Are you a Christian?
- Thread starter Kett
- Start date
What you think is none of my business. My opinion is people who have faith -- belief without evidence -- in magic sky fairies and other supernatural claptrap are mentally ill.
All of these things have evidence to show they exist (even as abstracts -- "love" is an emotion, and we use the word to describe a feeling and the evidence organisms are experiencing that feeling exists).
What we call "colour" is the response of our eyes and brains to specific wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum. We can measure this.
But to believe things without evidence is a mental illness, in my opinion.
Because without evidence you have no reason to believe any specific thing and no way of knowing it's true or not.
Warmly,
Jon
Upvote
0
H
hmmm
Two dimensions, assumes that there is the lack of existence of a third dimension; I cannot point to a single existence of anything that exists in two dimensions.
So why the inept and very debilitating methodology of current mathematics?
Mathematics tries to take a two dimensional (fantasy based) way of operating and apply it in a three dimensional methodology that brings forth results for the operators "interpretation" to apply to a theory the operator is working with.
There are far too many "assumptions" made in mathematics, the most false and debased one to make, is that the two dimensional plane exists in the first place.
It's never been a question of the mind working in a multidimensional methodology, it the assumption that we lack the ability to describe our universe in more then a two dimensional way (what a cop out)
What good has come from an archaic methodology as mathematics exists today?
Agreed that we have the computer I am typing on, and various other contraptions designed based on mathematical principles, but these principles are very sensitive to change, any change to critical junctures in the mathematical operations will produce results not desired. It a false sense of security that the mathematically "two dimensionally" minded individuals present to the community and as the mere mention of the word "mathematics" causes the eyes of most people to glaze over in boredom, there is little challenge to the base mentality of making mathematics such an extremely important "central" necessity of life.
These objects we possess today that are based on a two dimensional (fantasy) way of thinking could easily be translated to a physical based system of cause and effects (such as mechanics), nothing more, nothing less.
When are we going to grow up a little and drop this assumption that mathematics as they exists today are of any major value as they lose all but the smallest trivial meaning in a three dimensional world?
Place a line on a paper and the current form of mathematical thinking allows for any possibility, but place a small curve "anomaly" in the line and the two dimensional way of thinking ceases to operate and requires an even greater and more complex methodology to take into account the anomaly. How fragile such a system is this archaic form of mathematics
So why the inept and very debilitating methodology of current mathematics?
Mathematics tries to take a two dimensional (fantasy based) way of operating and apply it in a three dimensional methodology that brings forth results for the operators "interpretation" to apply to a theory the operator is working with.
There are far too many "assumptions" made in mathematics, the most false and debased one to make, is that the two dimensional plane exists in the first place.
It's never been a question of the mind working in a multidimensional methodology, it the assumption that we lack the ability to describe our universe in more then a two dimensional way (what a cop out)
What good has come from an archaic methodology as mathematics exists today?
Agreed that we have the computer I am typing on, and various other contraptions designed based on mathematical principles, but these principles are very sensitive to change, any change to critical junctures in the mathematical operations will produce results not desired. It a false sense of security that the mathematically "two dimensionally" minded individuals present to the community and as the mere mention of the word "mathematics" causes the eyes of most people to glaze over in boredom, there is little challenge to the base mentality of making mathematics such an extremely important "central" necessity of life.
These objects we possess today that are based on a two dimensional (fantasy) way of thinking could easily be translated to a physical based system of cause and effects (such as mechanics), nothing more, nothing less.
When are we going to grow up a little and drop this assumption that mathematics as they exists today are of any major value as they lose all but the smallest trivial meaning in a three dimensional world?
Place a line on a paper and the current form of mathematical thinking allows for any possibility, but place a small curve "anomaly" in the line and the two dimensional way of thinking ceases to operate and requires an even greater and more complex methodology to take into account the anomaly. How fragile such a system is this archaic form of mathematics
Upvote
0
Is it just me, or is this just a big bunch of nonsensical gibberish?
2 + 2 = 4 no matter how many dimensions, universes or gods you invoke
Upvote
0
H
hmmm
there is NO denying that science is great and to dismiss it would be foolish.
but sometimes science complicates things through its own need to know.
ask someone what is a football pitch and they say grass with markings goals and such.
ask a scientist and the answer becomes the dimensions of the pitch , the thickness of the lines , grass will be explained what it its made of, how long the average blade of grass is, the soil its grown in and composition .it becomes a complicated array of this and that.whilst i agree theres nothing wrong in this method ,it can take thing to places sometimes its not needed.. so what is the wrong way?
neither
but sometimes science complicates things through its own need to know.
ask someone what is a football pitch and they say grass with markings goals and such.
ask a scientist and the answer becomes the dimensions of the pitch , the thickness of the lines , grass will be explained what it its made of, how long the average blade of grass is, the soil its grown in and composition .it becomes a complicated array of this and that.whilst i agree theres nothing wrong in this method ,it can take thing to places sometimes its not needed.. so what is the wrong way?
neither
Upvote
0
D
DCE
Can you explain where all the water came from for the flood and then where it went to?
The Deluge was no local flash flood or cloudburst.
In fact, the Greek word used in the Bible to refer to the Flood, or Deluge, is ka·ta·kly·smos′, a cataclysm.
Local floods come and go in a matter of days; this one lasted over a year, the greater portion of which was required for the water to subside.
How unreasonable to believe that Noah spent perhaps 50 or 60 years building a huge vessel of approximately 40,000 cu m (1,400,000 cu ft) for the survival of his family and a few animals through a mere local flood!
If only a comparatively small area was affected, why the need of bringing into the ark specimens of every living creature of every sort of flesh in order to preserve offspring alive on the surface of the entire earth?
Definitely this was a global deluge, the like of which had never occurred before nor has since. The waters overwhelmed the earth so greatly that all the tall mountains that were under the whole heavens came to be covered.
Up to 15 cubits [c. 6.5 m; 22 ft] the waters overwhelmed them and the mountains became covered. (Ge 7:19, 20) The end of all flesh has come before me, Jehovah said, hence I will wipe every existing thing that I have made off the surface of the ground. And it was just so. Everything in which the breath of the force of life was active in its nostrils, namely, all that were on the dry ground, died . . . only Noah and those who were with him in the ark kept on surviving.Ge 6:13; 7:4, 22, 23.
The Floodwaters.
It has been said that if all the moisture in the atmosphere were suddenly released as rain it would not amount to even a couple of inches if spread over the earths surface.
So from what source was this vast deluge of Noahs day?
According to the Genesis account, God said to Noah: Here I [Jehovah] am bringing the deluge [or, heavenly ocean; Heb., mab·bul′] of waters upon the earth. (Ge 6:17, ftn)
Describing what happened, the next chapter says: All the springs of the vast watery deep were broken open and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. (Ge 7:11)
So overwhelming was the Deluge that all the tall mountains that were under the whole heavens came to be covered.Ge 7:19.
Where did this heavenly ocean come from?
The Genesis account of creation tells how on the second day Jehovah made an expanse about the earth, and this expanse (called Heaven) formed a division between the waters below it, that is, the oceans, and the waters above it. (Ge 1:6-8)
The waters suspended above the expanse evidently remained there from the second day of creation until the Flood.
This is what the apostle Peter was talking about when he recounted that there were heavens from of old and an earth standing compactly out of water and in the midst of water by the word of God.
Those heavens and the waters above and beneath them were the means that Gods word called into operation, and by those means the world of that time suffered destruction when it was deluged with water. (2Pe 3:5, 6)
Various explanations have been offered as to how the water was held aloft until the Flood and as to the processes that resulted in its falling.
But these are only speculative.
The Bible says simply that God made the expanse with waters above it and that he brought the Deluge.
His almighty power could easily accomplish it.
Since, as the Genesis account says, all the tall mountains were covered with water, where is all that water now?
Evidently it is right here on the earth.
It is believed that there was a time when the oceans were smaller and the continents were larger than they are now, as is evidenced by river channels extending far out under the oceans.
It should also be noted that scientists have stated that mountains in the past were much lower than at present, and some mountains have even been pushed up from under the seas.
As to the present situation, it is said that there is ten times as much water by volume in the ocean as there is land above sea level.
Dump all this land evenly into the sea, and water would cover the entire earth, one and one-half miles deep. (National Geographic, January 1945, p. 105)
So, after the floodwaters fell, but before the raising of mountains and the lowering of seabeds and before the buildup of polar ice caps, there was more than enough water to cover all the tall mountains, as the inspired record says.Ge 7:19.
4. Do you consider yourself to be open-minded? Yes
5. Have you reached your conclusions about your beliefs through logical and rational analysis of the evidence, or have you accepted it as an emotional leap of faith? All based on logic and rational analysis of 35 years of Bible Study and Research.
6. What evidence would you accept to demonstrate the bible is wrong? Give me some evidence.
Upvote
0
So you've changed to evidence rather than measurements. You're fast moving into the mentally ill realm.
We cannot measure colour. We can measure wavelength but not colour. There is no colour in light and therefore we cannot measure it. We deduce it exists but it is not measurable.
Love is not measurable but you believe that it exists through personal experience and through deduction. If you were an alien who never experienced emotion then you would probably not believe it existed as you couldn't feel it, experience it or measure it; yes we humans could say it existed but as an alien all you could state is that it is a thing that humans say exists but it's something that cannot be proven nor measured.
Science cannot prove to an alien that love exists. In fact in an uncaring unemotional atheist universe it doesn't exist.
Upvote
0
G
garytulley
Considering the life expentancy back then barely reached passed 40 it's very unbelievable
Tell me something, were Noah and his family the only people onboard the ark? If so that would mean they repopulated the earth
families mating with each other just like Adam and Eve. It's a sick and twisted world we live in.
Upvote
0
G
garytulley
Show that alien to my room, I'll soon show them what loving is I'll give them something to measure
Upvote
0
B
bdw
I consider that to be an ill-advised, offensive, and uneducated comment that shows you in your real light.
This is from a christian? You know these people who think they know all about love while they have been killing and torturing people in the name of their religion since it was invented?
Turn the other cheek so I can slap it too!
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote
0
G
garytulley
Then we're both going to learn something new about biology and dna compatibility.
Upvote
0
It's not meant to be offensive nor condescending.....and torture and killing is also done by atheists so let's not get emotional and moral about it. I am not saying that atheists do not have morals.......I'm talking about the universe so leave your own feelings behind.
What I mean is the following.......
Start with the assumption that there is no god and the universe created itself. So look at it not from a human standpoint but as the universe itself. All the universe did was to produce matter and energy...........is that a fair assumption?
In the universe there is no love, no suffering, no justice, no right nor wrong, no morals. In fact in the universe it is not wrong to do anything, as nothing really has a point nor does it matter what happens. The universe doesn't care if you run about naked. So why do we worry about right and wrong if it doesn't matter a jot outside of our own delusions?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
You now seem to have slipped your trolley.
.
In what way?
"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. As that unhappy poet A.E. Housman put it: `For Nature, heartless, witless Nature Will neither care nor know.' DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music." (Dawkins, 1996, 155)
Am I misquoting Dawkins?
Upvote
0
D
DCE
Considering the life expentancy back then barely reached passed 40 it's very unbelievable
Tell me something, were Noah and his family the only people onboard the ark? If so that would mean they repopulated the earth
Noah and his family entered the ark in the 600th year of Noahs life, the 2nd month (October-November), the 17th day. (Ge 7:11)
Why was brother-and-sister marriage not inappropriate at the beginning of mankinds history?
God created Adam and Eve perfect and purposed that all humankind descend from them. (Gen. 1:28; 3:20)
Obviously some marrying of close relatives, especially within the first few generations, would occur.
Even after sin made its appearance, there was relatively little danger of marked deformities in the children during early generations, because the human race was much closer to the perfection that had been enjoyed by Adam and Eve.
This is attested to by the longevity of people then. (See Genesis 5:3-8; 25:7.)
But about 2,500 years after Adam became a sinner, God prohibited incestuous marriage.
This served to safeguard the offspring and it elevated the sexual morality of Jehovahs servants above that of people around them who were then engaging in all manner of depraved practices.See Leviticus 18:2-18.
Upvote
0
But you can't. According to Stockdamn atheists are uncaring and unemotional.
.
Read what I posted again as you have misunderstood. I was not talking about atheists........I was talking about the uncaring universe and what I said applies equally to atheists and to religious people. I'm not sure how you think I said atheists are uncaring and unemotional.
Upvote
0
B
bdw
I did not misunderstand you. Perhaps you did not express what you wanted to say very well but what you said was ...
No mention of religious people there and you referred specifically to an atheist universe.
(Oh and by the way, regarding your alien, even his whateverness the pope cannot prove to a human that god exists.)
Upvote
0
That bit is correct
We only worry about it because we are conscious beings and have learned that behaving in what we now call an ethical or moral way is of benefit to us. It's now programmed into us as social animals.
You may call morality a delusion but you would be wrong to do so because it's something that's shared throughout all humanity and very real. (When a person is lacking in a sense of morality we call him a sociopath or even psychopath - the illness is the absence of empathy, not its presence.)
The proof that morality is independent of religion is simply that all people with any belief and non, understand from their core that its wrong to kill, rape and steal.
Upvote
0
D
dagr
Yes.
The "no love", "no morals", etc., being intrinsic to the "raw" universe is something I agree with. It's humans (and other higher-level species) that introduced concepts and practices such as things we call love, morals, etc., without any help. They come with intelligence and complexity, and are a must if intelligence is to be maintained and grow, which is critical for survival and progress in higher species.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
I would suggest that all of the above is a belief. "Morals etc. are a must if intelligence is to be maintained......"..........is this testable or measurable? Who says?
At best you can call morals an accident but why worry when a person "breaks" the law? Surely it's just his/her DNA and circumstances that cause it.
Upvote
0
D
dagr
I don't have definitive proof, and I'm not a specialist, but you only have to see which societies are doing "better" than others. When I say intelligence, I don't mean individual intelligence (although that has its importance). I mean the intelligence of a coherent society, be it a tribe, city or nation state.
For example, being totally objective, there is nothing morally wrong with cannibalism or human sacrifice. But cannibalism died out as it wasn't the best way to go. It's basic Darwinism at the societal level. I assume this because other competing societies that didn't do those things, or stopped doing those things, are still around unlike those that continued. In other words, the morals and practices of some societies make for better performing ways of progressing compared to others. And there are no absolutes in terms of morals.
The way we have arrived at our particular moral code is not random, although random events shape it.
An interesting anecdotal, tangential view is to look at those few cases of young children and babies that were brought up separated from human society. They adopt the practices (including speech, or lack of) and "morals" of their "society" and environment. They also never found God, unassisted.
Upvote
0
Latest Articles
-
Should you crowdfund? A framework for UK founders in 2026Three articles into a series on what crowdfunding actually costs, the...- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
The polls, the reframing, and the billion dollarsHow three letters from the early years of Star Citizen's development...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
The values trap: what the Punks actually ownedWhy BrewDog's Equity for Punks investors were structurally locked out...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
When belief is the business modelWhat BrewDog's collapse and Star Citizen's billion-dollar climb are...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
AI, Virtual Influencers and the Copyright Minefield: What Entrepreneurs Need to KnowI'll be upfront: this article was written with the assistance of an AI...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
