheists are reasonable people who are able to understand the world that surround them without the need to appeal to magic/mystic.
They have the clear mind to seek reason in order to understand reality.
TLDR, atheists are not lazy people: they use their brain.
No! Atheists do not believe in god or gods, period! I know a lot of people who are atheist and they believe in a lot of crazy conspiracy theories, astrology, homeopathy, Feng Shui and a lot of other pseudo-science or New Age bullshit. Atheism is not the same thing as skepticism. Atheists have only convinced themselves that they do not believe in God. This makes all true atheists liars, lying to themselves, mostly. |
|
|
|
Everyone deep down is agnostic to some degree. Even those that believe, must at some time have doubts...as goes for those nonbelievers.
Well, this is absolutely true. Nobody has seen God except the one and only Who He has sent. So, since we haven't seen God, there certainly are aspects about Him that we do not know. What else could this produce but a touch of agnosticism? |
|
|
|
Atheists are the people who have given up on believing in any version of God for whatever reason. That's basically it though, naturally, some are more loudmouthed about it than others. If you want to see atheists in action, this is a decent subreddit to hang out in. http://www.reddit.com/r/atheismThe funny part about this is that, if God really is real, then what they have done is to put themselves up into the place of god by attempting to be more powerful than He through denying Him. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
