The Two Extremes

[Mavros]

Oh, of course it's active belief. You believe God is not there, and then act upon that decision accordingly. You may not worship in a church, you may not worship God, and atheism is definitely not a "religion" in that sense, but it IS an active belief in the sense that we can make the decision based on our belief.

Wrong i dont "believe there is no god", i just dont believe there is god. Atheism is lack of belief, therefor its not active beliefe like you try show it

I would say that there is plenty of evidence that God is there, but if you confine yourself to the rigours of pure materialism you'll miss these things-such as, the evidence of changed lives, miraculous events (skeptical as many people are, I believe them-and I myself am a scientist incidentally-a biochemist, going into my third year of University this year!) etc. You mean to say zero empirical evidence.

Really? Plenty of evidence god is there? Can you give any? Lives can change without god, for example i stopped smoke after reliase its bad for healthy, god have nothing to do with it

Can you give any examples about "miraculaous events".

Empirical evidence is only way support your belief, anything else dont worth believing. I am not that blind faith type person so jes i need evidence

I'm not forcing you to believe. God gave us free will and choice; therefore if He won't force you, neither will I or can I. I'll present the Gospel, yet, your decision is what is matters in then end, and I'll respect that, as will God. But remember causality and effect.

I actually was cristian once, my parents are very religious and we visit church alot. But religions are too irrationals and without any evidence for me to believe them

Sorry buddy, I couldn't understand what you meant by the last part. Can you retype it or rephrase it, and then I can give you an answer?

What i sad is we cant prove something dont exists. For example can you try show me that Flying Spaghetti Monster dont exists? Or that your religion is the right one?

 

[Nitron]

There seems to be a lot of threads where two extremes try to battle it out - the atheists on one side, the YECists on the other. Sure, sometimes an agnostic or a less conservative poster will wander into the threads and post - but that's not the meat of what happens in this forum.

So I ask: what do you all think of theistic evolution, that is, that the universe was created as science theorizes it has, that evolution as taken place as science has proven it has, and that the entire process was guided by a Creator, something which as been neither proven or disproven by science.

Anyone up for a cordial discussion? (must provide own cordial )

I have no problem with theistic evolution, but I find the evidence for Christianity lacking.

 

[Atheuz]

God created this universe 6100 years ago, with age embedded in it.

It is physically [insert any number here]-years-old.

But it has only been around for 6100 years.

Example: Adam was created as an adult --- so were the plants and animals.

So now he's a deceitful god that plants evidence and openly lies to us about science?

Another example of your so-called perfect God being not-so perfect.

 

[omarrocks]

Wrong i dont "believe there is no god", i just dont believe there is god. Atheism is lack of belief, therefor its not active beliefe like you try show it



Really? Plenty of evidence god is there? Can you give any? Lives can change without god, for example i stopped smoke after reliase its bad for healthy, god have nothing to do with it

Can you give any examples about "miraculaous events".

Empirical evidence is only way support your belief, anything else dont worth believing. I am not that blind faith type person so jes i need evidence




I actually was cristian once, my parents are very religious and we visit church alot. But religions are too irrationals and without any evidence for me to believe them



What i sad is we cant prove something dont exists. For example can you try show me that Flying Spaghetti Monster dont exists? Or that your religion is the right one?

To the first part, what? You say tomayto I say tomarto (sorry, I couldn't manage that over a computer without phonetically spelling it out).

A lack of belief? Come on mate, that doesn't change the fact that you believe God is not there-that's what atheism is-a lack of belief in a God/a god-you believe hat there are no gods/God.

You have said the same thing in two different ways-it doesn't negate the fact that you believe there's no God. You said it yourself-"I just don't believe there is God".

2-I gave two such examples, and it is useful to note that I meant them to be totally out of empirical reach. However, given that God can work through what is material and physical and intervene, healings (although highly contested) are examples of God's intervention. You can check the Internet for such examples, yet I would ask you to beware of opinions on BOTH sides of the polemic. Both have received huge criticism.

3/4-A lot of parts of religions are irrational, yet, God doesn't always work on a level that might be considered "rational". You know the saying-"God moves in mysterious ways". That's good that you have some knowledge of church environments. Yet, for Christianity, the most convincing argument asides from the relationship I have with God was the historicity of the Resurrection, which is what the crux of Christianity is. It seemed inescapable, and served to strengthen me. If you are looking for proof of Christianity's truth, then the best place to start would be the secular and non-secular evidences of His (Jesus') life and teachings.

As for the empirical evidence and that's all you need-that cannot be absolute as you say it. Many people accept "ensoulment", and talk about the "human spirit" and "love". People have no empirical evidences for these phenomena, yet no-one I know will deny their existence. Do you catch my drift?

You can prove something doesn't exist empirically, again. For example, I can empirically prove there is no such thing as quartium-a hydrogen atom with one more neutron than tritium and two more neutrons than deuterium.

5-Haha! The Church Of The Flying Spaghetti Monster-I found it quite amusing. Yet, it is obviously a fabrication and a satire, but excluding that, does anyone claim that said Spaghetti Monster speaks to them, guides them, and shows his tangible presence to them? Did he come to Earth and claim to be God or a god?

Blessings buddy, and love in Christ. Thanks for your reply.

Omar

 

[omarrocks]

I have no problem with theistic evolution, but I find the evidence for Christianity lacking.

Heya bro! How's you?

It depends which evidences you mean. The theological, logical, archeological and historical or is it otherwise?

Blessings and love.

Omar

 

[Mavros]

A lack of belief? Come on mate, that doesn't change the fact that you believe God is not there-that's what atheism is-a lack of belief in a God/a god-you believe hat there are no gods/God.

Lack of belief is reason why i am atheist, i dont actively believe/say i believe there is no god, what i say i dont believe there is god. If you dont understand difference its your problem, check this thread http://www.christianforums.com/t5592508-atheism-is-religion.html

You have said the same thing in two different ways-it doesn't negate the fact that you believe there's no God. You said it yourself-"I just don't believe there is God".

No i didnt say same thing, one was actually active belief and second was passive. Since i dont "believe there is no god", belief have nothing to do with what i think about god.

2-I gave two such examples, and it is useful to note that I meant them to be totally out of empirical reach. However, given that God can work through what is material and physical and intervene, healings (although highly contested) are examples of God's intervention. You can check the Internet for such examples, yet I would ask you to beware of opinions on BOTH sides of the polemic. Both have received huge criticism.

You have 0 evidence to back up your claims, we have same amount evidence for cristian god as we have any other religion

3/4-A lot of parts of religions are irrational, yet, God doesn't always work on a level that might be considered "rational". You know the saying-"God moves in mysterious ways". That's good that you have some knowledge of church environments. Yet, for Christianity, the most convincing argument asides from the relationship I have with God was the historicity of the Resurrection, which is what the crux of Christianity is. It seemed inescapable, and served to strengthen me. If you are looking for proof of Christianity's truth, then the best place to start would be the secular and non-secular evidences of His (Jesus') life and teachings.

I am not atheist because god work in irrational way, i am atheist because bible cant be taken literally and is from my point of view irrational, we have 0 evidence for any god existence

As for the empirical evidence and that's all you need-that cannot be absolute as you say it. Many people accept "ensoulment", and talk about the "human spirit" and "love". People have no empirical evidences for these phenomena, yet no-one I know will deny their existence. Do you catch my drift?

Where did i say that i believe in human spirit or ensoulment? We have 0 evidence that they exists either. And love is just illusion in our brain

You can prove something doesn't exist empirically, again. For example, I can empirically prove there is no such thing as quartium-a hydrogen atom with one more neutron than tritium and two more neutrons than deuterium.

What that have anything to do with god or any other creature? Can you prove pink unicorns dont exists?

5-Haha! The Church Of The Flying Spaghetti Monster-I found it quite amusing. Yet, it is obviously a fabrication and a satire, but excluding that, does anyone claim that said Spaghetti Monster speaks to them, guides them, and shows his tangible presence to them? Did he come to Earth and claim to be God or a god?

My every day life is very affected by his holy noodliness, how you dare say he dont exists? Dare to show any evidence !???



Believe your noodly master and you will be saved! Thanks for your reply.

Mavros

 

[MrGoodBytes]

God created this universe 6100 years ago, with age embedded in it.

It is physically [insert any number here]-years-old.

But it has only been around for 6100 years.

Example: Adam was created as an adult --- so were the plants and animals.

Wow, you're doing it again.

If God creates a human being with the mind and body of a 30-year old adult right now, this human being is 0 years old.

 

[omarrocks]

Lack of belief is reason why i am atheist, i dont actively believe/say i believe there is no god, what i say i dont believe there is god. If you dont understand difference its your problem, check this thread http://www.christianforums.com/t5592508-atheism-is-religion.html



No i didnt say same thing, one was actually active belief and second was passive. Since i dont "believe there is no god", belief have nothing to do with what i think about god.



You have 0 evidence to back up your claims, we have same amount evidence for cristian god as we have any other religion



I am not atheist because god work in irrational way, i am atheist because bible cant be taken literally and is from my point of view irrational, we have 0 evidence for any god existence



Where did i say that i believe in human spirit or ensoulment? We have 0 evidence that they exists either. And love is just illusion in our brain



What that have anything to do with god or any other creature? Can you prove pink unicorns dont exists?



My every day life is very affected by his holy noodliness, how you dare say he dont exists? Dare to show any evidence !???



Believe your noodly master and you will be saved! Thanks for your reply.

Mavros

I have to go home now bro (I am in my laboratory office), but rest assured, I will give you some answers.

Blessings bro, and thanks for the reply.

Omar

 

[Loudmouth]

There seems to be a lot of threads where two extremes try to battle it out - the atheists on one side, the YECists on the other. Sure, sometimes an agnostic or a less conservative poster will wander into the threads and post - but that's not the meat of what happens in this forum.

So I ask: what do you all think of theistic evolution, that is, that the universe was created as science theorizes it has, that evolution as taken place as science has proven it has, and that the entire process was guided by a Creator, something which as been neither proven or disproven by science.

Anyone up for a cordial discussion? (must provide own cordial )

I think the lottery is a good example to work from. I have heard some lottery winners claim that their winnings are a blessing from God. However, there is nothing empirical of scientific about their this claim. In fact, it is tacitly implied that the lottery winner believes they have been blessed by God through faith. I have no problem with that.

In much the same way, a theistic evolutionist who believes that evolution was guided by God like lottery balls is living by their faith. I have no problem with this idea or belief. The problem occurs when evidence is ignored or thrown out because of faith. Faith, in my opinion, deals with things that are unevidenced or untestable. When faith is used to deny evidence and things that are testable then it is no longer faith, IMHO. At this point it becomes dogma, not faith.

As an atheist I have absolutely no problem with theistic evolution. It is not a scientific stance, nor does it stand against science. Like another poster above mentioned, TE is an add-on that is not required by the data but is inserted because of faith. We can remove the "and it is guided by God" and still do science.

 

[Phred]

Hi, Sally

Evolution required a universe that's millions (billions?) of years to operate --- according to the Bible, this universe has only been in existence for 6100 years.

Evolution leaves a trail of death --- there was no death at Creation.

Evolution says the amount of mass/energy in the universe is a constant --- the Bible says it started out at zero, then rose to its current amount in 6 days.

Evolution has the sun before the plants --- the Bible has the plants before the sun.

Etc.

In other words, the Bible is wrong.

 

[Phred]

Where evidence disagrees with the Bible --- evidence is wrong.

Then how did it get to be evidence? No, the Bible is wrong.

As my pastor says --- and I totally agree --- humans weren't smart enough to write the Bible.

Yet, they did. Funny how that happened. It's a book of stories, nothing amazing.

Was it now? Even though It speaks of the Internet,

It doesn't.

submarine currents,

It doesn't.

the universe expanding,

It doesn't.

hydrology,

It doesn't.

the Laws of Thermodynamics,

It doesn't.

conservation of mass/energy,

It doesn't.

entropy, the nuclear forces, sterilization and advanced medicine, and much more?

It doesn't, It doesn't, It doesn't, It doesn't and It doesn't.

 

[vernee]

Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a joke. No joke. Who even came up with the word joke? The 'K' sounds really hard. Random...
Anyways

2 Peter 1:20,21
20 Above all, you must realize that no prophecy in Scripture ever came from the prophet’s own understanding,[h] 21 or from human initiative. No, those prophets were moved by the Holy Spirit, and they spoke from God.

So yes; the Bible was written by man but the thoughts came from God. My understanding is that the prophets were like scribes.

 

[Phred]

So yes; the Bible was written by man but the thoughts came from God. My understanding is that the prophets were like scribes.

And Mohammed was told by God to write the Koran too. All these claims by men who say that God told them to write something. Men have been around for about one hundred thousand years... and we only hear about the deity that supposedly created us for the last coupla thousand. And only half of us then! I'm sorry, color me not convinced.

 

[AV1611VET]

So now he's a deceitful god that plants evidence and openly lies to us about science?

Another example of your so-called perfect God being not-so perfect.

Either that, or He's honest as the day is long --- admitting to what He did --- in writing.

Do you know the difference between deceit and honesty, Atheuz, or are you just mimicking what you see and hear?

 

[AV1611VET]

Wow, you're doing it again.

If God creates a human being with the mind and body of a 30-year old adult right now, this human being is 0 years old.

Okie-doke, MrGoodBytes.

 

[AV1611VET]

It doesn't.


It doesn't.


It doesn't.


It doesn't.


It doesn't.


It doesn't.


It doesn't, It doesn't, It doesn't, It doesn't and It doesn't.

Alrighty, then --- is this intelligent conversation over?

 

[Mavros]

Alrighty, then --- is this intelligent conversation over?

This was ever intelligent conversation?

-earth isnt 6000 ears old and here is evidence
-oh jes it is! my evidence is bible, noob

intelligent conversation at it best

 

[SallyNow]

This was ever intelligent conversation?

-earth isnt 6000 ears old and here is evidence
-oh jes it is! my evidence is bible, noob

intelligent conversation at it best

I don't know whether to *sigh* or *headdesk*. This was the sort of thing I was trying to avoid... the round-and-round discussion between those who believe that the Earth is 6000 years old because that's what some theologian a few hundred years ago thought the Bible may have implied , and those who both understand and accept science and believe the Bible is just a bunch of random stories. It seems like no matter how many people post with ideas between these two "extremes" they just get ignored, and the discussion goes right back to 6000 years vs. Billions

There is a middle ground, folks, as has been posted in this thread by many posters Those who understand and accept science but who also believe that a creator had a hand in it. There is more common ground between those believe in a purely atheistic sort of creation and those who believe in God but who both understand and accept science.

 

[Mavros]

There is a middle ground, folks, as has been posted in this thread by many posters Those who understand and accept science but who also believe that a creator had a hand in it. There is more common ground between those believe in a purely atheistic sort of creation and those who believe in God but who both understand and accept science.

Actually middle ground would be being agnostic and saying we dont know

 

[RichardT]

And Mohammed was told by God to write the Koran too. All these claims by men who say that God told them to write something. Men have been around for about one hundred thousand years... and we only hear about the deity that supposedly created us for the last coupla thousand. And only half of us then! I'm sorry, color me not convinced.

We only heard of human history for the past 5000 or so years too.