The Pinnacle of Evolution

[bhsmte]

This is simply not true and it makes me very said that you would accuse me in this way.

It is, what it is.

 

[Hoghead1]

This is simply not true and it makes me very said that you would accuse me in this way.
Is that your purpose and intent to accuse me and to hurt me like this?

I hate ot say it, but he's right. You have presented absolutely no scientific evidence.

 

[Hoghead1]

I have presented you with a lot of evidence. Rock solid scientific evidence that shows the Bible is accurate and true. It is beyond me to understand why you would claim otherwise.

Well, again, I hate to say it, but it is not beyond me as to why he said what he did. You have not presented one shred of scierntific evidence.

 

[Hoghead1]

Jesus tells us in the sermon on the Mount: "For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/guzik/commentaries/4007.htm

So I ask you again: If this is what you believe, why do you sit in judgment of others here, condemning them to Hell because they don't share your views on Scripture?

 

[Hoghead1]

How would you know they were an alcoholic if they did not tell you. We had this issue with one of my sisters husbands. One day we came to the realization that he was always drinking. It just never occurred to us that he always had a beer in his hand. Then we all compared notes and we all came to realize that no one had ever seen him when he did not have a beer in his hand. No one ever accused him, at least not until after the divorce and then everyone is accusing everyone when there is a divorce in the equation.

Oh. c'mon. That's not a good example at all. Most alcoholics refuse to admit they are alcoholics. They are said to be in a state of "denial." Even in treatment, they will sometimes deny they are alcoholics. Many enter treatment only after they have been in some huge episode, an intervention or trouble with the laws, etc. You at the TV shows on intervention; they well represent the reality of addiction. I should know, I was working as a licensed substance-abuse counselor.

 

[StanJ]

It is, what it is.

That's right, it is what it is, not what you say it is.

 

[Hoghead1]

I do not judge people. I talk about anti theists and agnostics in general but I do not judge individuals. It is against the rules to judge people or to make the discussion personal. WE are to discuss the subject, not each other.

In your posts, you have cast aspersion on the character of anyone, fellow Christian or otherwise, who does not agree with you. You may not be aware of that, but that is something you have been doing.

 

[Hoghead1]

That's right, it is what it is, not what you say it is.

True, and that holds also for you, too.

 

[Hoghead1]

There is human faith and there is God's Divine Faith. Human faith is very big in sports. It can even get to the point of fanaticism. Doctors talk about the power of suggestion and science talks about the power of positive thinking. There are people like Zig Ziggler that make a full time job out of teaching people the benefits of positive thinking and having the right mental attitude. Then of course you have the placebo effect which has been proven to be true many, many, many times. In order to market a drug in American you have to out perform the placebo effect with is a form of having faith in a pill. How much more if we have faith in God. That is why doctors do what they can do to help who they can help and pastors do what they can do to help people. As a general rule pastors and doctors do not get in each others way. Having faith in God is going to get better results then a placebo faith in a sugar pill. Even if your faith in God could not out perform the placebo effect there is still a proven benefit in the power of suggestion and the power of positive thinking.

What is dangerous for anti theists is that they have to suppress a belief in evidence that points toward God. I think that is why people like Gould dies early from cancer. That sort of inner conflict and a suppression of the truth can tend to put the body in conflict and that can weaken the immunity system and leave the body open to disease. There are several theories as to why Christians live a longer life. Still the fact remains that they do live longer healthier lives.

You are overlooking that faith in God can also be very fanatical as well. Are you suggesting we should throw out all medicine and just pray to God to heal us?

 

[Hoghead1]

That door swings both ways. Until you can prove that God is NOT a part of everything then we an only assume that He could be. Actually science leans toward the belief that there are many proven benefits to believing in God. Longer life for example. Along with a happier more healthy life in general. Even atheists and agnostics tend to believe in the benefits of Christianity and religion in general. They believe in the advantage to following the moral codes if if they claim they do not believe in the God that gave us that code.

You need to follow the suggestion of another member here and rad up on Russell's tea pot, which will show you the fallacy of your argument. How would you like it and respond if I said there is a tea pot orbiting the sun and that I am definitely right about this simply because you can't prove me wrong?
However, a workable argument can be made here, but that would require using a modification of Anselm's ontological argument.

 

[Hoghead1]

As I said because you don't understand faith it doesn't matter what I tell you you still won't agree with it. Don't think I haven't been down this road before with many people of your ilk.

Did it ever occur to you he might have been down the path many times with person of your ilk?

 

[Gene2memE]

This thread appears to have entered the pre-suppositional apologetics death spiral. Burdens of proof are attempting to be shifted and claims are being made without justification. When their validity is challenged, the refrain is that the claim itself is the justification.

Phrases like these are telling:
"That's a reality whether you accept it or reject it."
"The evidence happened 2000 years ago when Jesus died on the cross. It's all the evidence I need, it's all the evidence anybody needs, if they're really looking for evidence."
"I wouldn't know. I have faith."
"Prove you don't have one."

I'm reminded of a passage from Daniel Dennett:

The philosopher Ronaldo de Souza once memorably described philosophical theology as "intellectual tennis without a net," and I readily allow that I have indeed been assuming without comment or question up to now that the net of rational judgement was up. But we can lower it if you really want to.

It's your serve.

Whatever you serve, suppose I return service rudely as follows: "What you say implies that God is a ham sandwich wrapped in tin foil. That's not much of a God to worship!". If you then volley back, demanding to know how I can logically justify my claim that your serve has such a preposterous implication, I will reply: "oh, do you want the net up for my returns, but not for your serves?

Either way the net stays up, or it stays down. If the net is down there are no rules and anybody can say anything, a mug's game if there ever was one. I have been giving you the benefit of the assumption that you would not waste your own time or mine by playing with the net down.”
​

The net is not only down, but I think that the players are no longer engaged in the same game.

 

[Hoghead1]

This thread appears to have entered the pre-suppositional apologetics death spiral. Burdens of proof are attempting to be shifted and claims are being made without justification. When their validity is challenged, the refrain is that the claim itself is the justification.

Phrases like these are telling:
"That's a reality whether you accept it or reject it."
"The evidence happened 2000 years ago when Jesus died on the cross. It's all the evidence I need, it's all the evidence anybody needs, if they're really looking for evidence."
"I wouldn't know. I have faith."
"Prove you don't have one."

I'm reminded of a passage from Daniel Dennett:

The philosopher Ronaldo de Souza once memorably described philosophical theology as "intellectual tennis without a net," and I readily allow that I have indeed been assuming without comment or question up to now that the net of rational judgement was up. But we can lower it if you really want to.

It's your serve.

Whatever you serve, suppose I return service rudely as follows: "What you say implies that God is a ham sandwich wrapped in tin foil. That's not much of a God to worship!". If you then volley back, demanding to know how I can logically justify my claim that your serve has such a preposterous implication, I will reply: "oh, do you want the net up for my returns, but not for your serves?

Either way the net stays up, or it stays down. If the net is down there are no rules and anybody can say anything, a mug's game if there ever was one. I have been giving you the benefit of the assumption that you would not waste your own time or mine by playing with the net down.”
​

The net is not only down, but I think that the players are no longer engaged in the same game.

Quite right. This discussion is no where near a true theological discussion. Too many are arguing on the basis of their faith, which they take to be beyond question. In a true theological discussion, you need to present solid arguments.

 

[StanJ]

This thread appears to have entered the pre-suppositional apologetics death spiral. Burdens of proof are attempting to be shifted and claims are being made without justification. When their validity is challenged, the refrain is that the claim itself is the justification.

Phrases like these are telling:
"That's a reality whether you accept it or reject it."
"The evidence happened 2000 years ago when Jesus died on the cross. It's all the evidence I need, it's all the evidence anybody needs, if they're really looking for evidence."
"I wouldn't know. I have faith."
"Prove you don't have one."

I'm reminded of a passage from Daniel Dennett:

The philosopher Ronaldo de Souza once memorably described philosophical theology as "intellectual tennis without a net," and I readily allow that I have indeed been assuming without comment or question up to now that the net of rational judgement was up. But we can lower it if you really want to.

It's your serve.

Whatever you serve, suppose I return service rudely as follows: "What you say implies that God is a ham sandwich wrapped in tin foil. That's not much of a God to worship!". If you then volley back, demanding to know how I can logically justify my claim that your serve has such a preposterous implication, I will reply: "oh, do you want the net up for my returns, but not for your serves?

Either way the net stays up, or it stays down. If the net is down there are no rules and anybody can say anything, a mug's game if there ever was one. I have been giving you the benefit of the assumption that you would not waste your own time or mine by playing with the net down.”
​

The net is not only down, but I think that the players are no longer engaged in the same game.

Right back atcha pal!

 

[joshua 1 9]

It is, what it is.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Quite right. This discussion is no where near a true theological discussion. Too many are arguing on the basis of their faith, which they take to be beyond question. In a true theological discussion, you need to present solid arguments.

Because we have more evidence based faith then science based evidence. There is more then a riddle wrapped in an enigma. There is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, in side an enigma; but perhaps there is a key.

 

[bhsmte]

Yes, you are what you are, no question.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Too many are arguing on the basis of their faith, which they take to be beyond question.

Because we have more faith based evidence then we do science based evidence.

 

[bhsmte]

Because we have more faith based evidence then we do science based evidence.

We all know how science based evidence is verified. What about faith based evidence? How do you verify faith based evidence?

 

[joshua 1 9]

We all know how science based evidence is verified. What about faith based evidence? How do you verify faith based evidence?

This is actually a valid discussion because there have been studies. For example they have studies to see if prayer is effective for people with health issues. The results have been rather mixed. What I have been trying to explain is you have to understand the Bible so you know just what you are trying to verify. WE have a covenant relationship with God. If we do our part of the convent then we know that God will do His part. They have books about the promises of God. There is a web site that has a promise for every day of the year.

Promise #143: I will rescue the godly from all their troubles.

Here is a promise that tells us if we are "godly" God will rescue us from ALL of our troubles. So we need to learn what it means and how we can be "godly". That may take some effort on our part to be "godly" but we know that he will reward us and rescue us from all of our troubles. As a Christian it is nice to know that no matter what our trouble are God is alway ready, willing and able to rescue us. For me it is nice to read through all of the many promises of God.

http://www.365promises.com/