Zero Probability of Evolution. Atheism wrong?

[SkepticThinker]

Good questions, all.

I'm most concerned about your 1948 statement, that someone had to "comb the Bible". They didn't. There is one passage of diaspora length, prophesied, and one passage describing a seven times punishment that someone considered as time rather than severity of punishment. This is unambiguous in terms of Bible passages on non-Jewish issues which have prophecies that literally use the word "time" and "times" to talk about duration of time.

Second, I hear what you're saying about different God reports. I do, however, I recognize a kind God who tailors individual experiences, hides Himself from skeptics (making it just easy enough for those who want Him to find Him while frustrating skeptics in their pseudo-searches for god), and I also am aware that charlatans exist and counterfeiting demons and antichrists. HOWEVER, I also find that born agains have REMARKABLY similar testimonies as well as similar spiritual gifts, both described in the scriptures.

You also have some very reasonable questions about rights. While I could say, "See Adam and Eve" or something else trite, I'd encourage you to ask God, after all, when Christians asked God about justice, they resolved to become abolitionists and so forth. Good stuff there.

And YES, Romans explains that the American Revolution was absolutely not the correct move to make--but sometimes God blesses sinners, too...

Well isn't that convenient! Or made up.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I apologize if I misquoted you, but I remembered you writing you feel certain things and so know they're true. (That's okay, all people have certain feelings they rely upon, and you never tell your husband, "Prove you love me with facts. Enough about my feelings and your feelings!")

Which is it? Do you have facts that prove your moral choices are indeed moral, or is it a subjective morality that you feel?

I never said that "not following a genocidal god," nor "not following a non-genocidal god," is a double standard. To rephrase, what I said was, "It's a double standard to tell me you feel certain morality is right, while it is impossible for someone to feel the presence of Jesus Christ."

And I do see your argument that without morality, society falls, and I agree. Did you know that is a main reason the Bible gives for God promoting human morality? See, the Bible is logical.

And you and I have not talked specific charity percentages, but I must ask, "If I give 100% of all I have, does that make me more moral? How do you know?" and "I know Christians who've given 100% of what they have, does that make Jesus Christ more real to you?"

Thank you.

My husband proves he loves me with facts. He does nice things for me, treats me with dignity and respect, rubs my feet when they hurt, tells me he loves me. Those are all facts that demonstrate his love for me. His actions provide me with proof of his love for me. If he treated me badly and told me he doesn't like me, those would all be facts demonstrating that he doesn't love me.
The same idea works for morality. If morality is about well-being, then there are facts we can collect about specific actions, in order to demonstrate whether they result in human well-being, or not.

 

[SkepticThinker]

And again you are misquoting me. I have never said i accept my feelings as true. Feelings are subject to manipulation by events, past and present.

Yes there are facts that theft and murder and rape and slavery are wrong, its called he law.

Show me objective evidence of JC

Stolen from much older civilisations, far older than the Bible so so dont pretend the bible invented morality

So you avoid the question. Fair enough if you are too embarrassed to answer

I tried to point this out before, but my point was ignored.

 

[Audie]

I tried to point this out before, but my point was ignored.

sic semper sealed mind

 

[BilliardsBall]

My views are supported by evidence. Yours aren't. That is why my views beat your views. And you simply do not understand morality. All morals are subjective. Even the morals of the Bible are subjective. Atheists realize this. We also can see that there is always room for improvement. That is why atheistic morals are constantly improving and the "morals of the Bible" are very slow to change and must be dragged kicking and screaming out of the bronze age. By the way, no moral claims are "self evident" If that were the case there would be no debate. It is merely nice rhetoric

I don't mind your lecturing me, but I do mind when your lecture gets the facts incorrect. For example, subjective morals, since my prior post clearly says, "but you should understand that we both hold subjective moral views of what good and evil are."

I GET that we both have subjective views. But if you claim no moral claims are self-evident, than why did nearly every atheist in this forum eventually put on my rape thread, "C'mon. EVERYONE KNOWS rape is wrong . . . it just IS wrong . . . I feel it's wrong."

So, let's go there. To YOU, does rape feel or seem wrong or do you not care when people are raped but the facts of the necessity of ethics to uphold a civilization are evident.

If you say you don't feel certain morals are correct, I call baloney. I feel Jesus is real.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You are still evading Jonathan’s question, of where you getting this imaginary number “1948” from the bible.

Where are the relevant passage(s) that indicates the year “1948”?

The passages are here: Prophecy Fulfilled: Israel Becomes A Nation In 1948

 

[Phantasman]

Even Voodoo is explained when investigate thoroughly. But I am glad to hear that you do not believe the obvious myths of the Bible. Yes, there could be a valid lesson to be learned from the myths of Genesis. I frequently point out that not all Christians, in fact probably most, do not deny reality in that way. The literalists will claim that you are not a "true Christian", an accusation I would never make.

And though there probably was a real person named Jesus, though I believe that the miraculous stories about him are on the order of Abraham Lincoln Vampire Slayer. No one doubts that Lincoln existed. I doubt if very many at all take the movie seriously.

I have learned through my own experiences that the teachings of Jesus were spiritual and not physical. Yet many try to compare the two in a way that misleads the intent. It's not about the man Jesus. People are stuck on physical crosses without understanding what the word "cross" means.

John 6:
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
John 8:,
Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.

Orthodoxy fell back into the same way of thinking as the Jews. Using physical fleshly understanding over spiritual. If you read the Gospels of Thomas, Philip, Truth, Mary etc. at no time is the man Jesus lifted above his words. It doesn't talk of where he was, that he stood, sat, walked, being nailed to a cross, etc. He came to bring knowledge of spiritual truth. From the Spirit itself. A revealing man never had.

The whole concept of Christianity is the definition of death. Though the body dies, the mind continues to live. This is the sword (difference between physical and spiritual) that Jesus taught. The words are a seed. They grow or they don't (in the mind). The proof is in the experiences, not seen by eyes but in the mind of those who sought them. What you see with your eyes, ears is the god of flesh, who created it to follow him. Just as the flesh is not perfect, neither is he who created it. They are death. The Spirit is (true) life. At least from my perspective.

Could I be wrong? Maybe. But if God doesn't exist. I'd never know when death takes me. But if the words are true, even possible, I'd hate to miss out.

It's a choice.

 

[Phantasman]

I once had a lump in my breast that I thought could be cancerous. When I presented it to the doctor, she felt it too. The lump has since disappeared. I did not pray for the lump to disappear; it disappeared all on its own. What do you make of that in light of your above comments?

An MRI is different. It can detect and present information much more reliably than touching. At $1500 per use.

If your doctor had any doubts about what she felt, she would have scheduled a mammogram/MRI. Since she didn't my guess is she didn't see a red flag in the first place. She knew it was probably a fibroid tumor, which can recede (especially if you restrict coffee intake). Our diagnosis pointed to something that needed surgery as soon as possible.

Just a guess.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't mind your lecturing me, but I do mind when your lecture gets the facts incorrect. For example, subjective morals, since my prior post clearly says, "but you should understand that we both hold subjective moral views of what good and evil are."

I GET that we both have subjective views. But if you claim no moral claims are self-evident, than why did nearly every atheist in this forum eventually put on my rape thread, "C'mon. EVERYONE KNOWS rape is wrong . . . it just IS wrong . . . I feel it's wrong."

So, let's go there. To YOU, does rape feel or seem wrong or do you not care when people are raped but the facts of the necessity of ethics to uphold a civilization are evident.

If you say you don't feel certain morals are correct, I call baloney. I feel Jesus is real.

What did I get wrong? Quoting the failed argument of "Prager University" does you no good. Your morals are just as subjective as mine are.

I can explain to you why rape is wrong, but first you need to substantiate your claim that your morals are objective. How would you prove that your morals are objective? I know why they are subjective.

 

[Subduction Zone]

An MRI is different. It can detect and present information much more reliably than touching. At $1500 per use.

If your doctor had any doubts about what she felt, she would have scheduled a mammogram/MRI. Since she didn't my guess is she didn't see a red flag in the first place. She knew it was probably a fibroid tumor, which can recede (especially if you restrict coffee intake). Our diagnosis pointed to something that needed surgery as soon as possible.

Just a guess.

And you don't think the same might not have been the case for your wife? For women, since there is a greater chance of breast cancer than there is for men, lumps are taken much more seriously. But just because one has a lump does not mean that one has cancer.

 

[Audie]

I don't mind your lecturing me, but I do mind when your lecture gets the facts incorrect. For example, subjective morals, since my prior post clearly says, "but you should understand that we both hold subjective moral views of what good and evil are."

I GET that we both have subjective views. But if you claim no moral claims are self-evident, than why did nearly every atheist in this forum eventually put on my rape thread, "C'mon. EVERYONE KNOWS rape is wrong . . . it just IS wrong . . . I feel it's wrong."

So, let's go there. To YOU, does rape feel or seem wrong or do you not care when people are raped but the facts of the necessity of ethics to uphold a civilization are evident.

If you say you don't feel certain morals are correct, I call baloney. I feel Jesus is real.

You have it kind of backwards.

It is not rape unless it is wrong. It isnt "wrong" because it is "rape". That is self evident to any woman.

 

[Phantasman]

The passages are here: Prophecy Fulfilled: Israel Becomes A Nation In 1948

Prophesies are always used by truth benders when they figure them out in hind sight. No different than Nostradamus. Prophesy doesn't imply an exact (like time), but a leading up to.

End times zealots have always been with us.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have learned through my own experiences that the teachings of Jesus were spiritual and not physical. Yet many try to compare the two in a way that misleads the intent. It's not about the man Jesus. People are stuck on physical crosses without understanding what the word "cross" means.

John 6:
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
John 8:,
Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.

Orthodoxy fell back into the same way of thinking as the Jews. Using physical fleshly understanding over spiritual. If you read the Gospels of Thomas, Philip, Truth, Mary etc. at no time is the man Jesus lifted above his words. It doesn't talk of where he was, that he stood, sat, walked, being nailed to a cross, etc. He came to bring knowledge of spiritual truth. From the Spirit itself. A revealing man never had.

The whole concept of Christianity is the definition of death. Though the body dies, the mind continues to live. This is the sword (difference between physical and spiritual) that Jesus taught. The words are a seed. They grow or they don't (in the mind). The proof is in the experiences, not seen by eyes but in the mind of those who sought them. What you see with your eyes, ears is the god of flesh, who created it to follow him. Just as the flesh is not perfect, neither is he who created it. They are death. The Spirit is (true) life. At least from my perspective.

Could I be wrong? Maybe. But if God doesn't exist. I'd never know when death takes me. But if the words are true, even possible, I'd hate to miss out.

It's a choice.

Sorry, but it is an irrational choice. When one reasons rationally there is no choice in belief. By admitting it is a "choice" you admit that your belief is irrational. No matter how hard I try to believe I cannot make myself believe that I can fly by merely flapping my arms. There is no choice for me since I tend to (I am sure I err at times) reason rationally.

Once again, it appears that all that you have is confirmation bias. If it makes you happy that is fine, but please don't try to claim that your choice is a rational one. If heaven is the deciding factor then why not go the Pastafarian route? Their God does not require or encourage people to be sycophants.

 

[Audie]

I have learned through my own experiences that the teachings of Jesus were spiritual and not physical. Yet many try to compare the two in a way that misleads the intent. It's not about the man Jesus. People are stuck on physical crosses without understanding what the word "cross" means.

John 6:
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
John 8:,
Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.

Orthodoxy fell back into the same way of thinking as the Jews. Using physical fleshly understanding over spiritual. If you read the Gospels of Thomas, Philip, Truth, Mary etc. at no time is the man Jesus lifted above his words. It doesn't talk of where he was, that he stood, sat, walked, being nailed to a cross, etc. He came to bring knowledge of spiritual truth. From the Spirit itself. A revealing man never had.

The whole concept of Christianity is the definition of death. Though the body dies, the mind continues to live. This is the sword (difference between physical and spiritual) that Jesus taught. The words are a seed. They grow or they don't (in the mind). The proof is in the experiences, not seen by eyes but in the mind of those who sought them. What you see with your eyes, ears is the god of flesh, who created it to follow him. Just as the flesh is not perfect, neither is he who created it. They are death. The Spirit is (true) life. At least from my perspective.

Could I be wrong? Maybe. But if God doesn't exist. I'd never know when death takes me. But if the words are true, even possible, I'd hate to miss out.

It's a choice.

Tsk. Pascal's wager, yet again.

Do you feel I should cover my hair in public, lest Islam
t urn out to be "it" and i get hung by my hair in eternal fire coz I wagered wrong?

Like, I'd hate to miss out and all.

 

[SkepticThinker]

An MRI is different. It can detect and present information much more reliably than touching. At $1500 per use.

If your doctor had any doubts about what she felt, she would have scheduled a mammogram/MRI. Since she didn't my guess is she didn't see a red flag in the first place. She knew it was probably a fibroid tumor, which can recede (especially if you restrict coffee intake). Our diagnosis pointed to something that needed surgery as soon as possible.

Just a guess.

I did have an MRI. And an ultrasound. I saw the lump myself. It went away on its own, with no prayers required.

My lump went away on its own. Your wife's went away after you prayed; I.e. It went away on its own. You simply attributed that fact to prayer. Yet, apparently, lumps can and do go away on their own. So how do we know the prayers are what made the lump disappear?

 

[Phantasman]

And you don't think the same might not have been the case for your wife? For women, since there is a greater chance of breast cancer than there is for men, lumps are taken much more seriously. But just because one has a lump does not mean that one has cancer.

True. I am not advocating God removing a lump. Many women get lumps and have mastectomies, or die. My wife's alarmed state disappeared. When you pray and the result occurs, it's a choice. Believe it was it was beneficial or not. I can't go back to find out what would have happened if we didn't pray or have faith.

So next time something like this comes up, should I not pray to test a theory? Or pray in hopes the same result happens? A no brainer for me. If enough things just happen with no logical explanations, it give the mind a sense of something beyond what's normal for others. To question it is foolish if it continues in your favor.

 

[Phantasman]

Tsk. Pascal's wager, yet again.

Do you feel I should cover my hair in public, lest Islam
t urn out to be "it" and i get hung by my hair in eternal fire coz I wagered wrong?

Like, I'd hate to miss out and all.

Doesn't matter to me what you do.

 

[ChristineM]

I tried to point this out before, but my point was ignored.

Im sure he will ignore me and throw in a straw man or two or misquote me again... Its what he does

 

[Audie]

Doesn't matter to me what you do.

Do you always miss the point as a matter of policy, or what? Dont like where it is going, if you acknowledge what I said?

 

[Audie]

True. I am not advocating God removing a lump. Many women get lumps and have mastectomies, or die. My wife's alarmed state disappeared. When you pray and the result occurs, it's a choice. Believe it was it was beneficial or not. I can't go back to find out what would have happened if we didn't pray or have faith.

So next time something like this comes up, should I not pray to test a theory? Or pray in hopes the same result happens? A no brainer for me. If enough things just happen with no logical explanations, it give the mind a sense of something beyond what's normal for others. To question it is foolish if it continues in your favor.

should I not pray to test a theory?

Why do you ask? Like we gives a flyin' patootie what ya do?