I don’t have a problem with atheists — each to his own comfort level — nonetheless, it is ridiculous for one of that inclination to get rattled to the extent that others of belief are denied their comfort. Atheism by definition is free from religion. Theists are free to believe as they see fit; atheists should look upon these " misguided" as pathetic but have the right to the "wrong" path. If, however, atheist take on the passion of "religion" in their belief that there is no God, they in reality are in the business of propagating their non-faith as feverishly as the old Marxist line. In this respect they are as trapped in "belief" as the rest of us pathetic old fools. They should therefore lobby for a limited currency series that states "In "God we do not trust," or a postage stamp that shows a black hole with the inscription "Godless."
What makes you think there has to have been a state of nothingness? I believe just as time going forward is boundless that it is also boundless going back so everything material we know of in life and everything that exists which we will never know of has existed in one form or another going back in time and will exist in one form or another forever going forward in time. There is simply no state of nothingness for the entirety of the universe as we know it and beyond for which I can comprehend.
Lula says that Love, memories, and the perceptions/opinions of good and evil are immaterial realities. GoaFan77 says that Love, memories, and the perceptions/opinions of good and evil do materially exist. They are in chemical form in your mind.
What evidence was that? Didn't you say that the evidence was "not yet"?
First you make the naturalist claim that love materially exists (is matter in chemical form) in the mind. Then you claim that the brain creates chemicals that is not love, but rather that makes us FEEL love.
Anyway, as the Beatles song goes, I say yes and you say no, .....
I say the mind is distinct from the brain. I say that the mind is the soul thinking (our intellect), a gift from Almighty God.
The soul is related to the body and the mind is related to the brain. The soul and the mind are immaterial realities and the body and the brain are material realities.
I said we do not have the technology to manipulate them. The evidence exists. We do not have the technology to manipulate plate tectonics but the evidence is clear it exists.
To me there is no difference. Love is what we feel, that feeling is caused by chemicals in the brain. You can talk about your love for someone in an abstract sense, but what created that love in the first place is chemical. The abstract thoughts that you are thinking about love physically exist. Your memories of love are chemical.
Where does this come from? I don't think that. I believe that nothing existed prior to God creating, except God. So there cannot be a state of nothingness because Almighty God is eternal, He always exists.
God created time. At the commencement of Creation is when time began. As time and space are co-terminous with created existences, they too had a beginning.
There was not time before Almighty God created things into existence. The universe had a first moment, before which it did not exist. And referring to that moment, we say that the world was created at the beginning of time.
As far as time being boundless going forever forward, time as we know it will end when Christ comes again at the end of the world and we'll all enter eternity...eternal life in Heaven or Hell.
Then I would say that science points to God for God created love. What's more God is love but that's taking love into the theological side of science.
Say what you wish, but it means nothing to me. We clearly have no common ground left and further discussion will just lead to circular arguments which I don't want to get into. I'd rather finish my conversations with Siv and Sinperium without further quarrel with you.
Hi Goa. I'll have to get over this stupid virus my plague-riddled in-laws gave me before I can perform any more "stupid intellectual tricks".
@Boobz...I just wanted to ssay what you said back there about "general" atheists, theists, etc. and not liking the term--I completely agree.
I imagine you get pretty disgusted when some absurd televangelist comes on selling "blessed" knick-knacks and vitamins on a "religious" channel that looks more like a home shopping network. For me, I want to jump through the screen and beat the snot out of them.
Often its loud public voices that identify themselves as "Christian" or "atheist" or whatever end up intentionally--or as a result of attention and exposure--co-opting entire philosophies and beliefs as their own when in fac t it most often is an individual thing where such values truly get expressed in any meaningful way.
You aren't the radical atheist out to legislate public expressions of religious belief from every corner of the earth and I'm not the televangelist selling blessed handkerchiefs that will heal you and make your skin softer for a "generous donation".
I just wanted to say that I thought you said it very well and succinctly and I really agree. A large group within a belief system is not the absolute definition of all its beliefs.
Having said that, what do you think of these 3 news stories?
A high school that enlisted the help of policemen to carry out a mock "hostage situation" at their school. The student body was told that the alleged gunmen were “members of a right-wing fundamentalist group called the 'New Crusaders' who don't believe in separation of church and state.”
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/apr/07040301.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
And then there is this one:
Valedictorian Barred from Giving Speech Because of References to “God” Files Suit
BILLINGS, MT, May 5, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute have filed a free speech lawsuit in the Montana Thirteenth Judicial District Court on behalf of a high school valedictorian who was forbidden from making any remarks at all in her school's graduation ceremony after she refused to strip references to God and Christ from her valedictory speech."This is a case of pure censorship and a denial of the freedom of speech," said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. "If we don't begin protecting the right to free speech in the schools, we are going to lose the right to speak entirely."Renee Griffith was a co-valedictorian of her 2008 senior class at Butte High School, which is operated by Butte School District No. 1. By virtue of her scholastic achievements, Renee was selected to speak at the graduation ceremony on May 30, 2008, along with several other students. The students were instructed to speak about what they had learned during their time in high school. Although the valedictorians were asked to prepare their own remarks, Renee and another student, Ethan, planned to deliver their speeches together, alternately mentioning things they had learned in school.The list of lessons learned ranged from the mundane (Renee: "I learned that Homecoming Week is a time when people can wear underwear on the outside of their pants and no one cares") to the heartfelt (Ethan: "I learned that [i]t takes just one person to get a rock rolling down a hill, and likewise, it takes just one person to traverse this planet to gather change. The power for change is inherent in humanity and each individual. We all have the framework for greatness and impact. Thus, it is important that we all realize the foundation within all of us and step out to better and further the world").Although school officials allegedly did not object to Ethan's testimonial about humanity's inherent power for change, they did object to Renee's heartfelt statement about how she learned to persevere and not fear by standing up for her religious convictions: "I learned to persevere these past four years, even through failure or discouragement, when I had to stand for my convictions. I can say that my regrets are few and far between. I didn't let fear keep me from sharing Christ and His joy with those around me. I learned to impart hope, to encourage people to treat each day as a gift. I learned not to be known for my grades or for what I did during school, but for being committed to my faith and morals and being someone who lived with a purpose from God with a passionate love for Him."Just prior to the graduation ceremony, Renee was ordered to remove the words "Christ" and "God" from her speech and replace them with the following phrases: "sharing my faith" and "lived with a purpose, a purpose derived from my faith and based on a love of mankind." When Renee insisted on her right to use the words of her choice, she was forbidden from speaking altogether at the graduation ceremony.....................................................................
School Harasses Minnesota Sixth Grader Wearing Pro-Life T-shirts - Legal Action UnderwaySingled him out for ridicule in front of his classmates, removed him from class, threatened him with suspension
ANN ARBOR, MI, June 3, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A pro-life sixth grader has been "ridiculed and threatened" on numerous occasions by his school’s administration for wearing t-shirts expressing his pro-life beliefs. The Thomas More Law Center, a national public-interest law firm, announced today that it has filed a federal lawsuit defending the Constitutional rights of the boy. The sixth grader, referred to in the lawsuit as “K. B.” because of his age, is a Christian who believes that abortion is the wrongful taking of an innocent life and a grave offense to the Law of God.School officials, including the principal and several teachers, on over a dozen occasions during April 2008, told “K. B.” not to wear the t-shirts, publicly singled him out for ridicule in front of his classmates, removed him from class, sent him to the principal’s office, forced him to turn his pro-life t-shirt inside out, and threatened him with suspension if he did not stop wearing the offending pro-life t-shirts.During the period in question, “K. B.” wore three different t-shirts, all produced by the American Life League, a national Pro-Life advocacy group. The t-shirts contained such pro-life messages as, “Abortion… growing, growing, gone,” “What part of abortion don’t you understand?” and, “Never Known – Not Forgotten.”Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, commented, “This courageous young Christian was ridiculed and threatened by teachers for expressing his deeply held beliefs. These school officials clearly violated the U. S. Constitution and the school’s own written Dress Policy which specifically states it is not intended to abridge the rights of students to express political or religious messages.”Brandon Bolling, the Law Center attorney assigned as lead counsel stated, “The Supreme Court has held it permissible for public schools to limit student speech only when there is an actual and substantial disruption of school activity. That is not the case here. The only people who took issue with the Pro-Life t-shirts were the school’s employees — in fact, if any one caused any disruption, it was the school’s employees, by their constant public harassment of our client because they disagreed with his pro-life message.”
My sentiments exactly.
Good luck with that!
Actually, this stuff all came from my friend Bob who is no longer with us ... so disprove it if you like. I have better things to do with my time than repeatedly restating myself … for you to ignore, again. You are lost in some make believe world where reality seems to mean very little and I cannot help you while you shelter there.I will call you when I need theological support...
I'd like to add my 2 cents worth to the discussion about free speech/hate speech
sinperium posts: Following the chain of reason of atheists presentations en masse (as a collective group--in its totality) can provide a pretty interesting hypothetical picture. It's hypothetical because it's not a single unified concept with any aethist group--just the sum of the parts I have seen and heard from many. ….. Free speech will not be available to religious sectors of society but will be legislated. So, as an atheist, you might not go this way but there are others who will. So yeah--those of us "outside the club" are concerned by the rhetoric directed our way because we see a collective group of people who value their freedom more than they value ours. [/quote] -------------------------------------------------- Thankfully, the Founders believed that freedom to think and speak were indispensible to the discovery and spreading of truth. Without free speech, discussion would be futile. The American Marxism assault on free speech is underway, not in big wide sweeping movement, but rather bit by bit. They have used political correctness to create verbally protected groups including gender, ethnicity and sexual preference as deserving of protective legislation against critical speech. It’s alright for liberals to name call anyone who opposes their policies..racist, homophobe, etc. For criticizing Obama in her book, and pointing her finger at him, the Governor of Arizona is now deemed as racist. Quoting Smoothseas, reply 283The bill never became law and for good reason. Because Hate Speech Laws are unconstitutional in the US and have been deemed so with precedence all the way to the Supreme Court.That is why the bill didn't pass and if it did sneak by it would have been taken off the books as soon as it started making its way through the courts. We would be stupid to turn a blind eye to what is happening bit by bit to erode our First Amendment right to free speech. Like it or not, there is growing confusion as to what constitutes free speech. It isn't as though nothing ever changes in the Supreme Court. How many of them actually are impartial judges and how many legislate from the bench? When it gets so they are all legislating from the bench, my free speech is toast. The battleground for speech controversies ultimately end up in the Supreme Court. And that’s why Obama selected Kagan because after taking a look at her writings, he saw that her legal progressivism mirrors his own. Quoting Smoothseas, reply 283Why even bother posting what happens in other countries? Our constitution regarding freedom of speech is different from every other nation and does not allow for pure hate speech laws.There is very specific precedent which only allows for laws regarding hate speech when they are specifically tied to acts of violence and inciting violence which in court has the litmus test of "must be proven to be imminent" . Because we should take a lesson from other country’s follies. If we are smart, we'll look to Canada to see our future. Canada has passed Hate speech laws and it's starting to show its ugly face. Quoting Smoothseas, reply 283Sorry Charlie... Poorly argued court case....court got it right and now there is precedent. What don't you understand about how the system works? His comments indicate that he does understand the system. But the system is run by people, and it's important to understnad how they work too. sinperium Quoting Sinperium, reply 290I'm actually aware of the contents of the legislation and in a truly altruistic world would be fine and unconcerned with it.You mentioned the "election season" and alluded to the political games that come with it and that's exactly my concern. The winds change all the time in society and a law that in one age would be perfectly benign suddenly becomes a concern. Quoting Sinperium, reply 292Yes--it has been getting worse. We no longer have leaders in government anymore--just professional political bureaucrats --who legislate for personal/party advantage and we have an increasingly ignorant populace that supports them. [quote who="Sinperium" reply="298" id="3070473"]There is precedent with these same laws overseas in multiple nations to cause concern for people practicing religion. How it relates to here is that when groups of society start publicly spewing hostile rhetoric at other groups of society to discredit and whip up sentiment that will further their agenda it's easy to next push for restrictions on the vilified side.
…..
Free speech will not be available to religious sectors of society but will be legislated.
So, as an atheist, you might not go this way but there are others who will.
So yeah--those of us "outside the club" are concerned by the rhetoric directed our way because we see a collective group of people who value their freedom more than they value ours. [/quote]
--------------------------------------------------
Thankfully, the Founders believed that freedom to think and speak were indispensible to the discovery and spreading of truth. Without free speech, discussion would be futile.
The American Marxism assault on free speech is underway, not in big wide sweeping movement, but rather bit by bit. They have used political correctness to create verbally protected groups including gender, ethnicity and sexual preference as deserving of protective legislation against critical speech.
It’s alright for liberals to name call anyone who opposes their policies..racist, homophobe, etc. For criticizing Obama in her book, and pointing her finger at him, the Governor of Arizona is now deemed as racist.
Quoting Smoothseas, reply 283The bill never became law and for good reason. Because Hate Speech Laws are unconstitutional in the US and have been deemed so with precedence all the way to the Supreme Court.That is why the bill didn't pass and if it did sneak by it would have been taken off the books as soon as it started making its way through the courts.
We would be stupid to turn a blind eye to what is happening bit by bit to erode our First Amendment right to free speech. Like it or not, there is growing confusion as to what constitutes free speech.
It isn't as though nothing ever changes in the Supreme Court. How many of them actually are impartial judges and how many legislate from the bench? When it gets so they are all legislating from the bench, my free speech is toast.
The battleground for speech controversies ultimately end up in the Supreme Court. And that’s why Obama selected Kagan because after taking a look at her writings, he saw that her legal progressivism mirrors his own.
Because we should take a lesson from other country’s follies. If we are smart, we'll look to Canada to see our future. Canada has passed Hate speech laws and it's starting to show its ugly face.
His comments indicate that he does understand the system. But the system is run by people, and it's important to understnad how they work too.
sinperium
[quote who="Sinperium" reply="298" id="3070473"]There is precedent with these same laws overseas in multiple nations to cause concern for people practicing religion. How it relates to here is that when groups of society start publicly spewing hostile rhetoric at other groups of society to discredit and whip up sentiment that will further their agenda it's easy to next push for restrictions on the vilified side.
Great summation of what is going on.
To understand the writing on the wall, we must look at what’s happened and what is happening all around us.
If "we are smart" then "we" should read the constitution and look at case history to see why our future will be quite different. If we are smart then "we" should read actual copies of bills instead of listening to the propagandist media sites to see what the "intent" of actual legislation is reallly all about.
I agree...But it seems to me many people need to look a lot closer than "what first meets the eye". Michigan is the perfect example.
When Terry Jones goes to Dearborn to have a peaceful protest in front of a Mosque during a cultural festival than it appears to me what has transpired in light of that situation has very little to do with the "atheist community".
If "we" are smart we will compare our constitution to laws in other countries to see why what you suggest does not quite predict our future.
Exactly..Look ALL around not just half way around.
One 1987 estimate found that 700 scientists out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists ... give credence to creation-science … and that is just one tenth of a percent … so be careful what you call pseudo-science.
PS: The rest is for Lula … I didn’t try to rewrite it because it interests me not. ( I forgot where I got it - Wiki...)
On the 12 August 1950, the Catholic Church accepted that the theory of evolution was a valid scientific inquiry, stated by Pope Pius XII in the encyclical Humani Generis saying “research and discussions… take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution”.
In 1996 Pope John Paul II gave a message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in which he said “Today, almost half a century after publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis.”
Between 2000 and 2002 the International Theological Commission found that “Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution
In the January 16–17 2006 edition of the official Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano, University of Bologna evolutionary biology Professor Fiorenzo Facchini wrote an article agreeing with the judge's ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover and stating that intelligent design was unscientific. Jesuit Father George Coyne, former director of the Vatican Observatory, has also denounced intelligent design.
There are many more … so are we discussing your theology … or that of your Church?
Yes, "Science" means "the sciences" such as those that you have listed and all the others too that are not named.
I'll give you there is plenty of room for all sides of the debate to help answer many questions about mankind and the very distant past. Who knows what discovery is right around the corner!
If you will let it, right religion can help explain those questions about mankind and the very distant past, albeit not in a scientific way.
Adam never said "papa" to an ape. Pseudo-science part of Evolution masquering as fact claims he did.
The true scientific evidence for bodily evolution is non-existent. "Research News" in Science , 1980, reported that the majority of 160 scientists said Darwin was wrong in supposing there had been intermediate forms between species. e.g. between fish and birds. The fossil evidence does not give one clear evidence of that. Yet, years later, public school biology textbook books still shows photos and writes of such a thing happening. That's where I get riled. Unwary uncritically thinking kids are being indoctrinated in the pseudo science of Darwinism as fact.
Lula, I just give up. This clip will have to do because I am not going to argue creationism with you. Watch this series if you want to even pretend to try to understand anything besides RCCC.
1. Evolution vs. Creationism: Listen to the Scientists. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV4_lVTVa6k
So I guess what we need to figure out is how and why God fused two "ape" chromosomes together in the Garden of Eden.
http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=229
The 44 Chromosome Man
I know we aren't directly or indirectly related to the ape..but that myth is the pseudo science part of Darwinian Evolution.
Pseudo science evolution is the problem for public school children. Their textbooks have this drawing which certainly implies direct descent.
Ghandi – I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians who are so unlike your Christ.
The problem lies not with the school children but with some adults who believe in a literal translation of a myth who want to censor material in public school science books (or teach theological ideas in public school science classes) because it conflicts with that belief. What boggles me is how your view of this issue doesn't seem to even reflect the view of your own church?
Yes, evolution is taught in Catholic schools; it is, after all, a part of science and neither Catholic schools or the Catholic religion is opposed to science. Some Catholic schools use the same science textbooks as public schools and that is where I saw the Darwinian evolution ape-to-human drawing. Every year of my children's education, after reviewing their books, I spoke to their teachers and asked how they taught evolution.
That's where the difference comes in. Catholic education rightly teaches micro evolution (small changes within species) is true and rightly teaches that Darwinian and Cosmic Evolution is only scientific hypothesis and speculation, a basis for experiment and investigation. At the same time Catholic schools rightyl teach what both the Church and Scriptures recognize---the nobility in man as being made in the image and likeness of God. Man is a special creation, whose distinctive character centers primarily in his soul which is directly created by God. Catholic education also teaches the human species decsended from one pair, Adam and Eve.
Whereas public (government) education teaches Darwinian and Cosmic Evolution as dogma to the point it's become worldview. Atheistic Evolution science has become the defining discipline regarding man's nature, purpose and worth. It claims nature is the total and only explanation for the universe and all that's in it, including mankind. Humans are only more highly evolved animals.
Evolution science is not atheistic. It does not teach people that God does not exist. It may contradict some peoples literal translation of Genesis, or contradict the dogma of other religions however it does not teach people that God does not exist.
God is in the realm of the supernatural. the Science of evolution deals with the realm of the natural. They are dealing with two separate and distinct realms.
I am not an atheist because I was taught evolution. Evolution to me has nothing to do with whether God exists or not. In regards to religion on the other hand evolution has taught me that various religions are based around myths and some of these myths should not be translated literally because science directly contradicts such translations.
If anything the study of evolution has taught me more about religion than the religion I once practiced. It has taught me too look at many religions and specifically many religious myths to see where they come from how I should translate them to see if there are any lessons to be learned that apply to the world as I see it today.
It is not my problem that others can't figure out how to teach their children their own religious beliefs. Maybe some should ask themselves why their own translation of Genesis (or whatever myth they base their opposition to evolution science is) contradicts science and question their own religious leaders why they were taught to believe such things before they do what they seem to do so well...blame it on everyone else.
Lula, how would you even know the difference between ‘the hand of god’ and ‘Nature’ … as the catalyst? Science doesn’t care about your god, any more than I do. OMT --- Atheists do not believe in god ... end of story. From this point on, I can sit on alternating thumbs waiting for some divine insight or some church to supply one ... or I can get off my duff and 'actually' try and figure out some things for myself, geeze ... how novel is that one. I would hope you do not teach your theology in a science class though. You cannot even use the proper terminology so I would call your expertise into question at the least. You pretend you do not understand science when only a complete idiot could not. The naivety of your questions and statements reflects your simplistic belief that everything popped into existence fully formed – including man. There is also a bit of irony in what you said … obviously lost on you.
Men never commit evil so fully and joyfully as when they believe they have god on their side and the other guy doesn’t. [Blaise Pascal]
I know teaching both sides of the Origins debate will never do for committed secular and atheistic Evolutionists. As long as they can have it, the only biology, sociology, etc. that is allowed is fully and only materialistic speculation. Those who believe in Creation and the immaterial faculties of the mind and free will would be in serious jeopardy if they tried to offer those ideas in the government classroom or lecture hall.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with teaching both sides.
You are right..the problem lies not with the school children but with some adults, who wittingly or unwittingly, believe and teach and masquerade the Darwinian and Cosmic Evolution hypothesis and speculation as established fact.
Unwary school students believe everything they read or hear in the classroom as substantially true. And when Darwinian and Cosmic Evolution are presented as dogmatic fact of science, school students become victims of a dangerous hoax.
Biology textbooks by Miller/Levine claim that we are descendents of ape-like "ancestors" who, as part of nature developed step by step from more primitive animals and lower forms of life. Darwinianism is presented as established fact of science which claims that over millions of years, plants, animals, and mankind evolved from a common ancestor and diversified into new species.
If left only to Darwinian Evolution, students come to believe they came from a brute animal. Drawings like the one above have been used over and over as evidence to sell Darwinianism to students. All of them, the bat's wings, the horse "evolution", peppered moths, Haeckel's drawings, are blatant misrepresentations drawn not from evidence but from pure evolutionary faith.
Natural systems degenerate from order to disorder called entrophy. Darwinian Evolution requires faith in the opposite. Darwinian Evolution has been pumped into man's conscience since the mid 1800's. One idea after another has been presented, yet, they have all FAILED TO PROVIDE SUBSTANCE.
The students need to be taught logical explanations of evolution from observable data that explains the big difference between "microevolution" (proven true science, evolution within a species) and unproven "macroevolution", evolution as a process of change from one species to another species. They should be told about the scientific evidence and very reliable findings that have overturned most Daarwinian claims. Darwin predicted that if his evolution theory were true, we should find intermediate fossils all over the earth. (eg. a fossil showing intermediate stages between an amphibian and a reptile.) Students need to be told that to date, modern science hasn't found one specimen.
Students need to be told that life cannot come from non-life. Man may resemble chimpanzees and our DNA code may be similiar but so what? Modern science has proven beyond a shadow of doubt that the genetic barrier prevents change beyond the species.
Instead of teaching science at its worst, we should be teaching science at its best.
In "The Death of Evolution", Wallace Johnson writes, "Today, when the theory of evolution can be shown to be not credible, we hold the paradox of a new surge of evolutionary propaganda flooding the world through the mass media and our educational systems. It must be terribly important to some people to persuade men taht they are only animals and that science needs no God. If you are wondering why, the following will help to explain. Newman Watts, a London journalist, wrote a book entitled, "Britain without God". In his research for that book, he discovered something. He discovered that those who would shoot Christianity to pieces are using bullets of evolution. This is his warning, clear and decisive:
"Every attack on the Christian Faith made today has, as its basis, the doctrine of evolution."
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
