maadmax

You don't actually have ANY evidence at all to support your faith. None. Zilch. Zero. That's why it's called "faith". And despite all of crowing and cackling I hear from the self proclaimed intellectually gifted, once you get beyond the known theories of science you ain't got shit. Your faith in nothing equals any believers faith in God. And what do you get for your trouble, nothing. Where as a personal relationship with God is indeed the most treasured possession.

[url]QuoteQuoteRon, Max, , Jay, channman? you guys there? I guess I didn't make it... Looks the the evangelization must continue through the trib. Still here brother. It is a shame that the moronical fringe can't help adding their two cents worth to the Word of God.They definitely do it a disservice. But they did provide some cheap entertainment. Those who wish to reject God won't have to look far to support their erroneous position. ...

I have a conscience. I recieved it through evolution, the teaching of my parents, and my experiences during my formative years. I know that when I was born that I was absolutely not guilty of anything. I know that when I die, I will return to nothingness. I came from nothing...it wasn't that bad.(paraphrasing Dr. Kevorkian). I'm completely OK with that. Your mythical god has nothing to do with reality. If it did, there would be objective evidence of it. I have no clue why you need some magic carrot/stick approach to live a good life. I have no idea why you believe in things that make absolutely no rational sense in order feel worthwhile. I don't need those things, and I resent it when your kind shoves it down the throats of those too weak minded to see through your bullshit. So if you keep repeating this drivel enough times do you think it will actually come true? You have no more proof of your after life beliefs than anyone else. But hey if it gives you peace and a warm fuzzy feeling then go for it. Just don't be shoving your beliefs down my throat and tell me I have to live in culture governed by your goofy ideas. If Jesus is who He said He is, then the proof of God is self evident. If He is not, then what does it matter what anybody believes? ...

I also really question those that ignore science because their faith says something different. Or their interpretation of their faith (or what they were told to believe by someone else, which is essentially the same thing). The ones who have found the "One True Faith" are a group that I like to ask "Why?" Why are they right and everyone else is wrong? The "True Believers" hate the question "Why?" They usually only have the "Because I Said So" answer (or "Becuase I Was Told So And You Should Believe It Too"). I'm still waiting for an answer as to why the Bible is literally, factually true. I asked the question repeatedly in a now deleted thread and never got an answer. I ask "why" constantly. Truth is subjective at best. There is either an all pervasive Truth that controls the universe or there is not. Belief that the Bible is God's guidebook to spiritual understanding makes it true for that individual. The actions of one's life speaks to the validity of their truth. ...

The Muslims believe that he did not die on the cross. My research supports their belief. He was seen after the crucifiction so surely he was not dead! Peace, Jim B If you think His story is a myth, why concern yourself with it? There are so many myths and people believing them that you will exhaust yourself if you try to set them all strait. But if you really are seeking the Truth, you will find it, and the Truth will set you free. ...

Maybe, but Pascal considered that view of inconsistent revelations a "fatal repose". A rhetorical trap that he or any other serious seeker should not fall into.

There's this wonderful new invention you should check out, it's called a camera... I was expecting better from you. Photographic special effects are are old as photography.

There's certainly no proof that such a thing doesn't happen. And that there is the basis of Pascal's Wager in a nutshell. I would bet that Pascal won his wager and is in Heaven. Since he was a Christian apologist and formulated his philosophy in view of the Christian God.

But when someone went to the dark side and came back and told us what we they saw, we had to take their word on faith since we weren't there. God told us what is on there other side when He sent His Son. ...

You give yourself too much credit in the assumption that you are capable of comprehension. You have demonstrated conclusively otherwise. If I have to explain, you would not understand. You are on a roll. Keep em coming. I think a heavy metal or hip hop genre would work best. What do you think?

Anything you think you might know about science makes comic books look like definitive sources. You have the unmitigated temerity to refer to entropy as though you have the faintest clue as to its significance? Please. The suggestion that, since you find the scientific process incomprensible, any compliation of nonsense is just as good does not fly. Not everyone is fundamentally confused by everything. I bet if you put music to your words and expanded your dark miserable concept a little you may have a number one hit. But that aside, please , enlighten me. What is Truth? ...

My first reply to you in this thread: "cutting and pasting two paragraphs from wikipedia" My second reply to you in this thread "counters with a copy and paste from wikipedia.... copying and pasting two paragraphs from wikipedia" My third reply to you in this thread "copying and pasting two paragraphs from wikipedia" Well hopefully now you to can understand what entropy is. The science you swear by is incomplete at best. The only thing science can do is observe and describe. Science can't provide what people need the most, meaning. We are metaphysical /spiritual beings. Science is yet to even scratch the surface of the life force that makes us who we are. ...

If you had ever demonstrated the slightest understanding of what any of the terms you've used here today actually meant, then you would at least have a basis from which to make that statement. As it is, you're just setting up and knocking down your own strawmen. Now, if entropy meant whatever it is you think it means, then yes, it would be wrong (as would your imaginary 'evolutionary force'). Entropy as it's actual definition is understood by the .community... not so much. Ok if you insist. "Thermodynamic entropy is a non-conserved state function that is of great importance in the sciences of physics and chemistry.Historically, the concept of entropy evolved in order to explain why some processes are spontaneous and others are not; systems tend to progress in the direction of increasing entropy. Entropy is as such a function of a system's tendency towards spontaneous change. For isolated systems, entropy never decreases.This fact has important consequences in science in that it suggests an arrow of time. Increases in entropy correspond to irreversible changes in a system, because some energy must be expended as waste heat, limiting the amount of work a system can do. In statistical mechanics, entropy is essentially a measure of the number of ways in which a system may be arranged, often taken to be a measure of "disorder" (the higher the entropy, the higher the disorder). Specifically, this definition describes the entropy as being proportional to the logarithm of the number of possible microscopic configurations of the individual atoms and molecules of the system (microstates) which could give rise to the observed macroscopic state (macrostate) of the system. The constant of proportionality is the Boltzmann constant." Pretty easy to comprehend. ....

And yet we have matter, elements, stars, solar systems and galaxies. "Organized" systems making up pretty much the entire visible universe. Equating entropy with an increase in what you would consider to be disorder in all places all the time is a very dangerous thing to do. Because it's wrong. Exactly, entropy as the overall controlling force of matter is wrong. Entropy is just the rubbish tin for Gods creative efforts.

Not at all. If you go from promordial goo to Homo sapien sapien it doesn't take much insight to acknowledge that a lot of work has been done. If anything the forces of nature favor states that are unorganized. It's just random chance. There is no force. There is no driving because there is no destination to be driven to. It just happened. Nope, Shit Happens!, We are here by design

This "argument in the form of a question" employs the usual silliness of presuming that we have reached the limit of all intellectual and technological development - therefore, as to whatever we cannot yet fully explain scientifically using present-day knowledge and methods, we might be able to fill-in the gaps with a spiritual explanation. What horseshit. It's a disgrace to your education. On the contrary most esteemed educated colleague. Maybe the educational system succeeded for once and taught someone to think for themselves after considering all of the information presented. Instead of parroting their professors like they have done before them. ...

Define what you mean by 'force'. Define what you mean by 'physical law'. Because biochemistry is incredibly complicated. Nature has been working on this stuff for 3.5 billion years. Pretty arrogant of you to think we should be able to synthesize the whole shebang only 60 years after we discovered DNA. Force, like the physical forces that sustain the universe, ie gravity, electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear forces . Of course there is no proof of such a force. There is no explanation of why there is something as opposed to nothing. So dogmatic people who claim to know are wrong. Christians put their hope in God, I guess atheists put their hope in their loud mouths. ...

There's no "force" and no "driving." To use words and concepts like this is a sure sign that you do not understand the theory of evolution. Not at all. If you go from promordial goo to Homo sapien sapien it doesn't take much insight to acknowledge that a lot of work has been done. If anything the forces of nature favor states that are unorganized.

It is nice to finally see that at least one of you knows enough history to acknowledge the fact that Jesus died and rose again. Keep at it, I can tell you are on the verge of a major life changing break through.

Intelligent design is the major component No. There is not one tiny bit that requires "intelligent design"; NONE. Since you are the person with all of the answers. Please define the organizing force that drives evolution to generate more complex forms of life instead of just random primordial goo. What physical law can possibly define or describe self awareness. If neural tissue is all that is required to recognize ones self in the mirror, why can't self awareness be recreated in a neural cell culture? Why are so sure about things you have no proof for?

I think some people are missing the original point or else focusing too much on the baptism idea. I was mostly asking how it is ok for people who have never had a chance to make a decision go to hell for not believing (which is my understanding of how it "works")? I don't understand it that way. Christ came so that we could have life more abundantly. He removed the sin barrier for everyone, believers and non-believers. God is love, just, compassionate or He is no God at all. People knew God before the Jews, the Jews knew God before Jesus. I believe how ever it works out everyone will be treated fairly and receive God's best . For some people, Hell, what ever it may be, is the best place for them.

I think the big difference here is whether some are willing to suffer for their beliefs, OR ARE INSTEAD MORE THAN WILLING TO MAKE OTHERS SUFFER. I rest my case. mh . Damn good point!!!! +1

I am not a psychiatrist, nor am I trying to win people over to my standpoint. If one has to explain the obvious, it is a waste of breath. I do reserve the right to hold in contempt those who seek to subject me to the limitations imposed by their profound mental illness and/or deficiencies. You have the right to adhere to a set of psychotic constructs. I do not have to respect your decision to exercise said right with such enthusiasm. I do get a kick out of all the doom and gloom you conjure up and project on those who have found God in your posts. Look on the bright side, if you are correct we will all be gone in the blink of an eye, geologically speaking. And it won't matter a rats ass what any of us thought. But on the other hand , if you possibly misjudged... well, I won't go there. ...

Some of these "possibilities" are, like your understanding of science, vanishingly small. Like the nonzero statistical possibility that a loaf of Wonder Bread will undergo spontaneous nuclear chain reaction, in practice it is so small that it can be treated as zero to any number of significant digits. That people with severe mental illness can assume positions of power is no assurance that their psychosis, however popular, is anything but insanity. The more vociferous the claims to nonsense, the less credible the source. That you espouse rubbish makes you easily discounted as a source for much of anything, since you have demonstrated an inability to distinguish between the valid and the trivial in practice. Which is, of course, characteristic of the profoundly psychotic. I know it must be in the works and I would like to put in a request for a signed copy. Any one so wise must surely be in the process of or have written a book defining the parameters of reality. So as to enlighten the ignorant superstitious masses lost in their sinful delusions. Hopefully you can see that the world you have created from the few facts you have scraped together, exists only in your head. Just like everybody else in the world. The question is who's world bests mirrors reality. And one of the first clues is, " by its fruit a tree will be known." ...

Given that this thread is conclusive evidence that religious conviction is but a socially acceptable form of psychosis, the clear demonstration that its underlying principles are unadulterated nonsense is pointless. If someone is going to devote their life to Baal or Gichimanitou or Bacchus or whatever, the fact that these are all mythical constructs is moot. The myriad gods out there are equally real and have identical claims to legitimacy (depending on who you ask). When believers presume to make their case by "logic," it has a similar quality to a little kid who is trying to prove that there are monsters in his closet - in a much more pathetic manner. The garbled accounts found in the popular religious texts are no more convincing than if belivers were to cite the phone book for support of their position. . BSBD, Winsor And the scariest part about all of those religious nuts is that they may get into a position of authority and tell you something to do. It is pretty obvious that spiritual expression is a part of our species make up. If it was an evolutionary dead end it would of died out long ago. Look at the rest of the animal kingdom who don't have to grapple with the spiritual issues of right and wrong like we do. They have no need for spiritual pursuits. Instead it is going as strong as ever. Whether we reach out to the One God or create one of our own, spiritual seekers are here to stay. As any scientist can tell you, the unknown complexities of the universe make vitrually anything possible. ...