You say The Bible is real? What evidence do you have that god exsist? Lasers shooting from peoples eyes, the blind being healed to see again after the touch of one man, Jesus touching water and turning it to wine, and other misc. miracles. What evidence exsist? Do you really think all this really happened? For all we know someone could of just made it all up. The Bible is not logical nor antatomically correct. In the Catholic and Hindu religions people claim that their statues of the Virgin Mary having water run from her eyes, crying. The Hindu donkey drinking milk from spoons? <i>If</i> your gods are real, is this all they can do? Are they really that pethetic? If they are so great why don't they do something about the poverty and chaos in the world. God's are fragil things, they can be deystroyed by a dose of science or a whiff of common sense I don't know if the billions will survive but i'll believe in God when 1+1=5 -Bad Religion
Also..... Also.... for information on Athiesm and the theroy of evolution see http://www.normalbobsmith.com/godisdead.html
You're in an unusual corner Lynx ..., You may have backed yourself into a corner for certain of this board's theists and Christian apologists. If I might note a couple of points .... * You're pointing out superstitions of a certain type of religion that occurs within populations largely afflicted with low literacy and high poverty rates. Please recall that in Washington state not all that long ago, people responded to a sighting of Mary manifest in the iridescent oilstain on the back of a highway sign. This "miracle" began among migrant field workers at the orchards and farms, most of whom are illiterate, and all of whom are poor, else they wouldn't be picking apples in Wenatchee or shagging grain in Yakima. * To "destroy" the "miracles" is, perhaps, the wrong ambition. For the sake of argument: an angel appears. Do we fall to our knees and cry, "Praise Jesus!" Hardly. Hopefully, Jack, over there, with the really good equipment can document enough of the phenomena witnessed to identify its physical processes. So perhaps "angels" exist in some form, but we have not yet observed their processes enough to establish that they do exist, or establish what they actually are. Swamp gas ... ball lightning ... accidental circumstances by which everybody in a given area is subject to an electromagnetic phenomena which triggers mass hallucinations. Okay, don't ask me how that last one could come about, but it's possible in that nobody can tell me it's impossible. Maybe ball lightning passes through a thin veil of swamp gas drifting through town. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I generally agree, though, that should the gods manifest themselves, one would expect a better performance. Maybe we could download a patch for Human Condition for J+ v2.0, if Microsoft doesn't buy it out soon. But I believe you are running the strong risk of locking yourself within a theistic argumentative sphere by "destroying" the gods. You're challenging the fundamental faith, which should by definition be as unshakable to a theist as you or I might find a demonstration of gravity. If we demonstrate the physical reality behind any truly extant "supernatural" phenomena, the only theists left will be in marketing because they don't realize they're out of a job. That is, when we reconcile any religious phenomenon (e.g., angelic apparition) with a physical process, the phenomenon will either be dismissed (e.g. if "Betty's" angel was just a hallucination; mass phenomena of course, will be tougher, but half the fun's just getting there, eh?), or else included in reality. By the time enough of those "miracles" are demonstrated as natural, the only reason to continue believing in God would be because one is an addict that can't ditch the name-brand. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
..... I was not directly trying to destroy the gods.... Some of what i said in that messege was directly quoted from a professor but I left that out. I probably should of mention that, hehe. I am unaware of his name so i didnt. if you do know, tell me because i would like to know. The reason for me posting that on here though was because i agreed alot on what he was saying. However, still, wouldn't you except better from the all mighty God?
God's Wonders Lynx: Have you heard of the blood of a saint (i believe) that is powdery except for one day of the year, I do not remember that day. Anyway, it is over in Italy and every year people witness it's change. Scientists have studied this blood and have not found an answer to how this happens. As for me I believe God blessed the blood. You give me proof that none of those mericles were actual mericles and I might rethink a lot of my beliefs, but God has always been, is, and always will be. Better from our Creator? What is better than having life, and time? You give me proof that none of those. -RedCat
follow up lynx, dont be closed minded. you have to explore more than just the obvious parts of religon. accually read the bible, you should understand before you ridicule. sure, i hihgly dislike most christians, but mainly for their hypocriitical point of views. believeing that they are the only ones, no one else will make it. i also do not like how they travel to far off countries to tell tribes about god. i think that they should leave the cultures alone, all they are brining is diseases and confusion. the only reason i dont believe in god, is because i believe in myself. i do not need a crutch, i bilieve that i can do it myself, and i believe that i blessed myself when good things happen, i give credit to myself, not to some powerful force that lives in the clouds. but for all we really know chrstians could be right, or a ancient colt from the 1500's could have it all right, maybe there is no right or mabe some rock on the ground is 'the god'? you hav to be open minded to every possible idea. dont shut things out just becasue you dont like them.
It's nothing big, Lynx, except .... ... if you wander through other threads here that juxtapose, atheism with Christianity especially and other religions in general, you might find that once the gauntlet is thrown on an issue, the thread tends to focus largely on aspects of that specific issue. Thus, where you and I see the ridiculousness of weeping statues, oil-stains, and reflections from lampshades, theists will often stand behind the legitimacy of those things based on possibility. Instead, then, of the point that we might expect more from the Pantheon of the All-Powerful, you might find yourself locked in an argument about the psychological and anthropological causes of religious visions versus faith, and the larger issue will slip by the wayside. A story I've related to this board a few times is that when I chose to leave the Christian church behind, my first step was straight into the Satanic. While I generally hold a less-negative view of Satanism than most I know, I can say first-hand that the fault of this paradigm shift was that there was no actual paradigm shift. I chose to stay within the old familiar rules, and switch sides. I might equate it then to a tired baseball player who is looking for a different career entirely, but ends up taking a trade to Minnesota. While I certainly held a new set of values, they were directly repsonsive to Christianity. Satanism is a reaction against Christianity, so I found myself amid the same stale argument that compelled me to leave Christianity behind. And that is approximately what I'm warning you against in terms of the debate at hand. You might be demonstrating something important, but by throwing down such a gauntlet, you run the risk of inviting diversions from the actual issue in favor of minor issues that have no real resolution. I'm aware you're not restricting yourself to those specific points; but you're giving the theists a handle to seize, and a method by which to divert and therefore fail to answer your question. It is my shame that I did not welcome you to Exosci with my prior post ... I hope you enjoy your time here. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
RedCat--re: Blood of Saint Janarius http://www.spectrometer.org/path/blood.html An article on what I believe to be the very blood of which you speak. I could not find an mpeg of the actual transformation taking place, though, which is what I really want to see. I'll be reading through the article this evening to find out how compelling I personally find this one, but it looks interesting just at first glance. Update Edit: The blood is alleged to liquefy on 3 May. It is hardly a consistent "miracle", though, as a search of "Janarius" and "blood" on Google produced a short list of links that included http://daybyday.dk.com/C20UK/TODAYINHISTORY/03-May.htm And one more update on edit: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~ch1mlt/teaching/crit.html This is an interesting, uh ... quiz, I guess. But question 6 is the key: Heck, if that's not enough of a conundrum of faith, we could just make a poll out of it. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Re: follow up Since resurrection is the one thing that Christianity stands or falls on, I am not going to pester you with nit-picky stuff. You actually believe that you can resurrect yourself?
resurrection I was wondering; if Christ is part of the Trinity and the Trinity cannot be seperated, then how did Christ die without The Father and The Holy Ghost dieing too?
follow up Tiassa...... ill go with (c) i guess thanks everyone for posting follow ups Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Keep filling out the polll, please thanks
RE:Tiassa considering your choices, I would have to say A and C are the only possible answers for the reasons that: B) It would stay liquified the whole time and not solidify before they put it back in the vault D)They only disturbance it has is being moved, and that happens on the way to and from the vault and also during the cerimony so then it wouldn't be solidified early E)It is held within a glass container and also two other containers within that glass. I'm not sure the moisture could get into there. as for C I don't know, I would think that if the micro-organisms grow in there periodicly it would be in liquid form more often.
