For my Christians Friends

[volente_00]

Quote from DerekD:

Could you point me to some historical documentation that there was a belief in the existence of an atom before discovery?

The concept that matter is composed of discrete units and cannot be divided into arbitrarily tiny quantities has been around for millennia, but these ideas were founded in abstract, philosophical reasoning rather than experimentation and empirical observation. The nature of atoms in philosophy varied considerably over time and between cultures and schools, and often had spiritual elements. Nevertheless, the basic idea of the atom was adopted by scientists thousands of years later because it elegantly explained new discoveries in the field of chemistry

The earliest references to the concept of atoms date back to ancient India in the 6th century BCE.

 

[volente_00]

Quote from Thunderdog:

It would appear that Voltaire, the 18th century political* writer, was a deist. So, while he believed that there was a supernatural being that created the universe (as did most of his contemporaries), he did not believe that there was a god who concerns himself with the lives and actions of people. He was most certainly not a theist. And if he were alive today, I would guess that he would be one step further from being a theist simply because that is the direction that intelligent, critical thought is headed.


*It is precisely because he was a political writer that he could make the comment that I had referred to in my post which you quoted. Specifically, that "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." And the only way that people can be made to believe absurdities is if they willingly give up their critical thinking capabilities in favor of blind faith.

The fact remains that his mind was OPEN to the possibility that there is a higher power. One can be dogmatic towards religion and still be OPEN to the possibility of a higher power.

 

[stu]

You've offered not one piece of rational information or counter evidence to alter the obvious mistake you've made, after cutting & pasting Max Planck’s words.

You have no clue, or would have realized ,it backfired in your face.
By what you showed Planck said himself, he would not entertain anything that "demands for unquestioning belief."

You know ..like religion does but science never.


So all you can come up with is angry insult and derails.
You are clearly very bitter and sound very unhappy about it all.

Blind adherence to religion can choke that way.
Max Planck certainly new a thing or two about that.
You've shown you don't.
Good luck with it.

Quote from TraderZones:

Quote from stu:

<i>It is more likely Max Planck would have walked from religion , never from science. </i>

The fact you think this only shows you are excessively limited in your understanding. I have met very few believers who would do this. Regardless of your vain imaginings.

<i>For a self proclaimed christian like yourself with supposedly 3 degrees in science/engineering, your response above is hardly intelligent nor adult.</i>

The fact that I am both means I know which is far more important The fact that you likely aren't says that you are unequipped to form intelligent or rational comments in this area, except a continuous stream of textual diarrhea. You don't even know why you exist. The only thing your harping on this means to me, is that you think you are smart, when you stare into your cosmological void without likely even much of a scientific understanding.

<i>What is the problem with so called "believers" that cannot hold a rational thought for more than 30 seconds.</i>

What is the problem with do-called skeptics/atheists/agnostics, that they know almost nothing, yet they continue to think they do?

<i>Is it the irrational habits religion dumbs you down into? </i>

Irrational? More irrational in the fact that you are without much of any basis? Your lips cluck out "irrational", yet you are ignorant of any alternative. If it is science, then show me your personal scientific understanding and achievement. I have both, and I see a person who argues against Christianity, but argues from nothing except his self-deceived concept that he knows, when he does not. Prove that you have a basis!

Show me a human culture that has yet been unearthed that did not have a religion practice. This indicates that it is a quite rational human trait.

Does it make you feel good when your existence after death is a complete mystery to you? That you cannot give any reason for your existence other than you think, therefore you are?

Tell me what you will see when you take the Big Sleep? This is going to last beyond quadrillions of years. What will happen to you?

Tell me what your <i>purpose</i> and prove that is your purpose.

 

[stu]

Quote from volente_00:

An honest imaginery test that you can't even post about because you know you are full of bs. Unlike an atheass, I don't claim to know everything to such an extent that I can make opinions of something and have faith in it as a fact.

I can post my test. You've demonstrated perfectly well that you can't grasp any understanding of what it is.
You really will need to do that first off.

 

[DerekD]

Quote from volente_00:

So if a a group knows very little about something, how can they so strongly assert that it is not possible for something to exist ?

Exactly. That's why only the strongest of atheist assert that there is no god. The rest conclude that so far, all the asserted gods do not exist given the lack of evidence for their existence. And the newly asserted gods or higher powers so far lack evidence of their existence also other than coincidental or improper correlation.

Hey, the concept of a higher power that you subscribe to might actually exist. But you yourself haven't defined it nor how it interacts in the material world. So as far as anyone is concerned (besides yourself) it doesn't exist. All the other religions will either assume that you are referring to their god or that you're referring to something else but are wrong about your assumption.

Like I said before, you are arguing on two fronts: againist atheism and established theism.

 

[DerekD]

Quote from volente_00:

The concept that matter is composed of discrete units and cannot be divided into arbitrarily tiny quantities has been around for millennia, but these ideas were founded in abstract, philosophical reasoning rather than experimentation and empirical observation. The nature of atoms in philosophy varied considerably over time and between cultures and schools, and often had spiritual elements. Nevertheless, the basic idea of the atom was adopted by scientists thousands of years later because it elegantly explained new discoveries in the field of chemistry

The earliest references to the concept of atoms date back to ancient India in the 6th century BCE.

However, as I stated before, the ideas came from first observing the material world, not the other way around. EVERYTHING is first born of observation.

Concept of Gods? In all probability came first from observing phenomena and nature but being unable to define it and its cause. It wasn't the other way around in which you are trying to posit. It didn't simply start "in the mind." Something has to prompt the thought to begin with. There are things which don't even cross our minds today that are sure to cross our minds in the future. But those thoughts will come from first observing something we hadn't observed before.

We don't conjure things up out of thin air lest they be undefinable even to ourselves. Is it any wonder why all gods to date are anthropomorphic of ourselves or things in nature?

 

[stu]

Quote from volente_00:

..... I don't claim to know everything to such an extent that I can make opinions of something and have faith in it as a fact.

.....then would I be correct in understanding, you do not have faith in God as a fact?

 

[I am...]

Quote from stu:

I hadn't realized Gilbert has had such a resounding and recurring effect on your thinking Iam.
Your philosophy, up to here, though luverly as a hippy's is , unsurprisingly is flawed.

By your explanations you say Love cannot be limited.
Then it is wanting of something that it cannot be.
So then is God.

Now as for Gilbert on the other hand!

kiss me dude
stu.

The very idea that love is wanting of something it cannot be is what gives rise to this world as a fantasy in the Son's mind. Thanks to this fantasy, the Son now has the impossible: unlimited love AND...drumroll please...limited love! The invariable predicament is internal mental conflict. Both cannot be true, so the attempt to have both is untrue...resulting in the experience of only the untrue. This leaves us with Gilbert...on the other hand.

Gilbert's world is logical indeed. And so are the son's of Gilbert. But they are not exactly sane sons.

Jesus

 

[I am...]

Quote from DerekD:

I gotta hand it to you. You're really good at this thing you do. You've got the Guru thing down to a tee. You should seriously consider writing a book or two. There are so many people who would dig this stuff. Only, I wouldn't call yourself Jesus or I Am as that would probably alienate and offend many.

Thank you! C'mon down to the ranch for a cup of coffee sometime. jk

Jesus

 

[I am...]

Quote from volente_00:

The fact still remains that one can have an open mind about existence of a higher power and not believe in any religion. Religion is man made therefore it will always be naturally flawed. The same holds true for science.

What would you call the practice of distinquishing truth from illusion?