Poland, Keep Crucifixes in Schools

In Between Man

The Biblical Position
Sep 11, 2008
4,597
46
48
44
49° 19' N, 123° 4' W
If I were an all-powerful god I would sure as hell :D design things a lot better

This is truly fascinating. You think you could do a better job that God?!

That's very arrogant first and foremost, and second if the atheist brain is so smart, how come you don't seem to recognize the very limitations of your mind?

You would have to have an *IMMEASURABLE* amount of knowledge in order to design an better universe. Millions of the most basic structures in the universe still elude the most diligent experts.
 

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
192
63
Nakusp, BC
I asked first! Assuming God created this universe why would he NOT care about it and us?
Let me put it this way. The Universe became self aware and that caused the big bang. Everything from there has been evolution. On the microcosmic scale, humans did the same thing, created themselves by becoming self aware. based on the scale of things, we are to the body of the Universe but a Quark on a protron.

Are you aware of every Quark that exists in your body? No. Is the Universe aware of humans (Quarks on a proton called Earth)? No. It is aware of itself and possibly the galaxies that make up its body, like you are aware of the organs that make up your body. Other than that, the Universe (god) is not aware of your or my existence.

God is not a separate entity from the rest of creation. It is creation and we are but an insignificant part of it. That is why our ancestors created gods so they could feel significant. But the gods they created are far too human in nature and subject to all our weaknesses and psychoses. So, fire up a doobie and revel in your own insignificance because nothing has changed but now you are awake.

Most people stop believing in fairy tales a long time ago, usually around their teen years. We are significant to our species and the planet, but their are no gods who think you are. That is why I like native spirituality. It is Earth based and honours life on this planet they call Mother Earth. It is the only place that is significant to us and us to it.
 

Spade

Ace Poster
Nov 18, 2008
12,822
49
48
9
Aether Island
But that's not in seriousness now is it? Let's ask Spade ourselves.

Spade, what would you classify yourself as?

Atheist, agnostic, pagan?
.

Well, my lad, since I subscribe to brotherhood, non violence, forgiveness, and charity, that would make me a Christian.
Now, answer these questions with simple a "yes" or "no." I will accept no equivocation.
1. If a child dies as a non Christian, does he go to "heaven"?
2. If a man lives a good life and is a non Christian, does he go to "heaven"?
3. Is there ever an instance when capital punishment is justified?
4. Is preemptive war justifiable?
 

In Between Man

The Biblical Position
Sep 11, 2008
4,597
46
48
44
49° 19' N, 123° 4' W
Well, my lad, since I subscribe to brotherhood, non violence, forgiveness, and charity, that would make me a Christian.
Now, answer these questions with simple a "yes" or "no." I will accept no equivocation.
1. If a child dies as a non Christian, does he go to "heaven"?
2. If a man lives a good life and is a non Christian, does he go to "heaven"?
3. Is there ever an instance when capital punishment is justified?
4. Is preemptive war justifiable?

Since you refuse to take my question seriously I have no necessity to take yours seriously either.
 

In Between Man

The Biblical Position
Sep 11, 2008
4,597
46
48
44
49° 19' N, 123° 4' W
Let me put it this way. The Universe became self aware and that caused the big bang.

What do you claim "was" before the big bang? Nothing? Or did the universe have its being before it was? Either way, your out of tune with most dedicated, secular scientists and philosophers on this planet. So strong is the evidence that the Universe had a beginning, and therefore a cause anterior and superior to itself, that atheist philosophers through the years who have proposed that the universe came from nothing, or became "self aware", have stood corrected. When examined, the implications of the notion make it far more difficult to understand our existence:

What an atheist or agnostic deems possible for the world to do - come into being without a cause - is something no judicious philosopher would grant that even God could do. It is as formally and rationally impossible for God to come into being without a cause as it is for the world to do so... For something to bring itself into being it must have the power of being within itself. It must at least have enough causal power to cause its own being. If it derives its being from some other source, then it clearly would not be either self-existent or self-created. It would be, plainly and simply, an effect. Of course, the problem is complicated by the other necessity we've labored so painstakingly to establish: It would have to have the causal power of being before it was. It would have to have the power of being before it had any being with which to exercise that power.
- Robert Sproul(1994, pp. 179-180).

The universe is created, not the creator. It didn't become "self-aware" and bring existence to be. It is clearly an unreasonable position because as you have read, it would have to have the casual power of being before it was, which defies all logic and reason on the most elementary scale.

Is the Universe aware of humans (Quarks on a proton called Earth)? No. It is aware of itself and possibly the galaxies that make up its body, like you are aware of the organs that make up your body. Other than that, the Universe (god) is not aware of your or my existence.

God is not a separate entity from the rest of creation. It is creation and we are but an insignificant part of it. That is why our ancestors created gods so they could feel significant. But the gods they created are far too human in nature and subject to all our weaknesses and psychoses. So, fire up a doobie and revel in your own insignificance because nothing has changed but now you are awake.
The reality you propose only equates to a world of purley biological matters. No right and wrong, no beauty and ugliness, no freedom, no love etc. An ideology of moral relativism which frees you from moral implications on yourself, while demanding others meet your definition of the moral standard. That's called hypocrisy.

Most people stop believing in fairy tales a long time ago, usually around their teen years. We are significant to our species and the planet, but their are no gods who think you are.
If you wish to make the assertion that "most people" stop believing in "fairy tales" early in life, then I'll make the assertion, to which you should agree, that "most people" convert on their deathbed. Because they feel a prioi knowledge of God's existence inside them, and they hear the Holy Spirit's wooing. (Last call)

That is why I like native spirituality. It is Earth based and honours life on this planet they call Mother Earth. It is the only place that is significant to us and us to it.
You have found one of the many faces, and causes of unbelief that prideful people use to hide from, and separate themselves from God. Quit hiding behind false philosophies and establish yourself right with God.

REFERENCES
Sproul, R.C. (1994), Not A Chance (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
 
Last edited:

In Between Man

The Biblical Position
Sep 11, 2008
4,597
46
48
44
49° 19' N, 123° 4' W
O, but I did. Your turn; no weaseling.

No, you didn't take it seriously. You know what a Christian is, and you tried to redefine it to play games. Do you think I'm five years old or something?

And if you think acting as a generally good person will get you into heaven on the "off chance" you were wrong about its existence, then I'm afraid your going to be disappointed. Because there's nothing you can do to earn grace or salvation. It's easier than that.
 
Last edited:

In Between Man

The Biblical Position
Sep 11, 2008
4,597
46
48
44
49° 19' N, 123° 4' W
You think gods care about teachers or clergy diddling kids, kids suffering for a few years before they die, parents outliving their kids, kids being deprived of parents before they can understand, etc.? :roll: Yeah, that shows a lot of caring alright.

In your atheist reality the world is purely biological, only mind and matter exist. So by your logic there is no "right and wrong", only moral relativism. Which means instead of it being "diddling kids" it can be easily termed "making love to a younger person".

It's just molecules acting upon molecules.

If you wish to claim that "diddling kids" is a wrong thing to do, then your appealing to a moral standard, a moral rule, to which requires a moral rule giver. If you admit to a moral standard, you have to admit a moral rule giver, to which you cease being atheist.
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
In your atheist reality the world is purely biological, only mind and matter exist. So by your logic there is no "right and wrong", only moral relativism. Which means instead of it being "diddling kids" it can be easily termed "making love to a younger person".
Sorry, I am agnostic not atheist. The difference between me and my husband is that he is positive there are no such things as gods and I think it doesn't matter whether there are or not. There may very well be gods, but I am positive they don't give a crap about humans or the planet.
Anyway, no, you're wrong. I have a spirit, it is part of me and it ties me into every other spirit on the planet. It is why I feel so strongly that what humans have done to our world is despicable. Your assumption about my logic is totally out-of-whack.

It's just molecules acting upon molecules.
That happens, too.

If you wish to claim that "diddling kids" is a wrong thing to do, then your appealing to a moral standard, a moral rule, to which requires a moral rule giver.
Wrong. It feels wrong to ME, not to the moral code of someone or something else that decided for me.
If you admit to a moral standard, you have to admit a moral rule giver, to which you cease being atheist.
No. My moral guide is me ande again, I am not an atheist.
I thought that would have been evident long time ago. I am not wise and knowledgeable enough to assume to know whether there are gods or not. I simply choose to not choose an opinion and not care whether there are or not. I have seen no evidence of them caring for me, so I cannot see any reason why I should care about them other than studying people's dealings with the concepts of them.
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
This is truly fascinating. You think you could do a better job that God?!
Yes. First off I would design humans better than they are built. Eyes, shoulders, and a few other parts are not built well at all. That would mean I would change a few things in evolution. It'd be fun. :) I would replace the suffering of people at the hands of other people and leave it up to nature to deal with human longevity. I can go on, but I'll stop at those two.

That's very arrogant first and foremost, and second if the atheist brain is so smart, how come you don't seem to recognize the very limitations of your mind?
I has nothing to do with being arrogant and everything to do with a knowledge of human anatomy as well as a hate for people preying upon others.

You would have to have an *IMMEASURABLE* amount of knowledge in order to design an better universe.
That would be the idea of being a god, yes. As I said, if I were an all=powerful god ..... Having the power of a god would fit into that description.
Millions of the most basic structures in the universe still elude the most diligent experts.
So? If I was a god why would human failure to understand bother me?
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
Anyway, I still think that if Poland wants to hang crucifixes on its walls, it is none of the Euroclub's business and I bet it would squawk if Britain decided the rest of Europe should drive on the wrong side of the road or the Swiss decided that the official musical instrument of Europe should be the alpenhorn.
 

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
192
63
Nakusp, BC
On an island in Japan live a species of monkey that eats yams. They dig them up and eat them. Then one day a scientist teaches a young monkey to clean his yam first. The young monkey teaches his mother and in a short time the whole tribe is washing their yams. It is then observed that on several other islands inhabited by this same species of monkey that they have begun washing their yams. There is no physical contact with the various tribes on the various islands. What is the invisible thread that connects all this species so that they all elevate to this form of behaviour once a critical mass of there members is reached?
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
On an island in Japan live a species of monkey that eats yams. They dig them up and eat them. Then one day a scientist teaches a young monkey to clean his yam first. The young monkey teaches his mother and in a short time the whole tribe is washing their yams. It is then observed that on several other islands inhabited by this same species of monkey that they have begun washing their yams. There is no physical contact with the various tribes on the various islands. What is the invisible thread that connects all this species so that they all elevate to this form of behaviour once a critical mass of there members is reached?
lol Cute, but I think it's possible that more than one monkey or human or cetacean can have the same idea at relatively the same time independently of the others.
 

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
192
63
Nakusp, BC
lol Cute, but I think it's possible that more than one monkey or human or cetacean can have the same idea at relatively the same time independently of the others.
Yes but a whole species? I think The Hundredth Monkey theory is a valid one.
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
Yes but a whole species? I think The Hundredth Monkey theory is a valid one.
It isn't the 100th Monkey Theory, but the 100th Monkey Effect. And:

The effect discredited

An analysis of the appropriate literature by Ron Amundson, published by the Skeptics Society, revealed several key points that demystified the supposed effect.
Unsubstantiated claims that there was a sudden and remarkable increase in the proportion of washers in the first population were exaggerations of a much slower, more mundane effect. Rather than all monkeys mysteriously learning the skill it was noted that it was predominantly younger monkeys that learned the skill from the older monkeys through the usual means of imitation; older monkeys who did not know how to wash tended not to learn. As the older monkeys died and younger monkeys were born the proportion of washers naturally increased. The time span between observations was in the order of years.
Claims that the practice spread suddenly to other isolated populations of monkeys ignore the fact that at least one washing monkey swam to another population and spent about four years there.[citation needed] It is also to be noted that the sweet potato was not available to the monkeys prior to human intervention: it is not at all surprising that isolated populations of monkeys started to wash potatoes in a similar time frame once they were made available.
Hundredth-monkey effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
192
63
Nakusp, BC
The 100th Monkey Theory has been on the WOW site since 1996, and we occasionally receive letters claiming that it was a hoax or fake.
We contacted Penny Gillespie, who was married to Ken Keyes and participated in his work and writing. Here is her response:
I'm not sure what you mean by "fake." The Hundredth Monkey is a real book and hundreds of thousands of copies were printed and circulated, often through university courses. People bought them by the case and gave them away.
The story of the hundredth monkey came from a writing by Rupert Sheldrake.
After our book was printed, there was some question about whether the study was authentic. Ken presented the story as a legend, or phenomenon; the concepts of morphogenetic fields and critical mass are very true and the story serves to illustrate them.
Hope that answers your question.
All the best,
Penny Gillespie

Some more interesting notes on this topic:
http://www.wowzone.com/monkey.htm

The story may have been embellished to prove a point but to dismiss the idea as fraudulent is not very productive. It is the job of skeptics to poo poo everything whether useful or not.

 

Spade

Ace Poster
Nov 18, 2008
12,822
49
48
9
Aether Island
Poo, poo!
PS to the Alley
By the way, you have not answered my questions. Each can be answered with a simple yes and no.

Well, my lad, since I subscribe to brotherhood, non violence, forgiveness, and charity, that would make me a Christian.
Now, answer these questions with simple a "yes" or "no." I will accept no equivocation.
1. If a child dies as a non Christian, does he go to "heaven"?
2. If a man lives a good life and is a non Christian, does he go to "heaven"?
3. Is there ever an instance when capital punishment is justified?
4. Is preemptive war justifiable?

PPS to Alley
Are you skeert?