For my Christians Friends

[stu]

Quote from volente_00:

Some on here are so closed minded that they believe different from your viewpoint. I have never included you in that category. Atheism is mainly based on a hate of religion. There are strong correlations through scientific studies that show those that are atheist have a high % chance of having had troubles with their own fathers. This alone keeps them from getting in touch with the father of the universe. The common theme with atheist is their hate of religions, but as I have said all alone that with an open mind one can still believe in a higher power and not be religious at all.

That is sick.

There are strong correlations through scientific studies that show those that are theist have a high % chance of having had troubles with their own mothers. This alone keeps them from getting in touch with the mother nature of the universe. The common theme with theist is their hate of science, but as I have said all along that with an open mind one can still believe in anything whatsoever and not be religious at all.

So tell me volente, according to that kind of unhinged reasoning of yours, is the common theme of religious males' trouble with homosexuality? What about those scientific studies that show theists have a high % chance of having had such troubles with their own fathers and want to "connect" with Him. God.

If the only way you think you can defend the indefensible is to make up puerile innuendo such as that, then you are indeed truly lost.

 

[stu]

Quote from volente_00:

So did life really evolve out of mud ?


Ironic that the bible told of this long before science had a clue

Genesis 3:19:

In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread till thou return to the earth, out of which thou wast taken: for dust thou art, and into dust thou shalt return.

Right. I should have guessed....

Mud is dust.
what next ...
water is wine?

Quote from volente_00:

A skeptic could also argue what exactly was the definition of a day back then.

.
six days are 1 day.

I'll stick with Goldilocks. It's more believable.

 

[Thunderdog]

Quote from volente_00:

A skeptic could also argue what exactly was the definition of a day back then.

Is it scientifically possible that the earth was rotating a lot slower compared to today's speed?

Sure, why not. Perhaps you should hold a symposium with the world's leading astronomers and astrophysicists to advise them of your new "paradigm."

 

[Thunderdog]

Quote from volente_00:

So if the earth and life is just random, then why nothing like it on any of the other planets ?


Everything in the masterpiece fits together to perfectly for just randomness to have been the cause.

To my knowledge, no one has yet advised that it had been determined that there is no life on any other planets in other galaxies throughout the universe. Presently, the understanding is that, given the enormity of the universe, which had previously been underestimated, the chance of life starting in its most basic, microscopic form was likely a matter of chance. Dawkins covers the numbers nicely in his broad brush description of the size of the universe and the conditions required . As for your reference to the "masterpiece fitting together perfectly," that is not attributed to randomness per se, but is a function of natural selection over a very long period of time.

You continue to refer to closed minds, but you fail to familiarize yourself with and address even the most basic premises of those people who know a hell of a lot more than you do and don't content themselves solely with self-satisfied internet posts. As Don Wood said, ignorance can be fixed, but stupid is forever.

 

[TraderZones]

Quote from monty21:

About one-third of the world population is Christian. Does that mean that the remaining 66% of the world is praying/worshipping to the wrong God(s). Please also remember Catholics and Protestants as well as other groups interpret the bible differently. Who is right?

If religion is from a human point of view, that seems correct. If it is from God, then human logic has no meaning.

We must also realize the history of Christianity, which involves European missionaries frequently forcing peoples of other lands into becoming Christian. Sometimes this influence was done by the sword. Basically, many people were forced to become Christian.

As did Islam, and a few other religions.

I obviously developed a secular way of thinking. I am Roman Catholic and was actually heavily involved in the church when I was younger. I was even an alter boy. Now that I have grown older, however, I realized all the evils of the church. Obviously faith can heal people, but we must also identify all the errors of the church. We must also realize that we are not a dominant group because we adhere to a certain beliefs.

True Christianity is supposed to be the opposite. Much of the way people "practice" Christianity is often what you say. From the Inquisition to wars "in His name" to many other things are not derivable from scripture

 

[TraderZones]

Quote from smilingsynic:

The Bible also says in the Genesis 1-3 creation accounts that all life appeared within six days. The Bible, in that instance, has no clue whatsoever; indeed, the Bible's writers were essentially clueless about science throughout.

As opposed to science, which stumbles through cosmology, nutritional science and many other fields, constantly discovering how they need to keep redefining many of their assertions when they discover how wrong they were.

 

[Thunderdog]

Quote from TraderZones:

As opposed to science, which stumbles through cosmology, nutritional science and many other fields, constantly discovering how they need to keep redefining many of their assertions when they discover how wrong they were.

To paraphrase Keynes, when the forefront of scientific understanding changes, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?

You can move forward, along with progress and knowledge, or you can stay put and sit smugly in the dirt, picking lice out of your hair.

 

[Turok]

Quote from TraderZones:

As opposed to science, which stumbles through cosmology, nutritional science and many other fields, constantly discovering how they need to keep redefining many of their assertions when they discover how wrong they were.

I liked it better when ET was a group that used smoke signals.

This increase in knowledge really sucks.

JB

 

[smilingsynic]

Quote from volente_00:

A skeptic could also argue what exactly was the definition of a day back then.

Is it scientifically possible that the earth was rotating a lot slower compared to today's speed?

Come on, Volente. You cannot be serious.

Homo sapiens appeared on the scene hundreds of thousands of years ago, after the extinction of other hominid species; birds, fish, reptiles, and mammals, among other life forms in the Genesis account, appeared hundreds of MILLIONS of years ago, and not all at the same time. The sun and moon go back BILLIONS of years.

One biblical day = hundreds of millions of years. That is SOME difference in rotation!

 

[volente_00]

sorry stu,

there have been scientific studies showing the correlation

it is what it is



"In relation to the Oedipal desire, psychoanalysis suggests that when one’s father is absent or so weak as to die, or so untrustworthy as to desert, then it becomes easy for that person to place his hostile attitude towards his earthly father on his heavenly Father. The evidence for this theory involves the linkage between atheism’s greatest philosophers and their poor fatherly relationships. For example, Diderot was an avowed atheist-indeed he is one of the founding brothers of modern atheism. Yet Freud made an insightful comment concerning him: "if the little savage were left to himself, preserving all his foolishness and adding to the small sense of a child in the cradle the violent passions of a man of thirty, he would strangle his father and lie with his mother (Le neveau de Rameau 331). Although Voltaire was not an atheist, he did not accept the existence of a Personal God. He also strongly rejected his father-so much that he rejected his father's name and took the name "Voltaire." Sigmund Freud's father was also was a poor role model for Freud. Specifically, his father was a weak man unable to financially provide for his family, and Freud writes that his father was a sexual pervert. Karl Marx also made it clear that he didn't respect his father. Ludwig Feuerbach's, Madalyn Murray O'Hair, and Baron d'Holbach are other examples of atheistic intellectuals who had poor relationships with their fathers. In addition, the most prominent atheists in more recent times are Bertrand Russell's, Nietzsche, Camus, Sartre's, and all of them lived most of their lives knowing their fathers had died. Although the theory is far from being a universal representation of unconscious motivation, it appears to be an undeniable factor in motivating atheistic belief."