Hello everybody
Im new to here :) , these are some e-books in PDF format that i thought its interesting for who wants to read about evolution but a very different point of view ,,,, the auther of these books is Harun yahya


_______________

THE COLLAPSE OF THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IN 20 QUESTIONS

Note : [ Right click on the image and save target as ]


http://img365.imageshack.us/img365/8075/evo15pw.jpg (http://67.15.194.37/download/173d4ad0494ee10c74de384ca251b218/evolution_20_questions.zip)

THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION has been around for 150 years, and has had a great influence on the way people look at the world. It proposes the lie that they came into this world as the result of chance and that they are a "species of animal." Furthermore, it teaches them that the only law in life is a selfish struggle for survival and to stay alive. The effects of this idea can be clearly seen in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries: people's increasing selfishness, the moral degeneration in society, the rapid spread of self-interest, ruthlessness, and violence, the development of totalitarian and bloody ideologies such as fascism and communism, social and individual crises as people grow distant from the morality of religion,…

-------------------------------
NEW RESEARCH DEMOLISHES EVOLUTION


http://img358.imageshack.us/img358/5716/evo22qo.jpg (http://67.15.194.38/download2/d828586f92125c22dab8941af2f9a26f/new_research_demolishes_evolution.zip)

Some of the people who have heard of "the theory of evolution" or "Darwinism", may think that these concepts only concern the field of biology and that they have no significance in their everyday lives. This is a big misconception because far more than a biological concept, the theory of evolution constitutes the underpinnings of a dishonest philosophy that has held sway over a great number of people.

That philosophy is "materialism", which holds a number of bogus views about why and how we came into being. Materialism maintains that there is nothing but the matter and that matter is the essence of everything, be it organic or inorganic. Starting out from this premise, it denies the existence of a divine Creator, that is, Allah. Reducing everything to the level of matter, this notion transforms man into a creature that heeds only matter and turns away from moral values of whatever kind. This is the beginning of big disasters that will befall a man's life.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

A Definitive Reply to Evolutionist Propaganda

http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/4890/evo34ou.jpg (http://67.15.194.38/download2/b497513ce7336253bbb503462805273d/definitereply.zip)


Between early 2001 and the present day there have been a number of very interesting and important developments in the world of science. The advances made in such different scientific fields as palaeontology, molecular biology, anatomy and genetics have once again revealed the terrible scientific dilemma the theory of evolution finds itself in. The theory of evolution was proposed in its present form in the mid-19th century by Charles Darwin and at that time provided enormous support for materialism. Such was that support that the present collapse of the theory is also resulting in the collapse of materialism itself.

Materialism is a most dangerous philosophy, which denies the existence of God, religion and the spiritual life and which regards matter as the only absolute and supports a selfish world view. The selfish, self-interested, combative and ruthless moral view which is still widespread in the world is the product of a materialist-Darwinist viewpoint

-----------------------------------------------
The creation of the universe


http://img501.imageshack.us/img501/5914/evo45qg.jpg (http://67.15.194.38/download2/5d98c93a7f4c50a55d09bf94942458b0/universe.zip)


Materialism can no longer claim to be a scientific philosophy.
Arthur Koestler, the renowned Social Philosopher 1

How did the endless universe we live in come into being?
How did the equilibrium, harmony, and order of this universe develop?
How is it that this Earth is such a fit and sheltering place for us to live in?

Questions such as these have attracted attention since the dawn of the human race. The conclusion reached by scientists and philosophers searching for answers with their intellects and common sense is that the design and order of this universe are evidence of the existence of a supreme Creator ruling over the whole universe.

This is an indisputable truth that we may reach by using our intelligence. Allah declares this reality in His holy book, the Qur'an, which He inspired as a guide for humanity fourteen centuries ago. He states that He has created the universe when it was not, for a particular purpose, and with all its systems and balances specifically designed for human life.

-----------------------------------------------------

The Evolution Deceit

http://img465.imageshack.us/img465/6625/evo55pb.jpg (http://67.15.194.37/download/6d9f4c374fe7208d6ba7082364f96bba/evolutio.zip)

Most people think the theory of evolution was first proposed by Charles Darwin, and rests on scientific evidence, observations and experiments. However, the truth is that Darwin was not its originator, and neither does the theory rest on scientific proof. The theory consists of an adaptation to nature of the ancient dogma of materialist philosophy. Although it is not backed up by scientific discoveries, the theory is blindly supported in the name of materialist philosophy.

This fanaticism has resulted in all kinds of disasters. Together with the spread of Darwinism and the materialist philosophy it supports, the answer to the question "What is a human being?" has changed. People who used to answer: "Human beings were created by God and have to live according to the beautiful morality He teaches", have now begun to think that "Man came into being by chance, and is an animal who developed by means of the fight for survival." There is a heavy price to pay for this great deception. Violent ideologies such as racism, fascism and communism, and many other barbaric world views based on conflict have all drawn strength from this deception.

This article will examine the disaster Darwinism has visited on the world and reveal its connection with terrorism, one of the most important global problems of our time.

------------------------------------------

these books are by Harun yahya
http://www.harunyahya.com


My regards

I have taken a look at the first book: The Collapse of the Theory of Evolution. It is quite fascinating to see a fundamentalist creation view based on Islam, rather than Christianity. And to see essentially the same (flawed) arguments used by both.

You know my absolute favourite question is the one shown a couple of books above:

"How is it that this Earth is such a fit and sheltering place for us to live in?"

But it needs a slight addition:

"..unless you happen to live by a volcano, in a tornado zone, on a fault line, in the North/South Pole, in the majority of Africa, in a desert, or on the 2/3rds of this planet that happens to be water".

Hey Esperanti....hey, guyess what? i dont believe in materialism NOR monotheisim with its ideas ofintelligent design. so, whatDO i believein?

for a start, why do you think us NOT animals...?.......it is te 'religius' ideas we are not animals that has contributed TO the disrespect for other species and Nature!

now about your theory represented by your promoted book author:

YES, i wholeheartedly agree with you that materilalistic beliefs are the ongoing cause of may of our trobles. notonly ours but for other species, Nature, and the sense of alienation people feel from one another and Nature in a deep way. we agree on this

BUT, then you suddenly from there ASSUME the only alternative to that nihilistic worldview is one that believes and indoctrinates the idea of there being a creator-'God' who rules over us and the universe

Have you any idea what tis patriarchal belief has done? it is as insidious as te materialistic idea. in FACT the whole reason nihilistic materialism arose is due to the stifling monotheistic propaganda--asa desprate protest from its mind-control (you should research about this, it is VERY revealing--seriously)

you see monotheim had already created a conflict between Nature and 'spirit'. for the patriarchs 'spirit' was divorced from Nature. was de-eroticized and made into their idea of this 'pure God' who onemust obey to the deth to become AS pure ahd perfect

Rather consider what monotheism demonized, which was a primordial understanding that 'spirit' and Hature have NEVER BEEN separate, nd that the cyclic process of Nature is sacred and FULL OF MEANING. ie., that matter/energy is INTELLIGENT. there doesn't HAVE TO BE a designer BEHIND it. IT IS intellignce. the very process ITSELF IS Intelligence.

Esperanza: The descriptions of those books are way off the mark. Firstly I doubt any of them have any valid evidence to show that evolution doesn't exist. Secondly the warnings of the dangers of evolution and materialism are totally contradictory to that of religious beliefs.

The US is a deeply religious country where over half believe we were created by Gods hand and discount evolution totally. Yet compared to Europe (where almost all believe in evolution), crime rates and social dysfunction are much higher. Also, the US is one of the most materialistic countries in the world.

The association of evolution and a lawless greedy society just don't measure up. Secular societies that accept evolution as fact, are safe, sensible and largely non-violent compared to those countries with strong believe in God. That is just a fact.

These books achieve nothing but scaremongering and encourage intellectual dysnfunction.

Esperanza, assuming this was not just a drive-by posting to promote these books, and that you actually return to the forum, please select any argument from any of the books and present it in an individual post. I shall then be happy to demonstrate its fallacies for you. I stand ready in eager anticipation.

duendy, we're not animals because we're too much different from them (although some people are like animals). we have free will and great intelligence. saying that we're animals is like saying that animals are plants.

harun yahya is an ignorant fanatic. just read what he says about buddhism (http://www.harunyahya.com/buddhism01.php) but i'm not saying he's wrong about everything.

From the first page of the second book:

Starting out from this premise, it denies the existence of a divine Creator, that is, Allah.

Science has disproved and continues to disprove the materialist hypothesis that recognises the existence of nothing but matter and it demonstrates that all beings are the products of creation by a superior being.
The purpose of this book is to reveal the scientific facts that refute the theory of evolution in all fields and to inform people about the ulterior, underlying, and real purpose of this so-called "science", which is in fact a fraud.

Complete rubbish.

duendy, we're not animals because we're too much different from them (although some people are like animals). we have free will and great intelligence. saying that we're animals is like saying that animals are plants.

harun yahya is an ignorant fanatic. just read what he says about buddhism (http://www.harunyahya.com/buddhism01.php) but i'm not saying he's wrong about everything.

ohh, we know, c7, you are anti-being like animal, for some odd reason. you imagine 'we' have 'great intelligence'....? hahahaha. what to say???

look you got an anus have't you? got sexual organs, ears, eyes, feet with toes and toenails which grip mountain side? you fart, sleep, snore, get grumpy, jealous, lusty, angry, do you bare yer teeth when you get angry...? do you salivate when you see all that christmas grub and then pig out. or ar you like one of those faddy animals that just peck at food and leave it?....youuu ANIMAL you!

Do you have an intelligent design book just for me ? I need it to create my video games ;)

look you got an anus have't you? got sexual organs, ears, eyes, feet with toes and toenails which grip mountain side? you fart, sleep, snore, get grumpy, jealous, lusty, angry, do you bare yer teeth when you get angry...? do you salivate when you see all that christmas grub and then pig out. or ar you like one of those faddy animals that just peck at food and leave it?....youuu ANIMAL you!

There is an "animal" in humans, just like there is a "plant" in animals, and there is a "plant" in humans too. But we differ from animals like animals differ from plants and plants differ from matter. Yet we're all the same, the same self, in different bodies.

Plants include matter (since they have a material body).
Animals include plants (since they consume food) and matter.
Humans include animals (since they have feelings), plants and matter.
Geniuses include etc...

Humans have a goal. They want to become something more, something greater. Animals are happy being what they are, they don't want to be something more. That's another thing that differs us from animals.

Humans are at the mid-point of evolution. We have reached the end of physical evolution and the beginning of spiritual evolution.

Animal is just one SIDE of humans. Humans are MORE than animals, just like animals are MORE than plants.

I browsed through the first few pages. How can someone write such a piece of shit? By copy paste other pieces of shit? It's the same old all over again. How many times dow we have to refute the same things? Indefinitely? Can't these people just pick up a copy of a general biology text book to check what they are saying? Can't they go on the internet and type in evolution in google and read a bit. I'm sure they did, because the book is a job of copy and pasting. They must have come accross the same arguments they they copied and pasted in their book. Why didn't they come accross the counter-arguments at the same time?

So I wasted another 5 minutes of my time.

It has quite nice typesetting, though. I thought that was a plus.
And it was a nice change to see it all attributed to Allah, rather than God.
Your point about copy/paste was valid. I wonder if we could encourage the original Creationist authors of the purloined material to sue the 'author' of these books. That might be entertaining.

There is an "animal" in humans, just like there is a "plant" in animals, and there is a "plant" in humans too. But we differ from animals like animals differ from plants and plants differ from matter. Yet we're all the same, the same self, in different bodies.

me)))))obviously i know we differ. but hey....dosn't a giraffe differ from a mouse?...orhow about a Dolphin from a hyena, orrrrr...?

Plants include matter (since they have a material body).
Animals include plants (since they consume food) and matter.

me)))dontplants consume 'animal matter'?

Humans include animals (since they have feelings), plants and matter.
Geniuses include etc...

meP)))))what arrrrrrrre ya goin on with...?

Humans have a goal. They want to become something more, something greater. Animals are happy being what they are, they don't want to be something more. That's another thing that differs us from animals.

mePPPwhy do you assume YOUR dream of 'spiritual perfection' is shared by ALL humans??

Humans are at the mid-point of evolution. We have reached the end of physical evolution and the beginning of spiritual evolution.

me))))))how do you knooooow this thing you know?

Animal is just one SIDE of humans. Humans are MORE than animals, just like animals are MORE than plants.

'animal' 'humans' 'plants'----such a limited theory you got their gal

There is an "animal" in humans, just like there is a "plant" in animals, and there is a "plant" in humans too. But we differ from animals like animals differ from plants and plants differ from matter. Yet we're all the same, the same self, in different bodies.

Plants include matter (since they have a material body).
Animals include plants (since they consume food) and matter.
Humans include animals (since they have feelings), plants and matter.
Geniuses include etc...

Humans have a goal. They want to become something more, something greater. Animals are happy being what they are, they don't want to be something more. That's another thing that differs us from animals.

Humans are at the mid-point of evolution. We have reached the end of physical evolution and the beginning of spiritual evolution.

Animal is just one SIDE of humans. Humans are MORE than animals, just like animals are MORE than plants.You actually believe that humans are not animals?
We may be more intelligent (the way we have defined intelligence), but we are just animals. In fact intelligence is the only separating factor between us and other animals.

Everything else you spout is drivel - subjective, unsupportable, wishy-washy dribble.

Humans have a goal. They want to become something more, something greater. LOL!
Who has determined this for me?
Where was my contract? I signed nothing!! :D

Humans have no "goal" other than the one an individual assigns to themself.
You are doing nothing but assigning your own thoughts, goals, ideals onto the rest of society and claiming it as truth.

i think the idea of being mostly monkey is kinda cool....and im an "intelligent design" kinda guy....*shrug*

c7ityi_,
There is an "animal" in humans, just like there is a "plant" in animals, and there is a "plant" in humans too. But we differ from animals like animals differ from plants and plants differ from matter. Yet we're all the same, the same self, in different bodies.

Plants include matter (since they have a material body).
Animals include plants (since they consume food) and matter.
Humans include animals (since they have feelings), plants and matter.
Geniuses include etc...

Humans have a goal. They want to become something more, something greater. Animals are happy being what they are, they don't want to be something more. That's another thing that differs us from animals.

Humans are at the mid-point of evolution. We have reached the end of physical evolution and the beginning of spiritual evolution.

Animal is just one SIDE of humans. Humans are MORE than animals, just like animals are MORE than plants.
If you were serious in the theory upon the other thread, then I must say this:
You have everything in you... You are the animals... You just see them different from you... Because you haven't realized you are the same...

;)


[Renrue]

Science has disproved and continues to disprove the materialist hypothesis that recognises the existence of nothing but matter and it demonstrates that all beings are the products of creation by a superior being.
The purpose of this book is to reveal the scientific facts that refute the theory of evolution in all fields and to inform people about the ulterior, underlying, and real purpose of this so-called "science", which is in fact a fraud.

Q Responded:
Complete rubbish.

Kerry notes:
I'm with Q. The anti-scientific attitude of some folks never cease to astonish me as they propogate their idiocy over a computer, of all things! If science were a fraud, how can they possibly use its manifold powers, abilities, creations, inventions, etc., to get the word out to the world overnight using scientific instruments instead of taking a year to send their message against it via camel, donkey train, and horseback?

You know my absolute favourite question is the one shown a couple of books above:

"How is it that this Earth is such a fit and sheltering place for us to live in?"

But it needs a slight addition:

"..unless you happen to live by a volcano, in a tornado zone, on a fault line, in the North/South Pole, in the majority of Africa, in a desert, or on the 2/3rds of this planet that happens to be water".



you know that is the key question where it all falls apart. the earth isnt such a fit place for us to live, it just happens to be a place where it is possible for us to survive. if it were a really great place that wasmeant specifically for humans, we wouldnt need to build shelter or wear clothing or do anything except lounge around and breathe and breed. did this person think before writing these books or was it done with his/her head up her ass the entire time?

esperanza,

Welcome to sciforums.

An interesting thread. Can we assume you agree with the views presented by these publications?

You might like to know that we have discussed issues of evolution many times here over the past 6 years, and although these references give a slightly different perspective they do seem significantly naive and ill-informed. And I am basing that opinion on just the few opening paragraphs of each document, i.e. they can be discredited before reading any further.

is it fair to completely discredit something based on a few paragraphs though?
if that were true, i wouldnt have continued reading your posts, cris. if that hadnt happened, i would have thought you were a narrow minded flat earther. i have since learned that that isnt true.
*shrug*

is it fair to completely discredit something based on a few paragraphs though?

If the opening paragraphs demand you believe in Allah and then spread lies that science has disproved evolution, how is possible to proceed any further?

..
we're not animals because we're too much different from them (although some people are like animals). we have free will and great intelligence. saying that we're animals is like saying that animals are plants.

different huh,so how come we share 95% of our DNA with apes?
and what makes you think animals dont have free will and arent inteligent also,with the way they adapt and survive everywhere on this earth.

THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION has been around for 150 years, and has had a great influence on the way people look at the world. It proposes the lie that they came into this world as the result of chance and that they are a "species of animal." Furthermore, it teaches them that the only law in life is a selfish struggle for survival and to stay alive. The effects of this idea can be clearly seen in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries: people's increasing selfishness, the moral degeneration in society, the rapid spread of self-interest, ruthlessness, and violence, the development of totalitarian and bloody ideologies such as fascism and communism, social and individual crises as people grow distant from the morality of religion
hmm I thought comunism was inteneded to be a system where everyone was EQUAL and had ALL they needed to live well,but then there never was a TRUE comunism ever was it?

later..

the devil,

is it fair to completely discredit something based on a few paragraphs though?If the opening premise of an argument is invalid then the whole argument is invalid.

did this person think before writing these books or was it done with his/her head up her ass the entire time?

I know where my money's at :)

You actually believe that humans are not animals?
We may be more intelligent (the way we have defined intelligence), but we are just animals. In fact intelligence is the only separating factor between us and other animals.

Not to contradict you in any way, but I just wanted to note how interesting I find it that it's this very "intelligence" that allows us the phenomenon of "belief" in which we can pretend... very convincing that we are NOT animals - even though it's rather obvious that we are. Regardless, belief - as demonstrated by anyone who will contradict you - can make it subjectively not so. IMO, that's freakin wild and kind of cool in sort of a tragic, rebellious way. "screw reality".

Even more interesting to me is that IMO, religion is a meme-type coaxed from the abstract to aid survival via tribal bonding. Humanity does not do well on its own. Cooperation is imperative to the survival of the species. The set of beliefs associated with a particular reliigon serve to give the tribe a reason to work together, and a code of conduct by which the overall group is served. All of this by serving pure abstracts, which are only indirectly reasonable. Consider how the tool of religion has aided the species in this manner, and of course when tribes clash, aided the sorting out of the weak and strong - with the notions implanted by their particular memes propping up their conviction to gain maximal performance.

It fascinates me.

Hello everybody

THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION has been around for 150 years, and has had a great influence on the way people look at the world. It proposes the lie that they came into this world as the result of chance and that they are a "species of animal."
evolution is a FACT how it happens is a theory
here some edu for ya
www.talkorigins.org

for origins of life search for ABIOGENESIS


Materialism maintains that there is nothing but the matter and that matter is the essence of everything, be it organic or inorganic
and since this matter cannot be created or destroyed only changed it must have always existed in some forn or shape =the universe is eternal
so theres no need to posit some divine being creator ,is there?

Starting out from this premise, it denies the existence of a divine Creator, that is, Allah.
so what else is there besides matter and energy?

and what is this Allah thingamajic made off???

Reducing everything to the level of matter, this notion transforms man into a creature that heeds only matter and turns away from moral values of whatever kind. This is the beginning of big disasters that will befall a man's life.

and the moral values of your Allah ,quran is???

to kill all who believe otherwise right?

www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm
no thnx

evolution is a FACT how it happens is a theory
here some edu for ya
www.talkorigins.org

for origins of life search for ABIOGENESIS


and since this matter cannot be created or destroyed only changed it must have always existed in some forn or shape =the universe is eternal
so theres no need to posit some divine being creator ,is there?

me))))))what about consciousness. eternal consciousness ANDeternal matter-energy?

so what else is there besides matter and energy?

me)))))Consciousness!

and what is this Allah thingamajic made off???

me)))))it's been tought of and imagified by consciousness and matter-energy

and the moral values of your Allah ,quran is???

me)))))for a form of social control. for if you can convince people of the glorification of some abstract, you've got em!..theythen become the SUBJTECTSS of it.

to kill all who believe otherwise right?

mePPPYes, that's part of it. create an 'enemy' to further blind that controlled mindset

www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm
no thnx
((() ))) ())))))))

me)))))obviously i know we differ. but hey....dosn't a giraffe differ from a mouse?...orhow about a Dolphin from a hyena, orrrrr...?

Obviously, everything differs. It's like a large color wheel. The colors are infinite and there is no specific line between them, but you can still categorize them. It becomes confusing if you take all, so lifeforms should be divided into 4 main categories: matter, plants, animals and humans.

me)))dontplants consume 'animal matter'?

Yes.

mePPPwhy do you assume YOUR dream of 'spiritual perfection' is shared by ALL humans??

It is not enough for humans to eat, reproduce and sleep. They can't live like animals. We're constantly evolving and going towards some goal. We create technology and evolve spiritually. We want to know things. Animals don't evolve, they are what they are, they do what nature programmed them to do.

me))))))how do you knooooow this thing you know?

One theory says that man is a neoteny and is no longer able to evolve.
If this is true, then what an absurd creature man has evolved into.
Not knowing what drives them, they keep their bodies merely to satisfy the desires of the flesh.
They're all worthless, don't you think? That's what all mankind is.

But it is no longer necessary to remain a wretched human being.

'animal' 'humans' 'plants'----such a limited theory you got their gal

What do you mean limited? I know... humans define themselves as animals because most of them are still very animal.

In fact intelligence is the only separating factor between us and other animals.

Hence, we're not animals.

If you were serious in the theory upon the other thread, then I must say this:
You have everything in you... You are the animals... You just see them different from you... Because you haven't realized you are the same...

Of course. The same "self" is within humans as within animals, as within plants, as within matter.

different huh,so how come we share 95% of our DNA with apes?

There's nothing strange about that. All life is pretty similar, yet things can seem different.

and what makes you think animals dont have free will and arent inteligent also,with the way they adapt and survive everywhere on this earth.

Because they don't do things that humans do. They don't "sin". If they were "intelligent" like we are, they wouldn't be as perfect as they are. They would do many stupid things just like we do. They would wear clothes to cover their "nakedness"

the devil,

If the opening premise of an argument is invalid then the whole argument is invalid.

invalid according to scientific standards?
if so, then the ball is still in the air, as science has yet to debunk G-d.
what do you think?

as a side note, i also disagree with "quick creation" stories.

invalid according to scientific standards?
if so, then the ball is still in the air, as science has yet to debunk G-d.
what do you think?

It's not the job of science to debunk crackpot theories.

Esperanza:

I doubt you'll be back, since I assume you only signed up here to advertise your books. But, in case I'm wrong, I have a few comments, which may help to clear up some of your misconceptions about evolution.

THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION ... teaches them that the only law in life is a selfish struggle for survival and to stay alive.

That's not true. The theory of evolution is morally neutral. It espouses no moral theory at all, although some people have tried, incorrectly, to add a moral message to the theory. That is called "social Darwinism", and goes against everything that Darwin actually wrote.

That philosophy is "materialism", which holds a number of bogus views about why and how we came into being. Materialism maintains that there is nothing but the matter and that matter is the essence of everything, be it organic or inorganic.

Matter and energy.

Starting out from this premise, it denies the existence of a divine Creator, that is, Allah. Reducing everything to the level of matter, this notion transforms man into a creature that heeds only matter and turns away from moral values of whatever kind.

Not at all. It just says morality is not handed down from on high by a god. Morality is developed by human societies.

The theory of evolution was proposed in its present form in the mid-19th century by Charles Darwin and at that time provided enormous support for materialism.

That is incorrect. The present form of the theory of evolution is a synthesis of Darwin's ideas and modern findings such as the discovery of genetics and DNA. The theory has developed since Darwin first suggested it. His focus was almost solely on natural selection.

Materialism is a most dangerous philosophy, which denies the existence of God, religion and the spiritual life and which regards matter as the only absolute and supports a selfish world view

I am interested in how you arrive at the conclusion of selfishness. Can you expand on that?

The conclusion reached by scientists and philosophers searching for answers with their intellects and common sense is that the design and order of this universe are evidence of the existence of a supreme Creator ruling over the whole universe.

Many scientists hold the view that a supreme Creator is unnecessary.

---

Your major theme seems to be that materialism means immorality. Maybe we can discuss whether that is true or not.

It's not the job of science to debunk crackpot theories.

if science is used as a verbal weapon against such "crackpot theories", then science should be the tool used to prove the "crackpottiness" of the theory.

thats fair isnt it?
i see alot of "this is incorrect because science says so" on this forum, but i never see anyone ever admit the falsehoods that science has put forth in the past. im talking about absolute statements like "creation is false."

let me remind you, that i am on your side of this argument. i would like to see however, scientific mindedness, if "science" is quoted.

seems objective enough.
*shrug*

i am also with q, and my response to this is a little late in the debate,but it is funny to me that evolution seems to scare most (if not all)Christians so they attack it and call it a lie, but evolution has more evidence right now then christianity (or any other religion) will ever have.


Thomas- not my name it's a song i like :D

to many books.. by to many Morons...

some maybe good and worth reading... but how can we know?

we'd have to read mountains of crap to find one good book.

that pisses me off.

-MT
(thats why i only read.. scripture and technical books... most everything else.. is biased stupid crap.)

I smell a drive by fundi! Doubt that we'll see this one back to debate with us. She's adverstising folkes.

Godless - yup you are likely correct.

The Devil,

invalid according to scientific standards?
if so, then the ball is still in the air, as science has yet to debunk G-d.
what do you think? What do you think might be the opening premise for the argument that a god exists?

that we have no idea where all the energy and mass in the universe comes from, and since the law of conservation of mass says it cannot be created or destroyed.....well that leads one to believe that at one time, something was outside our known laws of physics. right?


and the opposite then? id like to hear a premise for the non-existence of god. :)

that we have no idea where all the energy and mass in the universe comes from, and since the law of conservation of mass says it cannot be created or destroyed.....well that leads one to believe that at one time, something was outside our known laws of physics. right?

mePPPPonlyif you cant take that matter-energy ISterenal. whay, for example DOESit have to come from some where?....andas i keeps saying. it is not ONLY matter-energy. THAT idea is materialism.................yes? i am saying that along with eternal matter-energy is eternal consciousness. tht matter-energys is sentient. so we don'yt NEED any 'supernatrual' outside agency--a 'GOD' behind....AS IT WERE. THATS A SPOOK INIT?


and the opposite then? id like to hear a premise for the non-existence of god. :)
all depends what you mean by 'god'.....do you mean the biblical god? or a sense of depth, which is our past has been called 'god'?

that we have no idea where all the energy and mass in the universe comes from, and since the law of conservation of mass says it cannot be created or destroyed.....well that leads one to believe that at one time, something was outside our known laws of physics. right?


and the opposite then? id like to hear a premise for the non-existence of god. :)

Well it seems pretty logical that things can not exist without life creating those things... but using that same logic to the universe doesn't get you anywhere, it seems like we are unable to think 'outside the box' in that respect.

Time is the hardest thing for me to get around, time is all we know, so if there is a God, who created God etc... The mind just bawks at the idea of time not existing.

i mean the infinite, duendy.

not an old man on a throne. i mean that which we can have no knowledge of in this "meat prison".
:)

The Devil,

OK.

that we have no idea where all the energy and mass in the universe comes from,But that isn’t quite accurate. It implies energy and mass came from somewhere and ignores the logical possibility that it has always been.

and since the law of conservation of mass says it cannot be created or destroyed.....well that leads one to believe that at one time, something was outside our known laws of physics. right?That doesn’t follow does it? If something cannot be created or destroyed then that indicates it is infinite, right?

So no valid opening argument for a god there, agreed?

and the opposite then? id like to hear a premise for the non-existence of god.That’s quite a different issue. Trying to argue for such a negative is generally accepted as impossible.

i mean the infinite, duendy.

not an old man on a throne. i mean that which we can have no knowledge of in this "meat prison".
:)So you have effectively defined "God" as "everything of which we can have no knowledge".

And you worship this God?

Is this "God" worthy of praise?
Why call it God? Why give it religious connotations?
Why ascribe any personification to it?
Can it interact with us?
Can we interact with it?
Does it affect us when we die?


That which we can not know is absolutely irrelevant to us - and the logical equivalent to something that doesn't exist.

But that isn’t quite accurate. It implies energy and mass came from somewhere and ignores the logical possibility that it has always been.
how is it logical, given what we know of entropy...to say that physical things have always been?
That doesn’t follow does it? If something cannot be created or destroyed then that indicates it is infinite, right?
we already know what i think on that from the above statement.
That’s quite a different issue. Trying to argue for such a negative is generally accepted as impossible.
i am an open minded fellow, and i am prepared to hear it. to say that it is impossible, is a cop-out. impossibility implies limitation. to imply limitation is to say that you know how far something goes. is that too convoluted? sorry if it is...i try to make sense but sometimes my brains get all scrambled when i try to make coherent sentences :D

So you have effectively defined "God" as "everything of which we can have no knowledge".
in another post (i dont remember which, but it was recent), i stated that i cannot define G-d. i stand by that statement.

And you worship this God?
nope. i worship no G-d.

Is this "God" worthy of praise?
to give praise is to assume i am in a position to do so. so, no.
Why call it God? Why give it religious connotations?
because "Frank" doesnt do the idea justice, i dont think.
Why ascribe any personification to it?
i believe that ascribing personification is probably the most disrespectful thing we can do, as it brings such a lofty idea down to the level of my meager brains.
Can it interact with us?
the fact that we are existing says "yes. it can."
Can we interact with it?
not in a traditional sense, no. i dont think so. maybe im wrong though. who knows?
Does it affect us when we die?
everything that ever happens affects us at every moment of existence, whether we are alive on this earth or not.


That which we can not know is absolutely irrelevant to us
thats idiotic. sorry. i usually dont resort to that kind of mudslinging, but really...examine that statement, and tell me that you are serious. i hope it was a typo.
and the logical equivalent to something that doesn't exist.
maybe. but i learned a long time ago to never say never.

The devil,

to say that it is impossible, is a cop-out. Until we can examine every corner and aspect of the universe and beyond and potential parallels then we can never be sure that the imaginary item does not exist in some form, unless you can show that the imaginary item is logically impossible, i.e. has contradictory properties.

impossibility implies limitation. In this case our inability to search everywhere.

sorry if it is...i try to make sense but sometimes my brains get all scrambled when i try to make coherent sentencesYes I’ve noticed and I will try not to hold that against you but it may well cause some misunderstandings if I misinterpret your statements sometimes.

The devil,

how is it logical, given what we know of entropy...to say that physical things have always been?Entropy only applies to closed systems, although you’d be hard pressed to construct such a system in reality. But if the universe is infinite, i.e. boundless in all directions then by definition entropy cannot apply.

The devil,

Entropy only applies to closed systems, although you’d be hard pressed to construct such a system in reality. But if the universe is infinite, i.e. boundless in all directions then by definition entropy cannot apply.
would you say, boundless in all dimensions too?

that we have no idea where all the energy and mass in the universe comes from, and since the law of conservation of mass says it cannot be created or destroyed.....well that leads one to believe that at one time, something was outside our known laws of physics. right?

Actually, NO ,devil ............
According to the latest theories of the origin of the universe :
The universe, that was created from the big bang , was only a small universe created from the energy from the 5. dimension - the small part of energy was there ALWAYS in the big total universe - only transformed by the big bang into this sub universe we inhabit ........
Which means that the 4.th dimension (time) has no beginning or end for the energy of the small part of the total universe , that was created at the big bang .........
Energy comes in many forms - one of them matter .........
There is NO beginning or end of time for the energy in the total universe....
There is NO beginning or end of time for the small part of energy, that created the small universe as we know it after the big bang ......

would you say, boundless in all dimensions too?

The total universe is boundless , but the tiny sub universe, that was formed
after the big bang MIGHT have limits in the first 3 dimensions .....

The total universe is boundless , but the tiny sub universe, that was formed
after the big bang MIGHT have limits in the first 3 dimensions .....
hmmmmmmm, well that 'might' dont seem right to me. as te Holographic analogy reveals, what is contained in a 'part' shows the WHOLE. so it'd be limiting to assume a universe such as ours was limited to 3 dimensions. also, always keep in mind, i am never just talking about matter-energy on its OWN, for it ALWAYS is with consciousness.
If matter-energy is non-local, consciousness is not-located
ie., that consciousness is the FEELING of matter-energy
all this speaks to me as , boundlessness

The existence or form of the big bang can neither prove or disprove biological evolution or the origin of life. Move the line of arguement elsewhere.

Dear God, please protect me from your followers and their propaganda.
AMEN!

Actually, NO ,devil ............
According to the latest theories of the origin of the universe :
The universe, that was created from the big bang , was only a small universe created from the energy from the 5. dimension - the small part of energy was there ALWAYS in the big total universe - only transformed by the big bang into this sub universe we inhabit ........
Which means that the 4.th dimension (time) has no beginning or end for the energy of the small part of the total universe , that was created at the big bang .........
Energy comes in many forms - one of them matter .........
There is NO beginning or end of time for the energy in the total universe....
There is NO beginning or end of time for the small part of energy, that created the small universe as we know it after the big bang ......

sources? you made alot of very large statements right there, and if you cant back them up, then they are meaningless.

sources? you made alot of very large statements right there, and if you cant back them up, then they are meaningless.

Yup!!

The big bang never happened! Period.
Source here (http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology-Big-Bang-Theory.htm)

Eric J. Lerner (http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/)

BB religion disguised as science. (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/bang.html)

Found another site of iterest;
Science Stifled by Dogma (http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/controversies/bigbang.htm)

Godless

Sources ? no problem .....
The latest theories of the origin of the universe are the ekpyrotic universe theory and the cyclic universe theory . These theories builds on the big bang theory combined with the string theory and the M-theory.

And they explain the flaws of the big bang theory alone .....


http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/bigbang_alternative_010413-1.html

http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/steinhardt.html

http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/cyclintro

duendy,

What do you mean by consciousness? Is it dependent on matter and energy or is it independent?

If it is independent then why do we have physical bodies?

The only consciousness we know is that which is dependent on a biological brain, i.e. matter and energy. How could a consciousness be independent?

And if the universe began with a big bang where was all the consciousness? And how did they become seperate so that lifeforms like us could adopt them? And how many consciounesses are there?

hmmmmmmm, well that 'might' dont seem right to me. as te Holographic analogy reveals, what is contained in a 'part' shows the WHOLE. so it'd be limiting to assume a universe such as ours was limited to 3 dimensions. also, always keep in mind, i am never just talking about matter-energy on its OWN, for it ALWAYS is with consciousness.
If matter-energy is non-local, consciousness is not-located
ie., that consciousness is the FEELING of matter-energy
all this speaks to me as , boundlessness

Duendy, I did not say that the universe was limited to 3 dimensions -
according to the ekpyrotic theory , there is 5 dimensions :
1,2,3,4 are in the sub universe that we inhabit (originated from the 5.th dimension at the time of the big bang )
The rest of the total universe consists of dimension 4 and 5 ......
Dimension 1,2 and 3 might be limited , 4 and 5 are both infinite........
(the 4.th dimension is time, which exists in both the total universe and in the little subuniverse we live in )

Think of it like this : the total universe spits out a bit of energy by accident,
thereby forming our little subuniverse out of that bit of energy ......
That little bit of energy was there always - first in the total universe and now in this little subuniverse (which is ofcourse still a part of the total universe) .........

The total universe is infinite in space and time....
The little subuniverse might only have a certain amount of energy , therefore it might have limits in the first 3 dimensions - but that energy has always been, so there is no limits in time (4.th dimension) , though we can make a fixpoint in time, at the time for the big bang - just like we have created a fixpoint in time by using C.E. or the birth of christ to make dates - it will soon be 2006 by C.E. -
so Happy New Year to all of you !!!

wtf stil no answers from Esperanza,
damn drive by Muslim fanatics ,makes me feel like Im in Baghdad!

Magic,

A few days ago I would have listed the same sources as authoritative arguments for explaining the universe, but no longer. I have spent the day studying plasma cosmology and the vast array of problems that now confront BB theory. I cannot see any longer that BB theory is supportable. The big bang simply never happened.

Here is a good overview of the issues but there is plenty on the web and a definite rising trend towards totally dismissing BB theory, although against overwhlming odds of a seemingly dogmatic scientific community.

http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1319591

Godless Has also posted other relevant links.

duendy,

would you say, boundless in all dimensions too? I see no reason to assume any dimensions other than 3, and it is doubtful that time could be considered a dimension.

if science is used as a verbal weapon against such "crackpot theories", then science should be the tool used to prove the "crackpottiness" of the theory.

thats fair isnt it?
i see alot of "this is incorrect because science says so" on this forum, but i never see anyone ever admit the falsehoods that science has put forth in the past. im talking about absolute statements like "creation is false."

let me remind you, that i am on your side of this argument. i would like to see however, scientific mindedness, if "science" is quoted.

seems objective enough.
*shrug*

science didnt make the statment that creation is false, science made the statement that evolution is fact and creationists made the statement that evolution is flawed or incorrect because of absolute statments made by religious texts of dubious origin and never offer any proof to support their claims. science isnt science without empirical data to support a claim. intelligent design is being passed off as science and so scientists say: this is not a scientific theory that can be quantified in any substantial way, so according to scientific standards, its no good.

science didnt make the statment that creation is false, science made the statement that evolution is fact and creationists made the statement that evolution is flawed or incorrect because of absolute statments made by religious texts of dubious origin and never offer any proof to support their claims. science isnt science without empirical data to support a claim. intelligent design is being passed off as science and so scientists say: this is not a scientific theory that can be quantified in any substantial way, so according to scientific standards, its no good.

Well put Charles. :m:


Science is not a weapon, though it's used in debate & arguments to make points, ingnorance of new evidence or newer theories get rehashed, untill we find what is true, science goes through changes, as our epistemology grows, we find new facts, disregard old theories, and move on.

Godless

A few days ago I would have listed the same sources as authoritative arguments for explaining the universe, but no longer. I have spent the day studying plasma cosmology and the vast array of problems that now confront BB theory. I cannot see any longer that BB theory is supportable. The big bang simply never happened.

I remember when I thought of the sycling universe theory was it for me, but as one keeps on learning our theories keep on changing.

I'm not a cosmologiest, but I do like reading about it, and found the websites posted when reading news articles in WRH website, once I read it, and re-read it, I posted it here, and see the feedback.

Welcome to the force! ;)

Godless

Godless,

It does take an effort to consider BB might be totally wrong. I've started a thread in the cosmology forum to explore this further.

Thanks for the links - it was those that started me on this path.

There is also a substantial feature length DVD on the topic - "Cosmology Quest"

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/104-6027004-3741564?url=index%3Dblended&field-keywords=cosmology+quest&Go.x=9&Go.y=7

yup, thanks for the links godless!
very informative stuff. i will spend a few days poring over it.

Cris and Godless ....

The beauty of the latest theories of the origin of the universe is, that they clearly state, that the big bang NEVER HAPPENED as stated in the theory of the big bang .....

It was ANOTHER event, that took a long time to happen - and NOT in a singularity - the expansion problem with red shift; of Lerner is explained ....

And by the way - there is NO problem with parts of the subuniverse beeing 100 of billions of lightyears away, though the subuniverse is only 13.7 - 15 billions years old ........

Cris - did you read all of the source 2 or just the first part of it - the first part is about the BB - BB is VERY different from the cyclic universe .....

Magic,
The big bang simply never happened.
Godless Has also posted other relevant links.

I think you have a point -
The creation ex nihilo of the big bang is VERY far out ......
if you want me to - I will continue at your new thread under science not religion ....

Feel free - go ahead. Will need to be more precise there though.

I'm a Christian and I believe in evolution

how can you not? If you believe that species have gone extinct then you believe in natural selection. If thats not good enough, we have witnessed evolution in real time. The appearance of drug-resistant bacteria and viruses are a result of evolution. If you want something a little more macroscopic, several experiments have been performed on guppies showing natural selection. Here is one example: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/IVCexperiments.shtml

People who attack evolution usually do not understand it. I say, instead of going to all the other people who know nothing about evolution, go read a biology book.

Refreshing post ddovala. Well done. I would change one thing. You say: People who attack evolution usually do not understand it..
I would say:
Many people who attack evolution usually do not want to understand it.

ddovala most self proclaimed christians are not as opened minded by scientific facts than you are, in your religion you are part of a minority.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/newsletter/can_a_christian.htm

There are issues that contradict the christian belief and evolutionary science. For instance:

God could have used evolution to form life on earth (theistic evolution) if He had wanted to. But He didn't. If the Bible truly is the revealed Word of God, as Christians believe, then what God tells us in the Bible must be true.

He tells us He created everything in six days — not evolved them over billions of years. He tells us He created all the different kinds of animals and plants “after their kind.” This means He created mature animals and plants ready to reproduce more of their own kind. He tells us He created the first man from the dust of the ground — not from an ape-like creature.

When reporters from newspapers or television stations want to find out what happened, they try to find an eyewitness who can tell them. In the same way, if we want to find out what happened at the beginning of the world, we should find out what the eyewitness says. source (http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/theistic.html)

So I take it that you dont believe the bible literally? Or that you will claim a day for god is millions of years of earth years and yada, yada, yada?

Which is it?

Godless

You haven't studied much Christian theology, have you Godless? That is an observation. You don't need to respond.

In my experience, within western Europe, the Christians who fully accept evolution are in the overwhelming majority. I shall not attempt to comment on the rest of the planet, other than to note that South America has a large proportion of the world's Catholics and, yes, the Roman Catholic church accepts evolution.

Your compound adjective 'self proclaimed', applied to Christians, has an unpleasant taste to it. Unnecessary, lacking in clarity, emotionally loaded. I could go on, but you get the idea.

Truth is a large subject. The jewish tradition of storytelling (arguably like all story telling) made much use of a variety of literary devices. It is quite plausible that the creation stories in Genesis employ such devices. Indeed, it would be rather remarkable if they did not.
The atoms of which we are composed were once part of the heart of a star. You have heard the poetic observation before, I suspect. We are all made of stardust. And the process of abiogenesis and evolution to man could not be described as making man from the dust of the ground? Hmmm. You haven't studied much poetry either, I suspect.

So I take it that you dont believe the bible literally? Or that you will claim a day for god is millions of years of earth years and yada, yada, yada?Cheap debating tricks don't become you Godless. Ditch them.

yowzas, ophiolite!!
bravo!!

You haven't studied much Christian theology, have you Godless?

Hmmm Lets see, I've been in three diferent denominations, I had enough of stupidity training yes.

In my experience, within western Europe, the Christians who fully accept evolution are in the overwhelming majority.

Well perhaps that's a changing trate I have not been familiar, I've been an atheist for over 23 years. So I've been out of the loop of the now accepted way of thinking for these theists, they do change their mind with every new scientific discovery that can't be refuted very well.

Your compound adjective 'self proclaimed', applied to Christians, has an unpleasant taste to it. Unnecessary, lacking in clarity, emotionally loaded. I could go on, but you get the idea.

You haven't been on these boards very long have you? Havent you seen Christian claim that "not everyone who claims to be christian is a christian?" Self proclaimed then is the correct way to address these people, specially when there's about 33000 different denominations of Christianity.

Truth is a large subject. The jewish tradition of storytelling (arguably like all story telling) made much use of a variety of literary devices. It is quite plausible that the creation stories in Genesis employ such devices. Indeed, it would be rather remarkable if they did not.

Do tell, these nomads were slaves, illiterate, and most just used stories of other groups to come up with their notions.

The atoms of which we are composed were once part of the heart of a star. You have heard the poetic observation before, I suspect. We are all made of stardust. And the process of abiogenesis and evolution to man could not be described as making man from the dust of the ground? Hmmm. You haven't studied much poetry either, I suspect.

Even Plato thought of poetry as stupidity.

However these nomads didn't know didly of star dust, the formation of the universe, earth, excetera, and evolutionary theory. So no! these people meant it as they wrote it. Literally.

Cheap debating tricks don't become you Godless. Ditch them.

Why thank you, however my stand still stands from observation of being here for apx 6 years debating Christians on these boards and many others! Go figure they have claimed that god lives outside of time even.

**yowzas, ophiolite!!
bravo!!**

Lemming!.

Godless

lemming?
i was cheering for his vigor.
you are the lemming on this spiritually empty board.

However these nomads didn't know didly of star dust, the formation of the universe, earth, excetera, and evolutionary theory. So no! these people meant it as they wrote it. Literally.

Actually they knew more about the universe and themselves than we do today and what we will do in the future.

Hmmm Lets see, I've been in three diferent denominations, I've been in a score or more swimming pools, it doesn't make me a ****ing fish.
Hmmm Lets see, I've been in three diferent denominations, I had enough of stupidity training yes.In short, what does being in a denomination (or thirty of them) have to do with studying theology? I'll save you the trouble of answering: bugger all.
Have, you or have you not studied theology? Your simplistic and rigid view of how Christians interpret the bible suggests that if you have studied it, you weren't paying much attention.
Well perhaps that's a changing trate(sic) I have not been familiar, I've been an atheist for over 23 years.Congratulations. How long have you been a dickhead?
So I've been out of the loop of the now accepted way of thinking for these theists, they do change their mind with every new scientific discovery that can't be refuted very well.You really need to do a better job of picking your friends, enemies and casual targets of your debating techniques. Your characterisation might well be applicable to fundamentalists: but, as I have pointed out, it does not describe the majority of Christians in Western Europe. And quite possibly, not the majority of Christian's globally, since the two largest denominations have no trouble with evolution or a host of other scientific theories.

You haven't been on these boards very long have you? Havent you seen Christian claim that "not everyone who claims to be christian is a christian?" Self proclaimed then is the correct way to address these people, specially when there's about 33000 different denominations of Christianity. Your obvious contempt for any variety of Christian (these people reeks of it) does credit to your desire to demonstrate exactly what the results of narrow minded prejudice are. That was a lengthy, convoluted sentence. Did I make my meaning clear? Your own distaste for Christianity and theism has deprived you of any measure of objectivity.

Do tell, these nomads were slaves, illiterate, and most just used stories of other groups to come up with their notions. Now you are moving onto new ground, wherein you lay bare your own ignorance. So far it is a rather plain garment, but I suspect you will soon ornament it with unexpected delights.
The oral tradition, by which tribal myth and history and a sense of society were retained, is an ancient one which the term 'illiterate' fails utterly to properly encompass. The memory of the bards of these pre-literate socieities were impressive on both a quantitative and qualitative scale. copying errors in verbally transmitted traditions than in written.]
You seem completely unaware of these aspects, preferring to allow your distaste for theism to colour, yet again, your appreciation of some very great skills.
Even Plato thought of poetry as stupidity.
Appeal to authority! I thought I told you cut out the cheap sophistry.
I shall leave to others the judgement on what seems to be your opinion also. May I repeat. I feel emboldened to do so.
Godless thinks, like Plato, that poetry is stupidity.
Fascinating.
However these nomads didn't know didly of star dust, the formation of the universe, earth, excetera, and evolutionary theory. So no! these people meant it as they wrote it. Literally.That simply does not match reality. You really haven't studied Christian theology, or you would be aware of the rich metaphoric and poetic character of Hebrew.
Your loss.
Why thank you, however my stand still stands from observation of being here for apx 6 years debating Christians on these boards and many others! You will be much more succesful at it if you temper your criticism with a little knowledge. Trust me. It wont be painful.


Go figure they have claimed that god lives outside of time even. That is hardly any more remarkable than claiming that time began with the Big Bang. Indeed, it seems to be almost identical to claiming that.

Lemming!.
Who exactly am I supposedly following? I am expressing my own views, influenced certainly by the society I find myself in, the knowledge I have acquired, the insights I have gained. But I don't see where the 'lemming' appellation fits. Perhaps you would care to explain.

lemming?
i was cheering for his vigor.
you are the lemming on this spiritually empty board.

Now now, i think lemmings are becoming greatly misunderstood creatures ;).

I quite agree with you. I spoke to one once, but it replied in Swedish, I think. I completely misunderstood it.
You don't speak Swedish do you?

Only after watching the muppet show when i've had too much to drink.

does dutch count?

I've been in a score or more swimming pools, it doesn't make me a ****ing fish.

when have you found a fish in a swimming pool ever?

In short, what does being in a denomination (or thirty of them) have to do with studying theology? I'll save you the trouble of answering: bugger all.

why would you study theology? its the study of a religious doctrine that uses the history and beliefs of the religion to create a description or clarification of it. if you reject the idea of theism, you dont study theology because you know that its basically the intellectual equivalent of chasing your tail. you cant get a clear picture of anything that a particular christian might believe by studying theology and furthermore, you gain even less insight into what the "average christian's" lifestyle may have been in practice at any given period throughout history. all you know are the doctrines they were supposed to be observing, not whether they chose to disregard certain ones entirely or give undue emphasis to others.

Have, you or have you not studied theology? Your simplistic and rigid view of how Christians interpret the bible suggests that if you have studied it, you weren't paying much attention.

That's just it ophi, there's so many denominations because they don't all agree in the interpretation of the scriptures.

Congratulations. How long have you been a dickhead?

ad-hominem, now was that really contributing to the discusion, or perhaps you did it to boost your ego?

You really need to do a better job of picking your friends, enemies and casual targets of your debating techniques. Your characterisation might well be applicable to fundamentalists: but, as I have pointed out, it does not describe the majority of Christians in Western Europe

I live in the USA, perhaps there a bit behind here. But if this is so, do you have some evidence to back up that claim?

Your obvious contempt for any variety of Christian (these people reeks of it)

Listen retard, what else I'm suppose to call a group of people other than "these people"? Hence they all have a commonality, hence they all believe in the same theology, properly it's these people!. :rolleyes: BTW you don't know me, you never been with me, you don't know didly to judge any of my characters towards others.

Now you are moving onto new ground, wherein you lay bare your own ignorance.

So you read a few of my posts, and think you know what I know, or that I don't know shit? good for you it shows the contempt for adhominem since you do have a weak case.

Appeal to authority!

Plato an authority? LOL.. Please.. I only stated as fact, most poetry is rediculous and serves no purpose. Now do notice I say most, not all poetry. This you are dwelling in aesthetics thus each chooses it's own taste, I choose not to like poetry at all, it serves no purpose in my life, other than get laid occasionally. ;)

That simply does not match reality. You really haven't studied Christian theology, or you would be aware of the rich metaphoric and poetic character of Hebrew.

Well basically I didn't study theology in Hebrew, perhaps my loss, but even then it's just as boring in Latin, and that is correct it basically is metaphor, as it's not based on reality as it is, but on generalizations. Thus the belief of flat earth, and the geocentric theory all these false notions came from generalizations not accurate observation.

You will be much more succesful at it if you temper your criticism with a little knowledge.

Again adhominem, what is it with you and your contempt? I don't know you and sure as hell you dont know me, therefore you can't judge my knowledge in any given field. I have seen some amazing hoop jumping in my time, were all sorts of claims have been made. I once called myself Christian, and now I don't call myself any religious denomination, other than my disbelief, atheist. thus the name Godless represents that I don't believe in theism. So when a person calls himself Christian, or Hindu, or any other variation of theism, or even atheism it's "self proclaimed".

That is hardly any more remarkable than claiming that time began with the Big Bang. Indeed, it seems to be almost identical to claiming that.

Haven't you being paying attention? I don't adhere to the BB theory. So time is eternal and no BB ever happened, as new observations are being demonstrated in plasma cosmology.


Who exactly am I supposedly following?

Scratches head? :confused: This was not meant for you Ophi but for TDI

Godless

**you are the lemming on this spiritually empty board.**

I follow no one, however if this board is "spiritually empty" for you what the hell are you doing here?

Godless

ad-hominem, now was that really contributing to the discusion, or perhaps you did it to boost your ego?
The length of time you have been an atheist had little or nor relevance to the discussion. Your generally cavalier attitude certainly raises the possibility you are a dickhead. I wanted to determine how long this had been the case.

I live in the USA, perhaps there a bit behind here. But if this is so, do you have some evidence to back up that claim? Yes. Visit Europe. Speak to some Christians. While you are here you can also have some decent beer.

BTW you don't know me, you never been with me, you don't know didly to judge any of my characters towards others.

So you read a few of my posts, and think you know what I know, or that I don't know shit? I know exactly what you have conveyed by your posts: unless of course the point of your posts was to convey no information whatsoever. Have I touched a tender point here?

I choose not to like poetry at all, it serves no purpose in my life, other than get laid occasionally. ;) Yes. I already covered that with my fascinating observation. After a little emotional outburst like this you still maintain I know diddly shit about you. I know a great deal about you Godless. You are quite transparent.

Again adhominem, what is it with you and your contempt? I don't know you and sure as hell you dont know me, therefore you can't judge my knowledge in any given field.My contempt is reactionary. It arises whenever I witness strong contempt in another. You ignorantly initiated what you thought was a clever attack on a Christian's belief in both the Bible and evolution. You did it in a contemptuous manner. You did it with no apparent understanding of the facts involved. You got called on it.

Given I don't know you, it's quite remarkable how easy it was to push your buttons.

And for the future, try to remember there is a difference between and education and wisdom.

im here. thats all that matters, godless.

the fact is: you are a follower in a trendy fashion of nihilism.
simple as that.
you follow the masses.

when have you found a fish in a swimming pool ever?
August 1968 or 1969. I don't recall which.

Your generally cavalier attitude certainly raises the possibility you are a dickhead.

If you still must resort to name calling, means you have a weak argument can't think of anything better? Does this boost your weak ego? I've not attacked you in any way, I didn't call ddovala any offencive name. Why then must you believe that I attacked her beliefs, by simply pointing out that they contradict scripture beleifs?

Yes. Visit Europe. Speak to some Christians. While you are here you can also have some decent beer.

If Christians there are that more modernized than they are here, then it would be a good idea. I don't drink beer, hard liquor is my poinson. ;)

I know exactly what you have conveyed by your posts: unless of course the point of your posts was to convey no information whatsoever. Have I touched a tender point here?

No! what you have done is perceived contempt from my part for questioning the validity of contradicting beliefs of another.

My contempt is reactionary. It arises whenever I witness strong contempt in another. You ignorantly initiated what you thought was a clever attack on a Christian's belief in both the Bible and evolution.

They contradict, and I only questioned because I want to get more insight of christians who have contradicting views of their reality. It is well known here in the US that Genesis contradicts evolutionary science. BTW I see it as a positive that people of christian denomination are coming around to accepting scientific fact, other than do what they have done throughout all of human history, which is to prosecute those who spoke against their beliefs.

Yes. I already covered that with my fascinating observation.

Oh! please feed yourself some more ego boosting shots, while your at it!. The only thing fascinating is that I took the time to refute your misquided observations!. :rolleyes:

After a little emotional outburst like this you still maintain I know diddly shit about you.

This is a fact, as I've been here for over 6 years, and this one time is the only time you even coresponded with me directly. There's no emotional outburst my friend, this is again is your preconsived false notiong of knowing anything about me.

Given I don't know you, it's quite remarkable how easy it was to push your buttons.

LOL..LOL, thanks for the good early morning joke. which is what you made yourself to be, with false ideas of my character. The only button I may have reacted is to laugh at a complete ignorant bafoon, who believes that knows me. :D

Godless

the fact is: you are a follower in a trendy fashion of nihilism.

I'm not a nihilist.

Nihilism: as a philosophical position is the view that the world, and especially human existence, is without meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value. Some philosophers are considered nihilists if they hold the philosophical position that either (1) nothing exists (all there is is nothing), (2) the reality we humans experience does not exist at all as we see it, or (3) reality is unknowable, and thus the pursuit of objective understanding is pointless.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism

Objectivism: Objectivism is a philosophical system developed by Russian-born American philosopher and author Ayn Rand. It encompasses positions in metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, and aesthetics. Objectivism holds that there is a mind-independent reality, that individual human beings are in contact with this reality through sensory perception, that they gain knowledge by processing the data of perception using the method of reason or "non-contradictory identification," that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness, and that the only moral social system is laissez-faire capitalism. The different branches of the philosophy, Rand claims, all hierarchically link back to its metaphysics and epistemology, and are found by establishing the logical results of its position in those two.

Rand also characterizes Objectivism as a philosophy "for living on earth," grounded in reality and aimed at facilitating knowledge of the natural world and harmonious, mutually beneficial interactions between human beings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivist_philosophy

I'm an objectivist. This is why you see "objectivist mind" under my name.

Godless

August 1968 or 1969. I don't recall which.

right, the point being that youve been in a score of swimming pools and have only seen a fish in one once. dont you think that kind of kills your little theology-fish analogy or whatever you were going for there?

To Godless:
your original post to ddovala was wholly lacking in any sarcasm or cavalier attitude;
your comprehension of Christian theology is exemplary;
your obectivity is a shining beacon in a sea of delusional self indulgence;
your perception that I could not have formed an accurate opinion of you by reading your many posts is of course true;
your inability to read a sentence in which fascinating is picked out in italics is absoutely the responsibility of the author;
your interest in the purported egocentric behaviour of others has no bearing on your own limitations;
your observation that name calling must reflect a weak argument and not a distaste on the part of the name caller, is, of course precise.

I could go on, but I am sure I have said enough to set your mind at ease. It remains only for me to apologise for having taken up so much of your valuable time.


To No One in Particular:
Some people think they are Hank Reardon, when they are actually Jim Taggart.

right, the point being that youve been in a score of swimming pools and have only seen a fish in one once. dont you think that kind of kills your little theology-fish analogy or whatever you were going for there?Wrong. I was fishing for Godless, and caught a cured mackerel instead. My reading of the odds were 50% that no one would notice that fish are rare in swimming pools (unless you are a real country boy and a swimming pool or hole is just that). 45%+ that Godless would call me on it. And about 5% that someone else would grab it. I lucked out.

To No One in Particular:
Some people think they are Hank Reardon, when they are actually Jim Taggart.

haha awesome!

What's wrong with materialism? Matter is magical! It walks and talks, turns into rock and then into a giraffe, then into energy, then a rock again... It creates thoughts and feelings, desire and death, it can even know it's own nature to some degree.

Some people think they are Hank Reardon, when they are actually Jim Taggart.

While others think they are Howard Roark, when they are actually Ellsworth Tooey.

An then there are the poor deluded souls, such as myself, who think they are ..... themselves.