Knowing the mind of God

[Top Hat]

Just as there is no PROOF of evolution, or mechanism for at least some of its parts, Im not obliged to offer either for any hypothesis of mine.

Well that saves me having to look into your example, I'll just stick with my minimally researched assumptions, lucky guesses, selective editing and lots of nuns making predictions.

Suffice to say I find the evidence of consciousness straying beyond the confines of time and space compelling

I only post as Top Hat, but you found compelling evidence that I don't, perhaps you're mistaken on this one too.

 

Well that saves me having to look into your example, I'll just stick with my minimally researched assumptions, lucky guesses, selective editing and lots of nuns making predictions.



I only post as Top Hat, but you found compelling evidence that I don't, perhaps you're mistaken on this one too.

Wake up call Top Hat

You never find evidence, because you are too lazy to look for it, and anything but scientific when you do.

You pretend at science Top Hat most of it is grunt work. Answers do not come on a plate.

The evidence is in the correspondence of what was seen and what EXISTED, where it was predicted to be, and where it was actually found. Note the tense. They had to dig to find some of it buried for centuries. Proof of nothing. Compelling evidence.

I have little doubt you are also a forged shroud advocate, being too lazy to find the evidence you are wrong.

As regards accounts, leave it alone Top Hat.

 

[Top Hat]

You never find evidence, because you are too lazy to look for it, and anything but scientific when you do.

Not lazy too busy spreading my genes

I have little doubt you are also a forged shroud advocate, being too lazy to find the evidence you are wrong.

I certainly am

As regards accounts, leave it alone Top Hat.

Why?

 

I certainly am

What is your theory on the shroud

How was it forged , and when.

 

[Top Hat]

What is your theory on the shroud

How was it forged , and when.

When you have a go at my questions I'll have a go at yours

 

When you have a go at my questions I'll have a go at yours

You are a waste of time Top Hat

I indicated evidence that consciousness may not be confined to body as your hypothesis demands.

And as regards your theory on the shroud.
You cannot possibly hold that view having researched the subject, so clearly you arent interested in truth.

Therefore that is my last post to you.

Other than to say.

The number of times "sillyjokes" comes to read this thread over the years and then morphs into "top hat" to post IMHO shows you arent careful enough. Sillyjokes never posts here. Tophat never posts anywhere else. To me that is what I call evidence albeit circumstantial. Nowhere near as good as the pysical evidence for the lady of ephesus, or the overwhelming forensic evidence of the shroud.

 

[Top Hat]

The number of times "sillyjokes" comes to read this thread over the years and then morphs into "top hat" to post IMHO shows you arent careful enough. Sillyjokes never posts here. Tophat never posts anywhere else. To me that is what I call evidence albeit circumstantial. Nowhere near as good as the pysical evidence for the lady of ephesus, or the overwhelming forensic evidence of the shroud.

And you can think of no other rational explanation, that doesn't include me having some of out of body forum existence?

 

[cjd]

Can atheists have morals?

Even the question is an insult is it not?

Are women intellectually capable of voting?

Most articles I have read are about where atheists get their morals from.

Which underlines the internal assumption that atheists are different from other people - this is the language of discrimination.

Religious morals are set externally and as such are audited externally. Atheists morals are self-set (either individually or by society). Individuals can set their own morals but generally that means they will set them to justify their behaviour.

Again, the assumption is that atheists are different - they are not. They have the same morality as believers - exactly the same.

To prove it tell me one genuinely immoral act that I would commit that you wouldn't. (And I don't mean some harmless religious rule like eating pork).

 

[stockdam]

Even the question is an insult is it not?

Yes but that's what I put into Google......can atheists have morals. The answer is obviously yes. I would suggest that as a person who knows about evolution then why should you worry about them? If you can get away with something and nobody knew then why not do it?

Which underlines the internal assumption that atheists are different from other people - this is the language of discrimination.

By putting people into boxes then we're saying that there are differences. You and I both do it; we group people together and give the group a general set of values (even though we are often wrong). Discrimination is way of choosing or eliminating based on group values and that isn't always a bad thing.

Again, the assumption is that atheists are different - they are not. They have the same morality as believers - exactly the same.

Atheists and believers are different....otherwise we wouldn't have separate terms for them. Either are immoral (none of us are perfectly moral - you may be more than I am). However the difference is that your morals may change as society changes whereas the morals of a religion are set externally. And that's where a lot of the friction arises.

To prove it tell me one genuinely immoral act that I would commit that you wouldn't. (And I don't mean some harmless religious rule like eating pork).

I don't know you so I can't comment on your values/morals. However I'd suggest, for example, that as a society we often make a distinction between stealing from individuals (especially poor ones) verses stealing from corporations (or rich people) whereas in God's law it's all stealing (it's all wrong). Society's view of stealing will change and has changed over the years whereas "thou shalt not steal" hasn't.

 

[cjd]

However I'd suggest, for example, that as a society we often make a distinction between stealing from individuals (especially poor ones) verses stealing from corporations (or rich people) whereas in God's law it's all stealing (it's all wrong).

We most certainly do not - as far as the secular law is concerned, stealing is always stealing.

Society's view of stealing will change and has changed over the years whereas "thou shalt not steal" hasn't

You must be joking! It's always been wrong to steal and always will be - nothing to do with God and everything to do with maintaining a workable society.

You can't name an immoral act that I would commit but you wouldn't because you know that I am likely to share your moral ideas. That's because they come from our society not our religion.

However, it's easier for atheists to name a few that various types of believers think are moral which are obviously immoral. Slavery, discrimination against homosexuals, female circumcision, stoning of adulterers, child brides, the list is long.

And yes, religious morality does change - of course it does, otherwise we'd still be burning widows as witches and people like me as heretics.

 

[stockdam]

You must be joking! It's always been wrong to steal and always will be - nothing to do with God and everything to do with maintaining a workable society.

Now you're joking. Do you download or copy music or software illegally? And even if you don't then it's a very common thing to do. It's wrong but as a society we don't put that much emphasis on it. However steal a million pounds from a train and "we" label you as a thief.


You can't name an immoral act that I would commit but you wouldn't because you know that I am likely to share your moral ideas. That's because they come from our society not our religion.

However, it's easier for atheists to name a few that various types of believers think are moral which are obviously immoral. Slavery, discrimination against homosexuals, female circumcision, stoning of adulterers, child brides, the list is long.

And yes, religious morality does change - of course it does, otherwise we'd still be burning widows as witches and people like me as heretics.

Try again.....none of the above are in my list.

 

[cjd]

Now you're joking. Do you download or copy music or software illegally? And even if you don't then it's a very common thing to do. It's wrong but as a society we don't put that much emphasis on it. However steal a million pounds from a train and "we" label you as a thief.

And it's stealing and everybody knows it. Is stealing an mp3 file a lessor crime than stealing million pounds? I think so, and so do you. Would God treat those wrongs in the same way? - not if he is a fair and just God.

Where does it say you can't share an mp3 file in the bible? Nowhere.

How do we know it's wrong then? Because we have a secular law covering copyright.

Is this law universal? no. Some Muslim countries use religious laws were copyright is not protected. So, by a religious law that otherwise treats stealing as an absolute crime, sharing mp3s is not a wrong or immoral.

Now then, suppose the state changed the laws regarding mp3 file sharing; would downloading still be wrong. No. Why not? It was wrong before and god hasn't changed anything so it must still be wrong. I think not.

You see, there's nothing absolute here and it's all secular. God is simply not required or even very useful when trying to work out what is right and what is wrong.

 

Now you're joking. Do you download or copy music or software illegally? And even if you don't then it's a very common thing to do. It's wrong but as a society we don't put that much emphasis on it. However steal a million pounds from a train and "we" label you as a thief.

Unless you are an MP

You can't name an immoral act that I would commit but you wouldn't because you know that I am likely to share your moral ideas. That's because they come from our society not our religion.

Im not convinced that moral standards are objective.

Single sex partners after marriage for life, is an absolute for some, not for others and - views differ within a society let alone between societies.

 

[cjd]

Im not convinced that moral standards are objective.

For once we agree.

It's mostly religion that tries to make morality absolute - but of course it always fails because it is forced to modernise or lose its followers or it simply violates secular laws.

Examples would be divorce, contraception, homosexual discrimination and so on. (Isn't it remarkable how many of the Christian church's immorality rules involve sex - I wonder why that is?)

 

[stockdam]

And it's stealing and everybody knows it. Is stealing an mp3 file a lessor crime than stealing million pounds? I think so, and so do you. Would God treat those wrongs in the same way? - not if he is a fair and just God.

You haven't done your research then have you.

Where does it say you can't share an mp3 file in the bible? Nowhere.

It doesn't but if it's stealing then........Thou shalt not steal..........no qualification is needed.

How do we know it's wrong then? Because we have a secular law covering copyright.

Is this law universal? no. Some Muslim countries use religious laws were copyright is not protected. So, by a religious law that otherwise treats stealing as an absolute crime, sharing mp3s is not a wrong or immoral.

Now then, suppose the state changed the laws regarding mp3 file sharing; would downloading still be wrong. No. Why not? It was wrong before and god hasn't changed anything so it must still be wrong. I think not.

You see, there's nothing absolute here and it's all secular. God is simply not required or even very useful when trying to work out what is right and what is wrong.

Yes there is absolute here......thou shalt not steal. Simple isn't it. Your waffle doesn't change anything.

Stealing is taking something that belongs to another person without their consent. If they consent then it's not stealing........how much simpler do you want it to be? In your above options......if the owner consents then it's not stealing; if they don't then it's stealing.

But you've proven the point. Your "human morals" changed as you justified each option based on your beliefs. The religious "thou shalt not steal" applied to them all.

 

[cjd]

You haven't done your research then have you.

Please explain

Yes there is absolute here......thou shalt not steal. Simple isn't it. Your waffle doesn't change anything.

Stealing is taking something that belongs to another person without their consent. If they consent then it's not stealing........how much simpler do you want it to be? In your above options......if the owner consents then it's not stealing; if they don't then it's stealing.

We all, and I mean all, know that stealing is wrong.

Stealing was wrong before God told Moses about it and stealing is wrong for Buddhists, Janists, Mormons, Hindus and every other daft sect you can mention. Even chimpanzees 'know' that stealing is wrong and they get punished for it if they are found doing it.

The reason we know that stealing is wrong is not because Jesus says so, it's because any society that allowed stealing could not possibly work.

Stealing is depriving someone of the use of something. Steal my car and I no longer have a car. Steal my copyright though and I still have it. It required a secular law to show that sharing an mp3 file was stealing because the owner still has full use of it and has lost nothing except the right to charge for it.

Some countries and many individuals do not accept this - they do not think it is stealing. Humans have to make judgements about what is right and what is wrong and how severe the wrong is. Does absolute morality only reside in followers of Jesus?

It may well be always wrong to steal but stealing a loaf of bread in order to eat is not the same order of wrong as robbing a bank - and Jesus would agree even if you wouldn't. So where is your absolute truth?

 

[stockdam]

and Jesus would agree even if you wouldn't. So where is your absolute truth?

Once again you need to do your research instead of giving your opinion.

 

[cjd]

Once again you need to do your research instead of giving your opinion.

Please explain x2

 

[stugster]

"In the fourth day's work, the creation of the sun, moon, and stars is accounted for. All these are the works of God. The stars are spoken of as they appear to our eyes, without telling their number, nature, place, size, or motions; for the Scriptures were written, not to gratify curiosity, or make us astronomers, but to lead us to God, and make us saints. The lights of heaven are made to serve him; they do it faithfully, and shine in their season without fail."

How do people just accept this as what is true?

 

[FreeBusiness]

We love bible believing literalists in this thread.

Most sadly cant stand the relentless questioning of their faith and leave (the evidence scares them)

Would you like start by justifying god drowning everything on earth.

Its not the questioning per se, it is the questioning by people who have no idea what they are talking about. It a chess master playing with a newbie who hardly understands the rules. We end up not answering question but trying to explain the very basic elements of faith. None of you even understand the difference between Jews and Christians, between the Old and New Testament, you have no knowledge of how Historians view the Bible or the difference between a fable and an actual historic record.

I am both a better aethiest than any of you and a Christian. I was an aetheist for fifty years so I understand your questions I asked them all myself and more beside. And no, you will never understand the Bible or Christians until you come to faith, I know it is a contradiction but it is the truth, I know from experience. I read the New testament thirty times nad did not understand it until I finally relented and believed.

I am a bit busy but I will try and answer any real questions when I get the chance.

Robert

 

[cjd]

None of you even understand the difference between Jews and Christians, between the Old and New Testament, you have no knowledge of how Historians view the Bible or the difference between a fable and an actual historic record.

That's total bunkum - I was brought up as a Christian and have studied the bible - both old and new. I have also read extensively about religion of all forms and researched some of its history.

As a general statement, you'll find that atheists know more about religion than believers who generally ONLY study their particular flavour of holy book and hear what their priest says.

I am both a better aethiest than any of you and a Christian.

wow.

I know it is a contradiction but it is the truth, I know from experience. I read the New testament thirty times nad did not understand it until I finally relented and believed.

Correct, it is not understandable until you suspend reason, then its perfectly clear.

Been there done that - but in reverse. It's called a delusion.

 

[Gillie]

Its not the questioning per se, it is the questioning by people who have no idea what they are talking about. It a chess master playing with a newbie who hardly understands the rules. We end up not answering question but trying to explain the very basic elements of faith. None of you even understand the difference between Jews and Christians, between the Old and New Testament, you have no knowledge of how Historians view the Bible or the difference between a fable and an actual historic record.

I am both a better aethiest than any of you and a Christian. I was an aetheist for fifty years so I understand your questions I asked them all myself and more beside. And no, you will never understand the Bible or Christians until you come to faith, I know it is a contradiction but it is the truth, I know from experience. I read the New testament thirty times nad did not understand it until I finally relented and believed.

I am a bit busy but I will try and answer any real questions when I get the chance.

Robert

So you have to be a Christian to understand faith??

 

[marchog]

Hi Gillie! Wow if only Steve could be tempted back. Like old times. What idiot drove him away?

 

[Gillie]

Oh come one now ... don't try laying the persuction on me, I have enough complexes already!

 

[cjd]

What idiot drove him away?

If I remember rightly, it was Beelzebub, the Prince of Darkness in unfamiliar guise.

 

[marchog]

Anything good about Jesus then? Hardly a stampede to point out his original non-stupid teachings is there? He's the son of god for Christ's sake. Anything to beat the bloke down the pub? How about his miraculous achievements? How many blind people did Jesus cure and how many has 'Darwinian' science cured? Too busy cursing fig trees. What a joke.

 

[DCE]

So you have to be a Christian to understand faith??

What do you believe faith to be, and in what do you put your faith in Gillie?

 

[DCE]

Anything good about Jesus then? Hardly a stampede to point out his original non-stupid teachings is there? He's the son of god for Christ's sake. Anything to beat the bloke down the pub? How about his miraculous achievements? How many blind people did Jesus cure and how many has 'Darwinian' science cured? Too busy cursing fig trees. What a joke.

Jesus was showing what God's Kingdom was going to bring about on the earth after Armageddon, (which is God's war against those who are ruining the earth.)

In his famous Sermon on the Mount, Jesus describes what it takes to be happy. He states: “Happy are those” who (1)*are conscious of their spiritual need, (2)*mourn, (3)*are mild-tempered, (4)*hunger and thirst for righteousness, (5)*are merciful, (6)*are pure in heart, (7)*are peaceable, (8)*are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, and (9)*are reproached and persecuted for his sake.—Matthew 5:3-11.

Tip (1) is very important, its gives you real insight into the scripture's.

 

(8)*are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, and (9)*are reproached and persecuted for his sake.—Matthew 5:3-11.

Don't sound like a recipe for a happy bunny to me.

Earl

 

[Gillie]

What do you believe faith to be, and in what do you put your faith in Gillie?

Faith is merely something we humans hold on to to explain things that happen and things we want to happen. Its a crutch that helps us deal with all that life throws at us, whether its faith in a God, faith in ourselves, faith in money, faith in those around us etc etc.

But the thing about faith is that its an individual thing and we all have the right to pick what to believe in, but we don't have the right to belittle someone elses faith, merely debate if their faith is 'better' at handling lifes crisis than ours!

 

[cjd]

...Armageddon, which is God's war against those who are ruining the earth.

That's the weirdest thing I've ever heard a believer say. I simply don't know where to start with it.

 

[stugster]

http://www.kontraband.co.uk/pics/17760/The-Truth-Even-When-It-Hurts/

 

http://www.kontraband.co.uk/pics/17760/The-Truth-Even-When-It-Hurts/

Stug.

I give everyone on this thread one chance to engage sensibily with a dialogue about the subject of this thread

All have so far failed the test - The essential posters, like you so far, are not worth the candle of a discussion.

They poke illresearched crap from any "skeptic" website or wiki . refuse to engage with the arguments that render scientific fundamentalism inadequate at any serious philosophical level and evidence that the standpoint in wrong. And indeed they show a poor grasp of science in many posts in the process.

For example. Ask your self the question. What IS a wave or an electron for that matter?- fundamental in physics. Or the universe, so you think. If you arrive at any other conclusion that it is other than a piece of abstract maths, which people try to "fit" to observations they make with greater or lesser accuracy.....if you think they actually exist in the world itself. You need to go back to basics again.

As witness the hopelessly unscientific statement "extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof"...another piece of cr+p non scientists claim in the name of science, which really doesnt want such unscientific people

ie most are wasters intent on playing - no serious debate.


Nothing wrong with that, except dont expect anyone to take you seriously if you do.

So answer a question for me.

You cite death. Let me Bring you kicking and screaming into today

How many people died from aids last year?

Who preaches monogamy - single sex partners for life after marraige and has always preached so - and present problems with AIDS could never have spread...so widely with that philosophy

And now the promiscuous world you live in, drugs, sex and so on - killing with AIDS.

You could of course trot out the old chestnut "contraception". Even the HSE disagree with you. Read up on PPE..and discover it is a last resort, after you discount every other means of avoiding the hazard in this case monogamy. That is safety legislation from the six pack 1992


So dont look backwards

Which philosophy killed more last year?

 

[cjd]

Stug.

I give everyone on this thread one chance to engage sensibily with a dialogue about the subject of this thread

All have so far failed the test - The essential posters, like you so far, are not worth the candle of a discussion.

Oh, you are a card! One day maybe one of us minions will reach the great heights of your intellect. Probably too much to hope for though.

 

[stugster]

If we're talking about AIDS, then shouldn't we be pushing forward realistic preventative practices? Practices necessary to strengthen freedom of conscience? You bring up AIDS, but where do you believe it comes from? Homosexuality? Rapists? or God?

Original religion viewed the body as a sacred object, and thusly, became to be central to its religious regulations. Herein starts the taboo towards the body and sexuality. Branded impure by the Church, they continue to reinterpret and renovate their "feelings". Based on what? Scientific evidence.

You didn't like my source, and I agree with you - it is off a website where there is no official accreditation. But for a minute, think about the rest of the deaths around the world. Who's to blame? Why?

Take Africa. The HIV and AIDS out there is absolutely horrendous. One of my friends is just back from Malawi doing aid-work over there. Who's to blame for the wide-spread virus there? It's not the atheists.

Abstinence would be an effective form of preventative measure. But it doesn't have to be sugar-coated as Religion along with propaganda by the Church. If they were really that devout and all-loving, they'd realise this and draw a line between Religion and Helping Others. They don't.

 

Oh, you are a card! One day maybe one of us minions will reach the great heights of your intellect. Probably too much to hope for though.

It isnt an intellect thing, My comment is subjective. I, thats me, myself, cant be bothered wasting time with people who fundamentally are here to ridicule something they dont understand and in many cases never research - provably so, as witness in the last 24 hours, Top Hat calling the shroud a forgery, with not the slightest shred of evidence, or effort.

I presume Stug hoped someone would engage with what he siad.

I pointed out he needs only look at last year to question the validitiy of the generality of the point he seemed to want to make - and some of his past apparently blind support for science.

 

. If they were really that devout and all-loving, they'd realise this and draw a line between Religion and Helping Others. They don't.

Again total b+ll+x stug

Take Mother Theresa and the works of the sisters of charity generally including africa present day

The Khaligat, home for dying in india accepted anyone regardless of creed. And performed any religious rites from any faith they wished or none. From Hindu seikh or atheist or moslem

CJD made the same accusation about MT - these accusations stem from lack of research and knowledge, as I observe others do.

Too much time spent on skepdic. Not enough time studying the real world.

They help.

 

[stugster]

You didn't comment on the origins of AIDS though.

 

You didn't comment on the origins of AIDS though.

You havent commented on abiogenesis whether you think life is a biochemical accident...the right chemicals happening to be in the right places for life to appear.

If you believe that, accept it is your belief.


By the way. Most people drive cars.

They dont know how the electronic ignition works or why. It works just as well whether or not they can comment on how, or why it happens.

So when I say "no idea" to AIDS. Accept it makes not a shred of differencee.

 

[stugster]

But this is one of the points. You cannot believe in God when it suits you. Surely?