Page 15 of 15 FirstFirst ... 5131415
Results 211 to 217 of 217

Thread: Atheism

  1. #211
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    16,891
    Thanks (Given)
    2538
    Thanks (Received)
    4277
    Likes (Given)
    171
    Likes (Received)
    336
    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    12451950

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PostmodernProphet View Post
    I know.......you are defined by your ignorance......


    obviously grace......without grace there is nothing to choose......


    poor choice, darin......


    like all your claims, it feels rather stupid......


    What's poor is a christian trying to debate-somebody to to God. About taking the discussion against the man. My satire was spot-on and is spot-on as an example to Christians of what they are actually doing - they are avoiding Love. Avoiding love = avoiding God = not-christian.
    “… the greatest detractor from high performance is fear: fear that you are not prepared, fear that you are in over your head, fear that you are not worthy, and ultimately, fear of failure. If you can eliminate that fear—not through arrogance or just wishing difficulties away, but through hard work and preparation—you will put yourself in an incredibly powerful position to take on the challenges you face" - Pete Carroll.

  2. #212
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    In my knickers
    Posts
    25,174
    Thanks (Given)
    9509
    Thanks (Received)
    10840
    Likes (Given)
    489
    Likes (Received)
    836
    Mentioned
    57 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475220

    Default

    What jumps out at me is how these two opinions are actually not mutually exclusive.

    According to the Bible, both God's love and hell are real. I don't see the need to reject one belief for the other. We simply cannot know God's mind while we are here. I'm ok with that; it's a part of my faith.

    Re-reading the Gospels carefully, I noticed that Jesus was frustrated and even angry a good bit. I was actually chuckling at times. A human side of Him that makes Him more relatable.
    After the game, the king and the pawn go into the same box - Author unknown

    For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. Psalm 139:13

  3. Likes High_Plains_Drifter liked this post
  4. #213
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    8,923
    Thanks (Given)
    14
    Thanks (Received)
    160
    Likes (Given)
    10
    Likes (Received)
    36
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    1187238

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by darin View Post
    What's poor is a christian trying to debate-somebody to to God. About taking the discussion against the man. My satire was spot-on and is spot-on as an example to Christians of what they are actually doing - they are avoiding Love. Avoiding love = avoiding God = not-christian.
    I see your satire as bigotry......sorry......
    ...full immersion.....

  5. #214
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Posts
    27,639
    Thanks (Given)
    14128
    Thanks (Received)
    15287
    Likes (Given)
    17
    Likes (Received)
    686
    Mentioned
    113 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475245

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drummond View Post
    Wasn't America founded upon the very values stemming from the religion you're now pleased to resist identification with ?

    This, for me, begs the question: what, exactly, ARE you loyal to ? What does define you as a citizen ?
    The original New England colonies were founded by people fleeing religious persecution in England and other European countries. The First Amendment to the US Constitution addresses freedom of religion without persecution. Obviously it was a front-running issue to be considered first.

    Those Founding Fathers of course had a great idea that has never actually been practiced, but were wise enough to put it in stone in the Bill of Rights.

    Our law, which is based on English law with a few tweaks to address the complaints against the Crown of the day, is based on Judeo-Christian values. Atheists of course deny this, believing instead the "Magic Moral Fairy" endowed them with inherent beliefs in right and wrong; which, is bullshit. The species Man has no inherent morals. They are taught.

    A perfect example would be to look at the society of Judeo-Christian morality into which we were born vs the God-less society we currently live in. Athiests find God inconvenient. God sets down laws and values that get in the way of heathens wanting to sin without consequence.
    GET OFF MY LAWN

  6. Thanks Abbey, Drummond thanked this post
    Likes Abbey liked this post
  7. #215
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    USA, Southern
    Posts
    22,583
    Thanks (Given)
    24770
    Thanks (Received)
    14394
    Likes (Given)
    824
    Likes (Received)
    528
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    19625560

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pete311 View Post
    And trusting 2000 year old goat herders is logical? He was also a military man. Maybe the military experience had something to do with this. Sounds just as valid as his atheist views. btw, motive has already been declared domestic. So you can stop now.
    Just for you Petey--to enlighten you a bit..And low and behold this is by highly qualified and well respected (scientific) authorities.
    Do try to absorb the numbers given and contemplate the odds..
    Very informative, interesting AND EDUCATIONAL READ.... SEE BELOW - TYR

    1966, Carl Sagan, and the Odds on God (and Aliens)
    Belief, Fascinating, Quotes

    Dec 282014


    Too often, one faulty thought enters the mainstream, is picked up as a soundbyte and disseminated by the media, and multitudes are affected by it. In this case, the thought was issued in 1966 by 32 year old Carl Sagan, when half the appliances in the USA were avocado and linoleum was in. The rest of the scientific community latched onto his quote and started doing math, coming to conclusions like the universe must be populated by thousands of planets that support intelligent life. Even today, “the math from the 60’s and 70’s” persists in many of our high school teachers.

    CarlSagan-1966

    As knowledge evolved, that math started to change. Here is an article that appeared in the Wall Street Journal this month. I don’t know if its 100% right (that’s hard to find) but it seems well worth considering.

    I.M. Optimism Man

    Preserved from the Wall Street Journal…
    Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God
    The odds of life existing on another planet grow ever longer. Intelligent design, anyone?
    By
    Eric Metaxas

    Dec. 25, 2014 4:56 p.m. ET

    In 1966 Time magazine ran a cover story asking: Is God Dead? Many have accepted the cultural narrative that he’s obsolete—that as science progresses, there is less need for a “God” to explain the universe. Yet it turns out that the rumors of God’s death were premature. More amazing is that the relatively recent case for his existence comes from a surprising place—science itself.

    Here’s the story: The same year Time featured the now-famous headline, the astronomer Carl Sagan announced that there were two important criteria for a planet to support life: The right kind of star, and a planet the right distance from that star. Given the roughly octillion—1 followed by 27 zeros—planets in the universe, there should have been about septillion—1 followed by 24 zeros—planets capable of supporting life.

    With such spectacular odds, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, a large, expensive collection of private and publicly funded projects launched in the 1960s, was sure to turn up something soon. Scientists listened with a vast radio telescopic network for signals that resembled coded intelligence and were not merely random. But as years passed, the silence from the rest of the universe was deafening. Congress defunded SETI in 1993, but the search continues with private funds. As of 2014, researches have discovered precisely bubkis—0 followed by nothing.

    What happened? As our knowledge of the universe increased, it became clear that there were far more factors necessary for life than Sagan supposed. His two parameters grew to 10 and then 20 and then 50, and so the number of potentially life-supporting planets decreased accordingly. The number dropped to a few thousand planets and kept on plummeting.

    Even SETI proponents acknowledged the problem. Peter Schenkel wrote in a 2006 piece for Skeptical Inquirer magazine: “In light of new findings and insights, it seems appropriate to put excessive euphoria to rest . . . . We should quietly admit that the early estimates . . . may no longer be tenable.”

    As factors continued to be discovered, the number of possible planets hit zero, and kept going. In other words, the odds turned against any planet in the universe supporting life, including this one. Probability said that even we shouldn’t be here.

    Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life—every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart. Without a massive planet like Jupiter nearby, whose gravity will draw away asteroids, a thousand times as many would hit Earth’s surface. The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing.

    Yet here we are, not only existing, but talking about existing. What can account for it? Can every one of those many parameters have been perfect by accident? At what point is it fair to admit that science suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces? Doesn’t assuming that an intelligence created these perfect conditions require far less faith than believing that a life-sustaining Earth just happened to beat the inconceivable odds to come into being?

    There’s more. The fine-tuning necessary for life to exist on a planet is nothing compared with the fine-tuning required for the universe to exist at all. For example, astrophysicists now know that the values of the four fundamental forces—gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the “strong” and “weak” nuclear forces—were determined less than one millionth of a second after the big bang. Alter any one value and the universe could not exist. For instance, if the ratio between the nuclear strong force and the electromagnetic force had been off by the tiniest fraction of the tiniest fraction—by even one part in 100,000,000,000,000,000—then no stars could have ever formed at all. Feel free to gulp.

    Multiply that single parameter by all the other necessary conditions, and the odds against the universe existing are so heart-stoppingly astronomical that the notion that it all “just happened” defies common sense. It would be like tossing a coin and having it come up heads 10 quintillion times in a row. Really?

    Fred Hoyle, the astronomer who coined the term “big bang,” said that his atheism was “greatly shaken” at these developments. He later wrote that “a common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology . . . . The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

    Theoretical physicist Paul Davies has said that “the appearance of design is overwhelming” and Oxford professor Dr. John Lennox has said “the more we get to know about our universe, the more the hypothesis that there is a Creator . . . gains in credibility as the best explanation of why we are here.”

    The greatest miracle of all time, without any close seconds, is the universe. It is the miracle of all miracles, one that ineluctably points with the combined brightness of every star to something—or Someone—beyond itself.

    Mr. Metaxas is the author, most recently, of “Miracles: What They Are, Why They Happen, and How They Can Change Your Life” ( Dutton Adult, 2014).
    My father- "Take pride in who you are and where you came from. Life is hard, often fighting is the only option!"
    Ernest Hemingway- “In order to write about life, you must first live it.”
    http://www.lindleypoetry.com/category/a-poem-a-day/

  8. #216
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    South Wales, UK
    Posts
    9,071
    Thanks (Given)
    16420
    Thanks (Received)
    6432
    Likes (Given)
    282
    Likes (Received)
    110
    Mentioned
    76 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    11354523

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pete311 View Post
    American was founded on slavery, so no. I am not big into nationalism. I see it little different than Lakers vs Knicks. How about we just be civil world humans beings.
    I'm being fair, then, in concluding that you hate your country ??

    Does this explain your brand of politics ... ??

    By the way ... correct me if I'm wrong ... but, wasn't Abraham Lincoln a very outspoken anti-slavery voice ? The first figure of influence, in fact, to make a decent and remedial difference to American slavery ?

    In considering that --- tell me, what was Lincoln's own political allegiance ? Was he a creature of the Left ?

    I think ... NOT .......
    Last edited by Drummond; 11-17-2017 at 07:50 AM.
    Socialism is a reputability deficiency disease ...

  9. Thanks Tyr-Ziu Saxnot thanked this post
  10. #217
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Posts
    27,639
    Thanks (Given)
    14128
    Thanks (Received)
    15287
    Likes (Given)
    17
    Likes (Received)
    686
    Mentioned
    113 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475245

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drummond View Post
    I'm being fair, then, in concluding that you hate your country ??

    Does this explain your brand of politics ... ??

    By the way ... correct me if I'm wrong ... but, wasn't Abraham Lincoln a very outspoken anti-slavery voice ? The first figure of influence, in fact, to make a decent and remedial difference to American slavery ?

    In considering that --- tell me, what was Lincoln's own political allegiance ? Was he a creature of the Left ?

    I think ... NOT .......
    I'm not sure what the context of the statement is, but Lincoln was just the last in a long line of anti-slave voices. What should give some pause as it concerns the here and now is that even at its height, abolitionists were a small minority with a voice much louder than their actual worth given such by the MSM of the day. And for the Pete's on the board, I'm NOT advocating slavery. My point is a benign topic was used as an an excuse to fight a civil war, be led by the hot heads with big mouths on BOTH sides. The vast majority in the middle who generally where the ones stuck doing the actual fighting didn't give a crap about slavery one way or the other.

    Another note on Lincoln is he did NOT believe blacks were equal to whites. He stated as such, and also that he would let every slave remain where it was to preserve the union. He also believed he could just ship them back to Africa (Liberia). Nice idealism on his part. The war he created to preserve the Union then, has become the Union's undoing over time since. Our federal government is what it has become as a direct result of Lincoln's actions.

    Several of the Founding Father's saw slavery as a double-edged sword (Jefferson and Washington). They owned slaves but were against the institution of slavery. John Quincy Adams was a rabid abolitionist in the 1820s. Several compromises were basically attempts by Congress to stick its finger in the dike. Dredd-Scott )A Supreme Court decision that stated slaves who traveled to free states with their masters were still slaves) sent the Abolitionists into a frenzy kind of like today's lefties have gone over Trump's election Both the Missouri Compromise and Kansas-Nebraska Act were total busts.

    So, Lincoln was the final straw that broke the camel's back. He WAS outspoken, but nothing new.
    GET OFF MY LAWN

  11. Thanks Drummond thanked this post

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •