Jump to content

Prophecies about South Africa


Wantbetter

Recommended Posts

Broekies,

I am so flattered that you took the time to check out my personal profile and comment on my age. I fail to see the point? I am so amused by the fact that in the face of my scientific viewpoints you feel that you need to attack me. I am still waiting for you to refute any of my arguments. As usual, when faced with logic and rational thought religious folk will resort to Ad hominem attacks. And just in case you are not aware of what this is (perhaps you were busy in bible ed classes?), let me define it for you, as per Wiki, you know on the internet, the "thingy" that the scientists thought up:

"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject."

Gravity is a theory to, everything is built on scientific knowledge, including the computer that you used to type your drivel on. Actually i as a person cannot evolve, but i am pleased that you get the point that the species is still evolving. Maybe there is some hope for you.

I am so pleased for you that you are serving whoever for however long. By the way dont go swimming - you could get swallowed by a whale!

Thanks for the shiver!

Dont get so worked up allison. After reading your second paragraph (and not further) I came to the conclusion that like Langenhoven said "Hoe groter die woord hoe skraler die gedagte" is very likely here. You can read and understand Afrikaans can you not? I must admit I have to work on my Latin...

Cheers

Ps: I am sitting here enjoying my coffee and breakfast while you are probably sitting in church - who has a lower IQ now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 175
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • AllisonW

    26

  • Alida

    25

  • OZSAFFER

    9

  • Preacher

    7

So many great athiests cried out to God on their death beds when the angel of death comes to take them to their everlasting suffering in hell. Their eyes were filled with fear . . .

While Christians were peacefull lying on their death beds seeing God's angels comming to take them to their eternal life in heaven . . .

The moment you start living, you are dying. And the moment you are dying, you start living . . .

ME AND MY HOUSE WILL SERVE GOD TO OUR DEATH . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So many great athiests cried out to God on their death beds when the angel of death comes to take them to their everlasting suffering in hell. Their eyes were filled with fear . . .

While Christians were peacefull lying on their death beds seeing God's angels comming to take them to their eternal life in heaven . . .

The moment you start living, you are dying. And the moment you are dying, you start living . . .

ME AND MY HOUSE WILL SERVE GOD TO OUR DEATH . . .

Everlasting suffering in hell?

Man oh man. Yet another example of judgemental Christians preaching to the world that if its not their way its fire and brimstone. The utter arrogance of happy clappy wingnuts who have the audacity to condemn people who dont share the same system of belief is something I refuse to tolerate. How dare you? What a wicked evil thing to say!

Your religion is a farce. It has over 600 different sects all vying for recognition as the one true version. Christianity was organised by a Pagan who used it to control the masses under Roman rule. He decided what books were to be included and which were to be excluded. Catholicism was the ONLY version of christianity until the English and French decided that the catholic church had too much power and created different sects. It has nothing to do with the word of God. Its political.

You ignore historical fact and evidence that not only proves how ludicrous the stories of the bible are. Even worse, you place your faith in the texts of a religion that were compiled by Pagans. Your cite "faith" alone as the reason why you believe it. You have "faith" in a bastard religion you hijacked from the Jews, had a pagan determine what it should include and then killed and maimed half the world in its name. The only real christians are the catholics. If you not catholic, you are not a christian. You are no different to a frikken Mormon. Or Jehovahs Witness.

You can keep that crock of :censored:. Stop trying to force it down peoples throats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So many great athiests cried out to God on their death beds when the angel of death comes to take them to their everlasting suffering in hell. Their eyes were filled with fear . . .

While Christians were peacefull lying on their death beds seeing God's angels comming to take them to their eternal life in heaven . . .

The moment you start living, you are dying. And the moment you are dying, you start living . . .

ME AND MY HOUSE WILL SERVE GOD TO OUR DEATH . . .

Liggie:

Who were these athiests? Names? Dates of death? Who saw and recorded the fear in their eyes? Who documented their conversions? Were there reliable witnesses?

Your medieval fire and brimstone stories were developed to scare the peasants into submission and have little influence on my life and my decisions. As usual none of you will engage with me in a discussion on the real valid points that i have put forward. As soon as i raise an issue, you just say: "We should not question, you must have faith!". Read Preacher's historical perspective above. Nobody will respond to anything said. The best we can hope for is that you quote the bible as if it is the TRUTH. Is that your only evidence? If you claim there is a god - the burden of truth is on YOU to show us. This is the basic premise of scientific process. I dont have to prove you wrong - you need to prove yourself right.

What a merry bunch of people you are - angels of death, hell, dying. My, atheist life is so much more positive.

Allison

Edited by AllisonW
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't you guys think it is time for you to stop, step back, and take a deep breath? Come on, why get so personal, just agree to disagree, this is a touchy subject, religion and politics, no two people seem to think the same and rather than just accepting that, they seem to think they have a point to prove. The bitchiness is uncalled for and unnecessary on a public website.

Please play nice and try not to bash each other over the head! Just accept that all people do not feel the same way about religion and politics!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I concur with Mara

The ideas above are excellent material for debate, providing participants:

* observe the rules/techniques of objective debating

* know something when they start tapping a keyboard.

Don't stumble into the pitfall of 'a-half-a-learning', people...

Dax

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I concur with Mara

The ideas above are excellent material for debate, providing participants:

* observe the rules/techniques of objective debating

* know something when they start tapping a keyboard.

Don't stumble into the pitfall of 'a-half-a-learning', people...

Dax

Dax, same dax from The Homecoming revolution?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few interesting articles on

Charles Darwin:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin

Darwin’s religious views:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwi...ews_on_religion

What scientists know about the Universe, how it started, what it is made of…and what they don’t know:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LHC

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/features/pri...icle?page=0%2C0

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=what-e...ly-is-the-higgs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't condemn any one or force anything down any one's throat.

All I'm trying to say is that every human being, in some point of time in his life, will come to realise the truth . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is evidence to support the claims religions make

There is evidence to support the claims evolutionists make

There is evidence to support the claims interventionalists make

There is evidence to support the claims atheists make

In the end it's all about your own feelings or beliefs on the matter and to start saying that someone else is wrong, when none of us can be really sure is Ludicrous. I think it's a personal thing and we will end up arguing in circles.

Edited by Just B
Link to comment
Share on other sites

After some reflection let me say the following:

* I recognise the futility of this argument, in that it is a useless one. I mentioned to another member that i try to avoid discussing my lack of religious beliefs as it is an argument that one cannot win.

* But, as an educated person i have a huge problem with a doctrine that does not allow for questioning and self reflection. I cannot ever make sense of something that i am told to believe in "just because". I need to ask why and struggle to respect people who just believe.

* Just B - i appreciate your reconciliatory tone - but there is one point that i strongly disagree with: There is NO evidence for religion. If there is, i challenge someone to supply me with this evidence.

* Richard Dawkins (Author of the god delusion) highlights that religion cannot have an elevated status where we cannot question it. I do appreciate Mara's point that religion and politics cannot be amicably discussed - but people feel more comfortable commenting on the fallibility of our politicians. When it comes to deities it is another matter all together. Raise an issue and the village are at the gates with their torches and pitchforks.

* I am exceptionally proud of my view of the world as a scientist. Therefore, i felt the need to respond when derogatory comments were made about atheists. Dont dish it out if you cant take it.

* However, as a scientist i am always willing to alter my views should compelling evidence be put before. Therefore i issue a challenge to all Christians on this forum who is in a position to give me hard evidence, to do so. i am all ears.

We must be willing to question - otherwise we would all still think the world is flat

Allison

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And it will go round and round the mulberry bush and in the end NO ONE EVER WINS,

Exert from http://www.allaboutcreation.org/does-god-exist.htm and if you want I have reams from my theosophy studies

as I say there is evidence for it all

Does God Exist – A Scientific Inquiry

Does God Exist? The other day I was asked to prove the existence of God. It was a one-on-one conversation with a skeptical friend, who somehow thrust the burden of proof on me. He didn’t want the religious, moral or philosophical arguments -- He wanted the scientific “proof.â€

Does God Exist – Is a Scientific Approach Possible?

When it comes to the question, “Does God Exist,†there are really only two possible conclusions: God either is, or He isn’t. There’s no half-way. There’s no sliding scale. Whether you’re an atheist or whether you’re a theist, there’s a certain level of knowledge, and there’s a certain level of faith.

I thought for a moment… Can I prove the existence of God -- scientifically? In my religious/moral/philosophical experience, He’s been proven to me. However, my friend hasn’t walked the same journey as me. He wants the facts -- he wants the naturalistic proof for a supernatural reality.

I came to the conclusion that my friend’s question was a fair one. He deserved my best attempt at an answer. So, I gave it a shot…

Does God Exist – A Scientific Examination of the Evidence

God may not be provable through mathematical formulae or properties of physics, but we live in an era where the evidence of an Intelligent Designer is all around us. Just look through the Hubble Telescope and peer to the edge of the massive cosmos. View the monitor of an electron-scanning microscope and delve into the intricate world of a microscopic cell. Try to comprehend the massive library of complex information inherent in the digital code that turns a fertilized egg into a human being. Study principles of quantum mechanics and investigate the world of extra-dimensionality. Review the nature of your conscience, subconscious, standards of morality, and thoughts of religion. Then, try to reconcile all of these realities with a basic theory of randomness and chaos.

Based on what we know today, I truly believe that atheism (not believing in any kind of god) is a much bigger "leap of faith" than theism (believing that some kind of god exists).

I asked my friend, “Have you really thought about some of the evidences for God? Or, are you presupposing a purely naturalistic world, and closing your eyes to some of the possible evidence? If I propose some observational evidence, are you even open to examining it?â€

My friend asked me to go on. So, here’s my attempt at some basic scientific observations that point to God:

• Causation. God provides the best explanation for the existence of the universe and all that's in it. (The alternative theory is that "nothing" exploded and resulted in everything that we see.)

• Order. God provides the best explanation for abstract notions such as numbers, mathematical formulae, chemical-based processes, and natural laws. (The alternative theory is that the chaotic first elements ordered themselves into complex information systems.)

• Design. God provides the best explanation for the absolute complexity inherent in cosmological, stellar, planetary, chemical and biological systems. (The alternative theory is that random chance engineered apparent design.)

• Encoded Instructions. God provides the best explanation for the digital DNA code contained in and controlling the functions of all life on earth. (The alternative theory is that complex code, such as binary code running computers, can pop into existence without any kind of programming, testing and debugging process.)

• Irreducible Complexity. God provides the best explanation for fully functioning biological organisms, systems, and subsystems that couldn’t come about through gradual evolutionary process without totally ceasing to exist at lower, evolutionary levels. (The alternative theory is that biological systems took huge, unseen leaps from simple to complex without any guided process or forward-looking instructions.)

• Duality. God provides the best explanation for the separate human functions of brain and conscience (matter and mind). (The alternative theory is monism -- only matter exists and the human brain only appears to have a separate subconscious ability.)

• Morality. God provides the best explanation for the existence of love, emotion, altruism, and inherent moral/ethical values throughout the world. (The alternative theory is that unguided materialistic processes evolve higher human consciousness.)

Does God Exist – A Scientific Conclusion

When it comes to the question of “Does God Exist,†there are only two scientific worldviews -- Someone/Something did it, or it did itself. Whether it’s the beginning of the cosmos or the beginning of life, the beginning of mankind or the beginning of mind, either Someone/Something is responsible for everything we see or it’s responsible for itself.

“Does God Exist?†Is this really a question for science at all? Actually, it seems this is a matter of forensic science, since we can’t re-create the birth of the universe or the formation of first life in a laboratory. Therefore, we collect the observable evidence in our world and apply our forensic investigation skills to analyze its collective meaning. In the end, we all need to collect and examine the evidence for ourselves. Ultimately, whether couched as scientific inquiry or purely religious/moral/philosophical faith, it’s not a matter for the laboratory. It’s a personal, investigative decision for each and every one of us.

Proof of God - Intelligent Design

What would constitute objective proof of God? Well, consider the following self-evident and universally recognized truth: Concept and design necessitate an intelligent designer. The presence of intelligent design proves the existence of an intelligent designer. It's simply cause and effect. In our search for proof of God's existence, we could examine the various claims of supernatural occurrences, determine whether or not these are legitimate experiences, and build a case for the existence of the supernatural, which would be a step towards identifying a supernatural Creator God. Or we can just apply what we already know and search for signs of intelligent design within creation itself.

We know that design necessitates a designer. In fact, in accordance with this fundamental axiom, design detection methodology is a prerequisite in many fields of human endeavor, including archaeology, anthropology, forensics, criminal jurisprudence, copyright law, patent law, reverse engineering, crypto analysis, random number generation, and SETI. And how do we recognize intelligent design? In general, we find "specified complexity" to be a reliable indicator of the presence of intelligent design. Chance can explain complexity alone but not specification -- a random sequence of letters is complex but not specified (it's meaningless). A Shakespearean sonnet is both complex and specified (it's meaningful). We can't have a Shakespearean sonnet without Shakespeare. (William A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities, 1998.)

Proof of God - Nature

So where's the proof of God's existence? In accordance with our familiar axiom and in light of the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry, genetics and information theory, the proof of God is all around us!

Through the microscope, we observe the E. coli bacterial flagellum. The bacterial flagellum is what propels E. coli bacteria through its microscopic world. It consists of about 40 individual protein parts including a stator, rotor, drive-shaft, U-joint, and propeller. It's a microscopic outboard motor! The individual parts come into focus when magnified 50,000 times (using electron micrographs). And even though these microscopic outboard motors run at an incredible 100,000 rpm, they can stop on a microscopic dime. It takes only a quarter turn for them to stop, shift directions and start spinning 100,000 rpm in the opposite direction! The flagellar motor has two gears (forward and reverse), is water-cooled, and is hardwired into a signal transduction (sensory mechanism) so that it receives feedback from its environment. ("Unlocking the Mystery of Life," video documentary by Illustra Media, 2002.)

When we apply the general principles of detecting specified complexity to biologic systems (living creatures), we find it reasonable to infer the presence intelligent design. Take, for example, the bacterial flagellum's stator, rotor, drive-shaft, U-joint, and propeller. It is not convenient that we've given these parts these names - that's truly their function. If you were to find a stator, rotor, drive-shaft, U-joint, or propeller in any vehicle, machine, toy or model, you would recognize them as the product of an intelligent source. No one would expect an outboard motor -- much less one as incredible as the flagellar motor -- to be the product of a chance assemblage of parts. Motors are the product of intelligent design.

Furthermore, the E. coli bacterial flagellum simply could not have evolved gradually over time. The bacterial flagellum is an "irreducibly complex" system. An irreducibly complex system is one composed of multiple parts, all of which are necessary for the system to function. If you remove any one part, the entire system will fail to function. Every individual part is integral. There is absolutely no naturalistic, gradual, evolutionary explanation for the bacterial flagellum. (Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box, 1996.)

The bacterial flagellum (not to mention the irreducibly complex molecular machines responsible for the flagellum's assembly) is just one example of the specified complexity that pervades the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world." (Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1986, p. 250.)

Proof of God - His Fingerprints are Everywhere

Where is the proof of God? If we're willing to open our eyes, we'll see the fingerprints of God all around us and all throughout us. Our very existence proves the existence of a Creator God.

Just some thoughts, but at the end of the day your opinion is just that "your perception of the truth" we all see what we what to see. I bet if you spoke with someone who had been to Lourdes they would tell of the proof they have.

Edited by Just B
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just B,

Thank you for your well thought out response. I really have no problem with healthy debate and welcome this opportunity. Firstly, i think we need to develop a common language around concepts such as evidence. Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical and properly documented in accordance with scientific method such as is applicable to the particular field of inquiry. Hence, i cannot give the subjective personal experience of someone at lourdes the terms evidence or proof.

In response to your article let me say:

Causation: The currently accepted theory is the Big Bang theory. Up until the moment of the big bang there was no time or space and hence it is impossible for our philsophical paradigm of causation to be valid before this period. If you talk of god causing the universe, what caused god? If god always existed, perhaps the universe always existed.

Design: The scientific community is not convinced, though. They point out that humans did not just appear suddenly in perfect form, but developed over millions of years. Human beings share 99.9% of their DNA with apes. As for the eye: almost all creatures have eyes of varying complexity - some are as simple as a few light-sensitive cells. Thus, it becomes quite realistic that the more complex eyes developed from these basic forms.hysics is now showing that our Universe may actually be one of many such Universes that exist in parallel (called the Multi-Verse), and all vary in the conditions such as Gravity. We may be one of millions of Universes, the vast majority are chaotic. In those chaotic universes, stars and planets never manage to form. Life cannot form either, which would never evolve into any complex enough to ask the question "Why is our universe not perfect?"

It is like someone winning the lottery, then believing that someone must have fixed it for them to win - simply because the odds of winning were so low. Just because the odds of something happening are low, it doesn't mean that it will never happen.

And we don't live in a perfect Universe. Natural disasters occur, killing millions. Human beings go wrong all the time - look at all the illnesses there are. If someone was capable of creating such complexity, why would they not fix relatively small things such as cancer - especially if you believe that the Universe was built solely for us to inhabit. http://www.intelligent-forces.com/intellig...n-criticism.htm

This site goes on to point out that scientists naturally look for evidence against a statement, rather than evidence for it. For example, if you believe in an all-loving God, how do you explain earthquakes or cancer? Why would an all-loving God create these?

The theory of Evolution has been tested over and over again over the past century. While there are some gaps in the theory, it still remains the most likely explanation for the formation and development of life-forms. The scientific process is built around finding weaknesses in an argument, not strengths. A scientist comes up with a hypothesis, then others try to disprove it. This may seem negative at first, but it is a rational and efficient approach to testing theories.

Religion is still mumbo jumbo. the consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science.[13][14][15][16] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science."[17] The US National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have termed it pseudoscience.[18] Others have concurred, and some have called it junk science.[19] (Wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design)

All your arguments only serve to point out challenges with current scientific theories - which most scientists would agree. This is the very premise of science that we are constantly self critical. However, what you have presented is not evidence per se. You have still not in my view presented evidence according to the definition of scientific proof or evidence, that i commenced my discussion with. May i reiterate what science is:

* Consistent

* Parsimonious (sparing in its proposed entities or explanations, see Occam's Razor)

* Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena, and can be used predictively)

* Empirically testable and falsifiable (see Falsifiability)

* Based on multiple observations, often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments

* Correctable and dynamic (modified in the light of observations that do not support it)

* Progressive (refines previous theories)

* Provisional or tentative (is open to experimental checking, and does not assert certainty)

In light of the apparent failure of intelligent design to adhere to scientific standards, in September 2005, 38 Nobel laureates issued a statement saying "Intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent".[168] In October 2005, a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers issued a statement saying "intelligent design is not science" and called on "all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory".[169]

PZ Myers and other critics also say that the intelligent design doctrine does not meet the Daubert Standard,[170] the criteria for scientific evidence mandated by the Supreme Court. The Daubert Standard governs which evidence can be considered scientific in United States federal courts and most state courts. Its four criteria are:

* The theoretical underpinnings of the methods must yield testable predictions by means of which the theory could be falsified.

* The methods should preferably be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

* There should be a known rate of error that can be used in evaluating the results.

* The methods should be generally accepted within the relevant scientific community.

finally i want to point out to you the impossibility proofs, you will find a full outline by Stenger on http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenge...ss/Summary.htm: In essence these scientific thought processes proof why god cannot exist. Please note that i have only listed two. There are many. Please check the attached link.

A Perfect Creator Cannot Exist

1. If God exists, then he is perfect.

1. If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.

1. If a being is perfect, then whatever he creates must be perfect.

1. But the universe is not perfect.

1. Therefore, it is impossible for a perfect being to be the creator of the universe.

1. Hence, it is impossible for God to exist.[5]

The Problem of Evil

1. If God exists, then the attributes of God are consistent with the existence of evil.

1. The attributes of God are not consistent with the existence of evil.

1. Therefore, God does not and cannot exist.[4

In closing thank you for this debate i have enjoyed this engagement immensely and respect your willingness to engage. Your ball?

Allison

Edited by AllisonW
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Atheists' acknowledge God, they must acknowledge sin, and therefore their own sin.... I think they are too scared to. Spending my life, proving something doesn't exist, seems like a mighty waste of time....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dax, same dax from The Homecoming revolution?

No

Dax (from saaustralia)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WOW ALL!!

I have only briefly read some of the comments made in respect of this very sensitive topic. I for one do not believe that anyone or any group of persons on this planet has or ever had the intellectual capacity to debate this topic meaningfully (least of all me).

In saying that however, I am of the opinion that only 2 things need to be considered, based on scientific evidence, balance of probabilities and plain old "common sense"!

It was more probable that evolution did occur - science and tangible evidence support it


It was less probable that Evolution occurred spontaneously - (a bored atom, cell, proton, neutron or whatever the extremely well educated scientists want to call it - all on it's lonesome between time & space with the required intellect, willingness and ability to decide upon, design and construct the universe and everyting in it)


My Conclusion:

It is therefore more probable that some form of Divine Intervention was responsible. Perhaps the very "particle" itself was the cornerstone of divinity!,

which explains why all things in heaven and on earth IS, ARE and ALWAYS will be GOD, why "GOD IS EVERYTHING" and "BROUGHT ABOUT EVERYTING", why "GOD EXISTS IN EVERYTING" and why "GOD IS NOT SUBJECT TO TIME & SPACE" and why "GOD IS THE CREATOR / NO.1 SCIENTIST!"

Then ask yourself!

Would you rather live as if God does exist, only to find out he does not

or

live as if God does not exist, only to find out he does when it's too late!

DON'T YOU GET IT????????

Edited by Nick Vos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) First of all I think this threat has gone of the topic- its supposed to be what people (read= christians) think about the original post which include a prophecy

2) Second this is not suppose to be a threat about 'atheism versus christianity'. Please atheists start your own threat about atheism and evolution somewhere else - you will never convince us christians and it looks like we will never convince you, so lets agree to disagree

Edited by Emille
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Atheists' acknowledge God, they must acknowledge sin, and therefore their own sin.... I think they are too scared to. Spending my life, proving something doesn't exist, seems like a mighty waste of time....

Atheists do not acknowledge god or any other supernatural deity. Furthermore we do not acknowledge that people are born with original sin. I feel that this is a terrible concept. One the other hand i believe that being an atheist has made me more moral. I know that the bucks stops with me and there is no redemption, no magic wand. I am solely responsible for what i inflict upon others. There is no devil made me do - Hansie Cronje style. If i hurt others i can blame nothing and no-one. I was not tempted. I was just dumb, put my foot in my mouth. Furthermore, not believing in life after death means that i make the most of this life. We also do not seek to prove that anything does not exist. This is not the premise of science. As the proposer the onus is upon you to prove that your deity does exist. This is simple scientific method.

Edited by AllisonW
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) First of all I think this threat has gone of the topic- its supposed to be what people (read= christians) think about the original post which include a prophecy

2) Second this is not suppose to be a threat about 'atheism versus christianity'. Please atheists start your own threat about atheism and evolution somewhere else - you will never convince us christians and it looks like we will never convince you, so lets agree to disagree

Emile,

Your point is taken however i would just like to point out two things:

1. No thread upon this forum is off bounds for others to comment, except for the ladies lounge where i believe you are supposed to be a woman.

2. If you trace this arguement you will see that i responded to some scathing remarks about atheists and our beliefs. So what was the plan - that religious people could comment on my world view and I should not be able to defend myself as i was not supposed to be here. All members have the right to comment on threads that they feel affect their lives.

Nick, i dont get your points:

1. The fact that this is a difficult intellectual process does not mean that we should simply not engage, not question, not ask why.

2. Why do you feel that evolution required a trigger - a human form maker ? Justify that proposal. Nobel peace prize laureates have gone to great length to try and theorise on this beginning. They recently recreated the big bang. Some of the GREATEST minds of our time - people who are putting man into space, discovering medical breakthroughs believe in this. They have thought through the process and accept this as the best possible solution. For someone to scratch their head and say : "Doggone! This doesnt make sense to me so it didnt happen!" borders on arrogance.

On a personal level i would always prefer to live my life with absolute integrity of belief. If there is a god one day and i was wrong - well i will just tell him that he did a shocking marketing programme and should consider firing his advertising executive. Anyway maybe the other "hotter" location will be much more fun!

The bottom line is most will not engage with you in a discussion. I do respect Just B for his willingness to engage.

Allison

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Emile,

Your point is taken however i would just like to point out two things:

1. No thread upon this forum is off bounds for others to comment, except for the ladies lounge where i believe you are supposed to be a woman.

2. If you trace this arguement you will see that i responded to some scathing remarks about atheists and our beliefs. So what was the plan - that religious people could comment on my world view and I should not be able to defend myself as i was not supposed to be here. All members have the right to comment on threads that they feel affect their lives.

Nick, i dont get your points:

1. The fact that this is a difficult intellectual process does not mean that we should simply not engage, not question, not ask why.

2. Why do you feel that evolution required a trigger - a human form maker ? Justify that proposal. Nobel peace prize laureates have gone to great length to try and theorise on this beginning. They recently recreated the big bang. Some of the GREATEST minds of our time - people who are putting man into space, discovering medical breakthroughs believe in this. They have thought through the process and accept this as the best possible solution. For someone to scratch their head and say : "Doggone! This doesnt make sense to me so it didnt happen!" borders on arrogance.

On a personal level i would always prefer to live my life with absolute integrity of belief. If there is a god one day and i was wrong - well i will just tell him that he did a shocking marketing programme and should consider firing his advertising executive. Anyway maybe the other "hotter" location will be much more fun!

The bottom line is most will not engage with you in a discussion. I do respect Just B for his willingness to engage.

Allison

As Christians we do not need to try and figure out the riddle of where creation came from. The very Creator of all life, time, space and matter, promptly began His address to us by telling us how it all began. No riddles, no guesses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alida,

I feel a deep sense of sadness at your response. It must be so terrible to be so non questioning, so stunted in your ability to examine your environment. How dis-empowering. I embrace my intellectual freedom. If there is a god, he is probably shaking his head in disbelief right now! Probably turning to Peter and saying: "Prototype 2 - lets work on that cranial capacity. This model seems to have major malfunctions!"

Have a good - if oblivious day.

Allison

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow!

I never thought that my original post asking an opinion about this "prophecy" would draw such fiery and varied responses!

Thank you also for some of you sticking up for me (after the initial attacks for simply asking a question). I appreciate it.

Wantbetter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah Wantbetter, sure opened a can of worms there! Interesting....

Here is a copy of an e-mail I received, and no I haven't researched it to check its factual statements etc, I am posting it here for interest sake, if you are NOT interested, move on.

I believe in God, the Creator, and that is my belief, this is not a personal attack on anyone who believes differently, and I think they are totally unnecessary.

Enjoy.....

'Let me explain the problem science has with religion.' The atheist

professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new

students to stand.

*'You're a Christian, aren't you, son?'*

*'Yes sir,' the student says.*

*'So you believe in God?'

'Absolutely.'

'Is God good?'

'Sure! God's good.'

'Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?'

'Yes'**

'Are you good or evil?'

'The Bible says I'm evil.'

The professor grins knowingly. 'Aha! The Bible!' He considers for a moment.

'Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can

cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?'

'Yes sir, I would.'

'So you're good...!'

'I wouldn't say that.'

'But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if you could.

Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't.'

The student does not answer, so the professor continues. 'He doesn't, does

he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to

Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?'

The student remains silent.

'No, you can't, can you?' the professor says. He takes a sip of water from a

glass on his desk to give the student time to relax.

'Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?'

'Er...yes,' the student says.

'Is Satan good?'

The student doesn't hesitate on this one. 'No.'

'Then where does Satan come from?'

The student falters. 'From God'

'That's right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in

this world?'

'Yes, sir.'

'Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything, correct?'

'Yes'

'So wh o created evil?' The professor continued, 'If God created everything,

then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle

that our works define who we are, then God is evil.'

Again, the student has no answer. 'Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred?

Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?'

The student squirms on his feet. 'Yes.'

'So who created them?'

The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question.

'Who created them?' There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks

away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized. 'Tell me,'

he continues onto another student. 'Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?'

The student's voice betrays him and cracks. 'Yes, professor, I do.'

The old man stops pacing. 'Science says you have five senses you use to

identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?'

'No sir. I've never seen Him.' 'Then tell us if you've ever heard your

Jesus?'

'No, sir, I have not.'

'Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus?

Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that

matter?'

'No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't.'

'Yet you still believe in him?'

'Yes'

'According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol,

science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?'

'Nothing,' the student replies. 'I only have my faith.'

'Yes, faith,' the professor repeats. 'And that is the problem science has

with God. There is no evidence, only faith.'

The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His

own. 'Professor, is there such thing as heat?'

' Yes.

'And is there such a thing as cold?'

'Yes, son, there's cold too.'

'No sir, there isn't.'

The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room

suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain. 'You can have

lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white

heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have anything called 'cold'.

We can hit up to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go

any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would

be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees.'

'Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits

energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy.

Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is

only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold.

Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the

opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.'

Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding

like a hammer.

'What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?'

'Yes,' the professor replies without hesitation. 'What is night if it isn't

darkness?'

'You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of

something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing

light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called

darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word.'

'In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness

darker, wouldn't you?'

The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a

good semester. 'So what point are you making, young man?'

'Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start

with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed.'

The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time. 'Flawed? Can you

explain how?'

'You are working on the premise of duality,' the student explains... 'You

argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God.

You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can

measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought.'

'It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully

understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be

ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death

is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it.'

'Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a

monkey?'

'If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes,

of course I do.'

'Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?'

The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where

the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.

'Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot

even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching

your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?'

The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has

subsided.

'To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me

give you an example of what I mean.'

The student looks around the room. 'Is there anyone in the class who has

ever seen the professor's brain?' The class breaks out into laughter.

'Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the

professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain? No one appears to

have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable,

demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due

respect, sir.'

'So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?'

Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face

unreadable.

Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. 'I guess you'll

have to take them on faith.'

'Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life,'

the student continues. 'Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?'

Now uncertain, the professor responds, 'Of course, there is. We see it

everyday. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in

the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These

manifestations are nothing else but evil.'

To this the student replied, 'Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does

not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like

darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of

God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man

does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes

when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light.'

The professor sat down.

If you read it all the way through and had a smile on your face when you

finished, mail to your friends and family with the title 'God vs Science'

PS: the student was Albert Einstein *

*Albert Einstein did write a book titled God vs Science in 1921...*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eva,

Please dont take offence, but i just wanted to put this story into context. This is an often copied and circulated story and has been disproved. Please see http://www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp for a full description of this incident and why it is not a valid story.

It is vital that we clear up the myth that Einstein was a religious man.

Lesser known (but referenced) quotes include:

"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.

-- Albert Einstein, in a letter responding to philosopher Eric Gutkind, who had sent him a copy of his book Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt; quoted from James Randerson, "Childish Superstition: Einstein's Letter Makes View of Religion Relatively Clear: Scientist's Reply to Sell for up to £8,000, and Stoke Debate over His Beliefs" The Guardian, (13 May 2008)

He also said: "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere.... Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."

-- Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science," New York Times Magazine, 9 November 1930

Einstein has also said:

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

The above quote is from a letter Einstein wrote in English, dated 24 March 1954. It is included in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, and published by Princeton University Press. Also from the same book:

It is vital that the integrity of the arguments / information that one puts forward to defend one's belief is sound.

Kind regards,

Allison

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...