maadmax

Yes, I did. Did you? If so, then you understand that she doubted the existence of god, according to her own words.*** This is not a big spiritual revelation. Every one who chooses to seek God will experience doubts. We either fall by the wayside and become like you, or out of the depths of despair our faith becomes renewed and we rise like the phoenix. I know exactly how she felt, I have been there many times myself. I thank God that I didn't stay there and I know she didn't either. _______________________________________

So what is the point of your thread? Are you trying to convince somebody/anybody that your take of reality is the only true one? Reality is what we make it, we all live in a reality of our creation. I agree that the ideal of an absolute reality is the most plausible and that it is our privilege to seek it out. What you are proposing is nothing new and certainly does not answer any of issues I find most important in life. _______________________________________

Cystitis can sometimes be very frustrating to control. At a bare minimum you should get a bacterial culture and sensitivity on a sterile urine sample, collected by cystocentesis at the Vets office. Change the food to either Science Diet C/d, or Purina's Urinary Diet, test for FIV & Felv along with a CBC & Profile, get X-rays of the urninary system and/or ultrasound. If you use a prescription urinary diet, Squeakers should not be allowed to eat anything else including treats. The fact that Clavamox works so quickly means that it is a good choice of antibiotics. You may want to switch to a 6 week treatment with Baytril or Ciprofloxicin. There is a lot more that can be done but this would be a good start and takes care of most problems.

Why do we need to have an explanation in order to believe?Life is magic! I may sound like a christian when I say that but I am not so gullable or as stupid as a christian*** Aw shucks, and there for a moment I thought there might be hope for you yet

I like your approach to discerning reality, what ever it may be. I also use similar principles to dismantle the unknown. To say there is no God is a pretty big leap. It may be more appropriate to say there is no god that meets my particular expectations. If you look at the big picture "the unknown" is still a pretty sizeable part of it. "The known" is turning out to be stranger than we could have imagined it. _______________________________________

QuoteCan you show that your religious beliefs amount to something more than complete delusion? All religions bring your A-game and show that your truth is THE truth, not just insane ramblings*** Words mean little, actions and results mean everything. If anyone has found the Truth their life will show it. ________________________________________

QuoteWhy are Atheists such angery people and why do they take everything so personally*** Anger is an effective tool that anyone can use to blind themselves to the truth. Anyone who is angry lacks the ability to see clearly. Angry atheists blind themselves to the presence of God. Angry, judgemental believers are blind to the Truth of God. _______________________________________

I am sorry to hear things are not going well. I will pray for you.

QuoteGenesis is riddled with so many inconcsistecies right out of the gate i'm embarresed for believers. Creating light and dark before the objects that produce them In Gen 1:27 god creates Adam and Eve and they do a few things and then later in 2:20-22 Adam is lonley and god creates Eve. ummm I thought eve was already there. Don't even get me started with Noah and the ark, this story is pathedic. Why is the god of the OT always killing little kids to get back at his enimeis? The bible does have some good family reading like when Lott offers his daughters to a group of angels to rape them. What about when the daughters get lot drunk to have sex with him. I guess it's just family values*** Notice I mentioned the Gospel of John not Genesis. The exegesis of the Books of the Old Testament are a lot more difficult involving language, idioms, syntax, competing versions of different Jewish groups (i.e. northern and southern kingdoms) translation/copying errors. The list goes on. The old testament is very difficult to understand with only a casual reading, much like advanced calculus or quantum physics. The Gospel of John provides a much less cluttered glimpse of Spiritual phenomenon. _______________________________________

I disagree, that is a secondary reason. The main reason religion was started is to explain the unexplainable.*** Maybe you should reread the Bible. Start with the gospel of John. _________________________________________

--It didn't. You do understand how carbon and iron form, right? And how heavier elements like iodine form? And how basic compounds like methane, ethane, amino acids and hydrocarbons can be formed in the lab with no divine input whatsoever, right?*** Probably the same amount of " lack of input" a bowling ball has once it is released and rolls down a lane toward the pins --You don't, quite literally. We formed from organic compounds, not inorganic atoms.***OK, so you describe hydrogen and helium after it has cooked in a star furnace and gone supernova. My point is that the potential for self aware life was present in the subatomic plasma after the big band as a matter of design, not random chance. Both theoretical extrapolations require a measure of faith to incorporate them into ones view of reality. Faith in God provides real time & eternal benefits, faith in random chance avails nothing. --Look at a snowflake or a quartz crystal sometime and ask yourself the same question.***True, but I see a mega-fold difference between crystallography and self aware life. ______________________________________

Yeah that's the entire reason it was written. They had no where near the scientific understanding of the world around us that we do today. They didn't have a scientific explanation for it so they made up a fake guy and gave him credit for it. Religion was invented as a way of explaining the unexplainable. However with all the advances in scientific discovery we can now explain a lot of what was previously unexplainable but people refuse to accept this simply because religion is now ingrained in our society.*** Wrong. Religion was created by man for the same reason as any other political system, to wield power over the masses. Spiritual Truth was given to us to unlock our minds, allowing us to see the beauty & love of God. The Bible was never meant to be a science textbook. _____________________________________

QuoteIt's really embarrassing that anyone is a creationist. When I was a young kid in school learning about how people way back in the day believed the Earth was flat despite the evidence, I wondered what our "flat Earth" controversy would be. I keep moving more towards the grey area when it comes to voting/political beliefs. One single thing generally isn't enough to sway my vote (otherwise, I'd have no one to vote for!) It would, however, be very very very difficult for me to vote for a creationist. I don't care what someone thinks religiously, but having such a high level of ignorance and stubborness to deny overwhelming evidence...well, just not sure I can ever give someone like that any "power.*** Well I hate to say this but I guess our votes will just cancel each other out. I am embarrassed and perplexed by someone who would think that random chance explains how all of that hydrogen and helium along with a little nitrogen formed after the big bang produced the universe around us and the intelligent life in it. How do you get self aware life from inorganic atoms. Is that trait inherent in their subatomic structure only to be expressed with just the right random combinations fueled by chance interactions. For the record I am a creationist that believes the universe is 13.75 billion years old and the earth was fromed 4.5 billion years ago. _________________________________________

For a rat terrier the first name that comes to mind is "Mayday mayday" _____________________________________

Genesis was either written to explain the origin of the universe or it wasn't. Since it appears to try to provide an explaination for the origin of the universe, it's reasonable to assume it was written to try to explain the origin of the universe. Since you obviously don't think the universe is 6000 years old, you must realise the literal interpretation of Genesis is gibberish and therefore prefer a metaphorical interpretation instead. That is exactly my point and you have illustrated it most clearly. Thanks*** Genesis never says anything about a 6000 year old earth. It does say God initiated the creative process. Science has supplied the time frame of approximately 13.75 billion years for the universe and 4.5 billion years for the earth. Plus there is a lot more to Genesis than the brief mention of God's involvement in our creation. _______________________________________

science and religion are virtually exclusive .If by that you mean mutually exclusive, you are dead wrong. I haven't read this whole thread, but the two exist to answer different questions. One does not negate the other . That's rubbish. The Bible absolutely does overlap with science, people simply choose to ignore the fact. Explaining the universe was one of the reasons the Bible was written, we've just realised that this aspect of it is quite obviously complete bollocks. So rather than toss the whole book in the trash where it belongs, we interpret the bits that are literally bollocks as being metaphorical and claim no foul Bollocks or not , the fact that you fail to grasp the purpose Genesis was written, just as the fundie who uses it to justify a 6000 year old earth does not diminish its Truth for those of us who have ears to hear. _______________________________________

--Er...it's true that there are knowledge gaps but that's OK ('Knowledge is finite, ignorance is infinite' as my old prof used to say - there's always something more you don't know). We wouldn't even know there was 'Dark Matter' without physics or cosmology. *** I have no argument with your above statement. It was just that you previously said that the universe was pretty well figured out. I like your latter statement better "er, no its not." --And actually, biology does a pretty good job of explaining '...the life that powers our brain...' *** So then why is it when electrical impulses are passed down neurons outside of a host, no self-consciousness occurs as in a living being. -- But it's a mistake to invent a God to fill the knowledge gaps, it (the God hypothesis) doesn't explain anything, just moves the ignorance one step further back. Why not just say, for the moment, 'I don't know...'?*** Quite the contrary, it opens a whole new realm of possibilities. --Science has no morality? Just not true: Openheimer was tortured during (and after) the development of the Bomb - as was Einstein. Certainly, most of the engineers and biologists in my industry believe they're making a difference (OK - maybe only a very small one, and most of the time we fail).*** The physical forces that split the atom and released the explosive energy stored in them had no morality. The scientists who were created in the spiritual image of God have access to moral thought. Morality is a quality of God not physics. --But very occasionally a new vaccine or drug or a more fuel efficient technology emerges - and I'm proud to have been associated with those (depressingly usually younger and brighter than me!) who did it..*** Thank-you, and keep up the good work. --And what's wrong with returning to the oblivion from whence we came? This life, our families, friends - and even strangers on the other side of the globe or the next generation matter much more if there's no eternal (God forbid!) afterlife*** But what if like matter and energy we will never be destroyed, what if we will be around for ever? _______________________________________

Science doesn't have a clue about the singularity that sparked the Big Bang, or how to rectify Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity, or about the Dark Matter and Energy that makes up 95% of the universe. Science can't explain the life that powers our brain. If we are just neurons and electrical activity then we could hook ourselves to an artificial heart , plug our brain into a electrical socket and live forever. Science has no use for morality, why is something right and something else wrong? Science totally lacks a purpose, if you are a chance accident of circumstances, why bother, eat drink and be merry for tomorrow you return to your insignificant oblivion. _______________________________________

2) So what exactly is the 'Creators method of creation..' alluded to in 'But please don't confuse the Creators method of creation with proof there is no Creator.'? This is maybe something we could grapple with meaningfully*** I view scientific discoveries as simply an explanation of how God did what He did in creating the universe. Scientific truth is similar to Spiritual Truth in that they both exist and it is our responsibility and privilege to learn as much as we can about both areas of knowledge. Religion is man made and therefore flawed, Spiritual Truth if from God and is universally true. _______________________________________

1) "...My belief is based on the Spiritual teaching of Christianity" If you don't find this statement self-contradictory, then it's going to be hard for me to present a logical argument you'd find persuasive.*** Ya Ya 2) "I will consider anything you can come up with." I'm sure you would. But what I'd need to know is what sort of evidence would be persuasive? For example..if 'Nature' or 'Science' published a series of papers, comprehensively backed up with data, that explained conclusively how the universe came about, without any need for a supernatural being, what would your response be?*** Very interested if you have something I haven't already studied . But please don't confuse the Creators method of creation with proof there is no Creator. _______________________________________

But it's causing me a lot of anxiety that I can't feel safe walking in my own neighborhood, so I need to figure out something to do about it. Obviously, the sound of a gun being fired is a good way to frighten dogs away. I wonder if there is any (legal) way to make such a sound without actually firing a gun Quote I would just go up to the owner and tell them how you feel. If they don't like what you have to say, so what. Really, pepper spray is not mean. But you can always try feeding the dog treats and make it your friend. _________________________________________

Rich keeps telling me to carry pepper spray around and spray any dog that does that to me, but I really don't want to hurt some dog just because its owner is careless. So I'm probably going to call the city and find out what can be done. (Any suggestions?) Quote Pepper spray only causes a temporary irritation. You can use it when you need to as a deterrent. It is better than any of the alternatives when you are confronted by an aggressive dog. _______________________________________

OK...but first tell me: 1) What would it take, from an evidence perspective, to convince you? What type and quality of evidence would be needed? Er...Maadmax - I'm still waiting.... Quote I will consider anything you can come up with. But keep in mind, I have no use for religion or religious teachings. My belief is based on the Spiritual teaching of Christianity. Not religious ritual. ________________________________________

Last weekend. Took two young jumpers without specifically telling them to let go if the formation funneled out of the door. Sure enough it happened, I waited approximately 600ft for them to let go of each other and settle out before joining them in a round. Suddenly a reserve chute pops out at 12,500 ft and barely misses me as it screams by. Luckily everything turned out well. ______________________________________

As I said, respect is for people, not for things. So yet, it's fine to say that the Bible is full of shit, and it's fine to say the Bible is the Word Of God Everyone Must Follow. It is, however, not fine to call someone a stupid idiot just because he believes in what's written in the Bible. And it's not fine to call someone an immoral asshole because he does not. Discussing the subject is usually more productive than discussing a person.Quote So are you saying is OK to call Russian propagandist who wants to rewrite history, full of shit. But is not OK to call you full of shit as an individual who respects Russian propagandist? ______________________________________