2 edits
Originally posted by scottishinnzSo you are saying that because the material evidence we have today cannot prove there is a God that we people should not be allowed to believe that there is a God?
Because the evidence doesn't support that conclusion.
First of all, what harm comes from it? Specifically, what harm comes from people believing that they serve a God of love such as Christ? I can understand the fear of people serving an unloving God because they would be compelled to act in unloving ways if that were the case. Case in point is the Muslim God Allah. It is their ideology that Allah does not love those who reject him. It then gives those who follow after such a God to possible rationalize harming those who are percieved as having rejected Allah. I suppose an even more concerning god to follow would be Satanists. My guess is that their god is not a god of love in any regard and, therefore, should be of great concern.
Of course you would probably bring up those who have harmed people in the past all in the name of Christ. I would smiply say to read the words of the man they claim to follow and it will be revealed that they are acting on their own impulses rather than following who they claim to be following.
Originally posted by KellyJayDo you have a scientifically rigorous formula that can determine whether something is designed or not? Yes or no.
I don't know why you think that is ironic, if the declaration is that
there is no evidence for design in the universe coupled with no
one can see design that should tell you something. The statement
about no evidence isn't very accurate, the only accurate thing would
be we cannot see it even if it right in front of us, all else is just
statement of belief, because you have nothing to base it on outside
of you desire to not see it.
Kelly
Originally posted by whodeywhy not let those of faith believe that their God is a God of love?
Well as Kelly points out, this is not the spirituality forum. As a matter of fact, I have not posted there in a while because I got tired of people screaming, "Your God eats babies!" It just kinda gets old after a while. I tried explaining my positions over and over again and I guess I just got tired of it.
I will now ask you the same question Ben asked Dawkins which is, why not let those of faith believe that their God is a God of love?
Because many Christians are politically aggressive in an authoritarian way and it pisses me off.
2 edits
Originally posted by whodeyThat's fine. Like you, I rarely post in the Spirituality forum anymore.
Well as Kelly points out, this is not the spirituality forum. As a matter of fact, I have not posted there in a while because I got tired of people screaming, "Your God eats babies!" It just kinda gets old after a while. I tried explaining my positions over and over again and I guess I just got tired of it.
I will now ask you the same question Ben asked Dawkins which is, why not let those of faith believe that their God is a God of love?
If you think that my posts in this thread are just "Your God eats babies!" posts, then you have both missed their point and ironically illustrated their point at the same time. I started them as a response to KJ dismissing the outright lies and distortions of science, and specifically the theory of evolution, by the makers of "Expelled." He claims that these deceptions just show the "two sides" to evolution.
I'm saying that this sort of dismissal could be applied to any gross display of false scholarship or to any heinous slander. Moon landing hoax? Just the other side of astrophysics. President Bush a baby rapist? Just the other side of partisan politics. Holocaust never happened? Just two sides of history. Christianity a religion for pedophiles? Just . . . well you get it. Most of us are honest enough with ourselves to call a spade a spade (at least we try to most of the time). KJ deliberately excuses the dishonest behavior of the makers of "Expelled" only because in this case their dishonesty validates his feelings. I'm calling that dishonest both to us, and as importantly, to KJ himself. This is unfortunately a very common behavior from KJ when discussing anything related to Creation science. False propaganda and lies from Creationists are played-down as mere "opinions." Though he demands all others play by consistent rules of fact and proof.
By creating my own dishonest attack on Christianity*, I have attempted to highlight KJ's double standard. I really have no interest in discussing Spirituality or Christianity beyond the degree to which it facilitates this narrow goal.
* - the very nature of your objections shows that you find them so.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungHey, what does it matter to you? You said no one could figure out
Do you have a scientifically rigorous formula that can determine whether something is designed or not? Yes or no.
design didn't you? If you cannot see it, you cannot see it even if it
is right there in front of you. The whole universe could be a grand
design and you are blind to it, thus no evidence. It isn't that it may
not be there, it is just that you are so completely ill equip to see it.
If you cannot figure out a car is designed by just looking at it I do
doubt that anyone could say anything to you that will make you see
what you do not want to. I guess it is like looking at the color red,
you have to have eyes to see or all you got is an argument on what
the numbers may mean if you look at it with equipment.
To answer your question, no, and if you require one to acknowledge
it, you simply don't want to see it.
Kelly
Originally posted by telerionI have not lied here at any point in time. I have disagreed, I may
That's fine. Like you, I rarely post in the Spirituality forum anymore.
If you think that my posts in this thread are just "Your God eats babies!" posts, then you have both missed their point and ironically illustrated their point at the same time. I started them as a response to KJ dismissing the outright lies and distortions of science, and specifi ...[text shortened]... arrow goal.
* - the very nature of your objections shows that you find them so.
have made mistakes, but never lied. I do not question science either,
but I do question people, and if you think my questioning people is
questioning science I'd say you have as much an issue as people who
think to question them is to question God. So I greatly dislike being
called a liar.
Kelly
Originally posted by telerion"Though he demands all others play by consistent rules of fact and proof."
That's fine. Like you, I rarely post in the Spirituality forum anymore.
If you think that my posts in this thread are just "Your God eats babies!" posts, then you have both missed their point and ironically illustrated their point at the same time. I started them as a response to KJ dismissing the outright lies and distortions of science, and specifi ...[text shortened]... arrow goal.
* - the very nature of your objections shows that you find them so.
Yes I do demand proof or an acknowledgment that what we are talking
about are matters of belief/faith. I do acknowledge what I have is
faith, if you are going to tell me you "KNOW" what occured billions of
years ago, that is a great deal stronger than you "believe this could
have occured" or "do not think that is possible". If you cannot tell the
difference not much can be said to fix that.
Kelly
2 edits
Originally posted by PsychoPawnNo sorry, but was amused nonetheless. 🙂 If we are to call each
As athousand mentioned it was a reference to the movie. I thought you might have gotten it. It was a classic line from an amazing movie.
other names Clarice, Fred, Bob, I should have used Harvey are
much better than liar, and those other types. LOL
I get the connection now.
Kelly