betsy

I do!

How gullible are we? http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=6461 Gee....I'm not sure. Maybe, very?

Jesus didn't teach wives were the property of men. Just like He didn't teach that slaves were the property of masters. They were, both wives and slaves, the property of men. But it had nothing to do with Jesus. Blame Ceasar for that which was Ceasar's, credit Jesus for that which was God's. If I may be permitted a pseudo-quote.

it shouldn't matter if i agree or not. i don't know who claims 'God' wrote the bible. it was written by people. old testement and new. therefore, the source is man. we certainly should not trust what the church teaches. they don't know shit. galileo will tell you all about that. and yes, i have ideas that throw faith out the window in favor intelligence (not that i claim to have an abundance of that!). all you need to do is think about how things work now when thinking about what happened back then. i know a fable when i read one! Well said. But I didn't say God wrote the bible. I merely said that Christians believe that the concept of good and evil flows from the mind of God. That's a major tenet of our faith.

aren't all concepts concepts of man? how is god any different from the dead gods of the past like zeus or ra? has anyone here (while in a lucid state of mind) ever had a direct conversation with god? i personally believe that we are at a turning point in our civilizations development. we are finally learning to let go of religion for a more reliable source of knowlege. science. the new new testiment of the bible will likely be far less filled with magic. unless that is we blast ourselves back to the stone age and have to start over again. in which case, many of the technologies we have now may be viewed as magic and miracles. The expression of all concepts may spring from the minds of men. Christians believe that the concept of good and evil came from the mind of God. You may not agree, but that is hardly the point. That's interesting what you believe. At least it leaves room for rational discusiion. And at least you're in the right thread. But maybe for some we should start a new thread: "Can't Prove It. Nya-nya-nya "

Believing in biology or any science is not the same as discussing philosophical concepts. No scientist will disagree with that. They are separate disciplines. Unless of course you want to discuss the philosophy of science, in which case there'll be no proofs available. I've just read your footer by chance. It seems to me that your beliefs aren't your own. Apparently you've been brainwashed by the writings of Sagan and Weinberg...et al. The closest you've come to thinking for yourself is agreeing with them. I am not trying to be rude. I'm just saying you're learning from them as much as children are from their parents. I know you are an adult....but your knowledge of science or philosophy is no further advanced in the larger scheme of things than that of a Christian's child. Almost certainly Sagan and the boys would teach their children their beliefs. That's the way of things. Because you've decided that you like their theories does not make you an independent thinker, anymore than the children in Sunday School. And remember theirs are belief systems as well...which are in fact religion. Weinberg imagines that the concept of good and evil spring from the mind of man. Christians believe that these concepts derive from God. Neither can prove their beliefs. Have faith, my friend.

Where did you hear that Chretien backed Dion? I thought he backed Rae. So, if the party members are the anti-establishment, just who is the "establishment"? Right on that election day, media were all gushing about the "uncle-nephew" relationship of Dion and Chretien, of how it was Aline Chretien who brought her husband's attention to Dion, saying "you should get that guy into politics...", how Dion and Chretien regularly fish together in the summer.... After his win, media were following and speculating the moment he would go pay his homage to Chretien....and it was like watching sports the way media covered his victory walk....like doing the big score when finally he reached Chretien, "...and there it is, folks," announced the anchorperson!

You sound offended. I don't know why you keep responding...looking for proof. I'd like to remind you again, that you, just like Bertrand Russell, have proved nothing. You are merely stating your beliefs. And by your persistence you apparently have a great deal of FAITH in your BELIEFS.

An interesting read... "I once wrote a column pointing out that intelligent atheists had often converted to Christianity, and cited the case of C.S. Lewis. At least one of my readers wasn't impressed. Noting that Lewis had been fond of mythology since childhood, the reader dismissed the century's most prominent Christian apologist on the grounds that Lewis "was never a convinced and committed atheist." If they were simply humble, open-minded inquirers as they claim, you'd think at some point they'd admit that their previous explanation might not hold water after all. Instead they've clung to it all the more determinedly. They've taken to insisting that we no longer speak of the "theory of evolution" but rather the "fact of evolution." They say decidedly unscientific and irrational things like "even if it has problems it's the best explanation we've got" — as if admission of their own ignorance, much less God's guidance in creation, were out of the question. You'd think evolution was a religion itself. And so it has always been, argues biophysicist Cornelius G. Hunter in his fascinating new book, Darwin's God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil. Backed by extensive quotation, Hunter contends that Charles Darwin and his heirs, far from being disinterested scientific observers, came to their views based on their assumptions about God. They looked at the world, decided it should have been designed better, and concluded that God simply wouldn't have done it that way. Hunter writes: Darwin was concerned, for example, that tons of pollen go to waste every year, that some species are ill-adapted for their environments, that ants make slaves of other ants, and that parasites feed off their victims. He tried to make sense of what seemed to be the evil side of nature. "What a book a devil's chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful blundering, low and horribly cruel works of nature," he concluded a letter to a friend. How could divine creation be reconciled with such evils? It was questions like these that, for Darwin, seemed to confirm that life is formed by blind natural forces. He was motivated toward evolution not by direct evidence in favor of his new theory but by problems with the common notion of divine creation. Creation, it seemed, does not always reflect the goodness of God, so Darwin advocated a naturalistic explanation to describe how creation came about. Not that Darwin was precisely an atheist. One of the most interesting aspects of Hunter's book is his exploration of Darwin's concept of God — a concept shared by many people of his time and in the centuries leading up to it. By Darwin's time influential people (including leading Victorian thinkers dominant in his native England) thought God was supposed to be utterly comprehensible to human reason, and invariably benevolent in His dealings with man. "God's goodness and wisdom were thought to be manifest in creation," Hunter summarizes, "but not his providence, judgment, or use of evil." This was not even remotely like the God revealed in the Bible. Indeed, all of Scripture shows God actively guiding history, in ways often mysterious to men, especially in their own lifetimes. Scripture also tells of how all creation, not just mankind, has been corrupted, leading to the world Darwin found so inefficient and cruel. Had Darwin been steeped in a biblical worldview, maybe he would have found these realities easier to accept. But the God he'd heard about would never have created the world he saw in nature; this God had to be distant from it all. No wonder so many of Darwin's successors have stepped into outright atheism; if God hasn't done anything since the dawn of time, why believe in Him at all? Yet as Hunter notes, "It is perhaps one of the great ironies in modern religious thought that one can profess to be an agnostic, skeptic or even atheist regarding belief in God yet still hold strong opinions about God. Evolution may breed skepticism, but its adherents have continued to make religious proclamations. And those proclamations are really no different from those made by Darwin and his fellow Victorians." For example, for [science philosopher] Michael Ruse God cannot be reconciled with the facts of biogeography, so we must turn to evolution. He argues, "Given an all-wise God, just why is it that different [life] forms appear in similar climate, whereas the same forms appear in different climates? It is all pointless without evolution." According to [geneticist] Edward Dodson and [geologist] Peter Dodson, if God had created the species, then they should be distributed evenly about the globe. They write, "Had all species been created in the places where they now exist, then amphibian and terrestrial mammals should be as frequent on oceanic islands as on comparable continental areas. Certainly terrestrial mammals should have been created on these islands as frequently as were bats." It is remarkable how often evolutionists feel free to dictate what God should and shouldn't do. The sheer arrogance of it all may be striking to the Christian reader — or for that matter to anyone who, in the words of a priest in the movie Rudy, knows at least two things: "There is a God, and I'm not Him." But we shouldn't find such arrogance completely surprising. Adam and Eve, after all, thought Satan's promise of godlike knowledge — and hence godlike stature — to be an irresistible temptation. In this sense, all of us really do reflect the traits passed on by common ancestors, pride foremost among them. Evolutionists just dress theirs up in scientific garb. But in the end evolution is not pure science, and Hunter's purpose is less to argue against evolution (though he does do so) than to show that evolution rests on metaphysical assumptions. "An unspoken, unscientific position underlies evolution, and until this is understood public debate will continue to be more confusing than enlightening," Hunter concludes. "We need to understand these things because, ultimately, evolution is not about the scientific details. Ultimately, evolution is about God." http://www.boundless.org/2001/regulars/kaufman/a0000519.html

Why is it that you seem so desperate to find proof and evidence? Even to the point of "lowering the standards?" I understand your science cannot offer you any tangible evidence that there is no God.....so you desperately want me to provide the answer instead. Anything that could pass for a proof. As I've said, this is all about faith. No requirements of evidence needed. I am confident in my belief....even without any proof. I just know. I cannot validate your belief for you. You'll just have to rely on your science and keep hoping that eventually, they'll stumble upon proof that God does not exist....a validation, some sort of reassurance...which obviously, you so desperately need.

" The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion. In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection -- how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences. ID is controversial because of the implications of its evidence, rather than the significant weight of its evidence. ID proponents believe science should be conducted objectively, without regard to the implications of its findings. This is particularly necessary in origins science because of its historical (and thus very subjective) nature, and because it is a science that unavoidably impacts religion. Positive evidence of design in living systems consists of the semantic, meaningful or functional nature of biological information, the lack of any known law that can explain the sequence of symbols that carry the "messages," and statistical and experimental evidence that tends to rule out chance as a plausible explanation. Other evidence challenges the adequacy of natural or material causes to explain both the origin and diversity of life. Intelligent Design is an intellectual movement that includes a scientific research program for investigating intelligent causes and that challenges naturalistic explanations of origins which currently drive science education and research." http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/ A lot of "could"..."maybe"...but nothing definite. Absolute. Hey, as I say...for those who feel this great need to search for God...the "truth"....nothing stops you from continuing on with your researches....from reading each and every theory and book that comes out and get published. I acknowledge that some people have that need. For some, an almost obsesion. You are still on a quest. But for some of us....we've already found our answer. "It is not part of science to try to prove the world was or was not designed by God. It is not the job of science to try to explain the probability of biological developments happening by chance or not. If anyone wants to speculate about such matters, they are free to do so—as metaphysicians." http://skepdic.com/intelligentdesign.html Jesus is more than just a mere genius to me. He is my God. And of course, He is right.

I know I chose the right religion. I am not trying to convince you or anyone. It is right for me. However there is ample evidence in scripture to anyone who isn't wilfully blind to it to show that Christ existed, and His life was exceptional in the view of many and geographically isolated witnesses. Of course you don't have to believe that that proves He is God. You don't have to believe that Hitler was a bad guy either. But you do have to consider the evidence. So what? Science may have been around for quite sometime, but the fact remains, it still has not even proven how the world was created. It's all a bunch of theories floating about. And like I said before....maybe science had not reached that higher level...to unearth the fact of creation. They can't even fully undertsand the human brain yet....and again, who knows....the human brain might hold the key to unlock some more! But I'm willing to put my money that if they ever happen to stumble onto the truth about creation, they're most likely to admit that creation is the result of Intelligent Design! Highly speculative? Of course. The possibility of actually establishing a viable theory for the creation of the universe is highly speculative...never mind coming up with the actual truth. But the odds for the creation of the universe being explained adequately by random chaos theory would make the 6/49 lotto look like a sure thing! How can Communism work if it's not practiced? A theory is something you intend to base your conclusion on. How can it work if you haven't tried it. I think the common expression you're looking for is, "sounds good in theory." Anywhere Communism is being practiced, it hasn't been for the better of the population by any stretch of the imagination. Unless you're a communist, I'm sure you'll agree.... From me too. Too bad in the case of Bertrand, one of the eminent philosophers of the 20th century, it took a violent war to convince him that his theories of pacifism were nonsense. Shows that pacifism doesn't work! Good thing he didn't decide to become a human shield. At least he was wiser than that. or maybe Egyptian heaven is inside a pyramid.

I am not required to prove to you anything. Go ahead ask me: can you prove that God exists? Answer: No. And so what? You can go your merry way or argue with somebody else about it. And while you're on your merry way, figure out how you can prove that He doesn't exist. Actually, if you can prove...PROVE...that He doesn't exist, I'll believe you. But of course, you can't. If you accuse me of fantasizing having gay sex with a girlie farm animal, I'll see you in court. And the burden of proof will definitely be yours! This is not philosophy. This is slander! The nerve...GAY SEX! It's telling that you suggest that I would be fantasizing...not doing...very Liberal, mind control, social engineering and all that.

Merry Christmas everyone!

Okay see the issue I would take is where the burden of proof is placed. You see if you want to believe in Ogres, Santa Clause and talking donkeys you can, but it is as a result of nothing more then a desire. Because when there is no proof of existance it is only logical to say that there is no Existance. BUT when that question is turned around and asked if there is proof of non-existance it is not logical to conclude existance, it is only logical to ask what then is the proof of existance. And if there is no proof of existance than it is only logical to say that until there is proof of existance, there is no need to take the step and conclude that such a thing exists. Burden of proof is for the law courts. Nobody has to prove anything here. No one can prove the existence of God. No one can prove the non-existence of God. No one can define truth. No one can define divinity or love. Does it mean we shouldn't talk of any of them? Save scientific proof for science. God knows scientists have enough trouble proving their scientific theories. We'll stick with speculation and discussion when it comes to philosophy.

So what? Bertrand Russelll staunchly defended Communism until he realized its flaws and its inadequacies. He was an ardent pacifist until the horrors of the second world war made him realize what a nonsense it was to be a pacifist. He changed his mind about a lot of things. For all you know he could’ve had a change of mind (again) about his faith…..but had remained quiet about it so he wouldn’t be known as flipflopping Bertrie! As for Dawkin’s quote, what of it? He could’ve as easily said this: The reason organized liberal propaganda machines merit outright hostility is that, unlike belief in Russell's teapot, liberal propaganda machines are powerful, influential, tax-supported and systematically passed on to children in public schools and daycares too young to defend themselves. The liberal propaganda machine that teaches my children to accept a relative morality and other that I disagree with is no different than religious beliefs being taught to children. Just like any other belief...like liberalism for example. I don't have a clue. You should know the answer, since you keep responding to me and others like me! I swear I don't dabble in witchcraft...so you're not under any spells that make you respond against your will. Believers believe, and non-believers don't. Just remember that you have not proven the non-existence of God anymore than I'd proven He exists. That's all there is to it.

I responded to this statement you made: How?

That's a declaration. Not a proof. Declarations don't count. Yes, I've never argued otherwise. Then why are we arguing???? That's all I've been saying all along here! No one can prove that God does not exists anymore than anyone can offer undeniable proof that He does exists. Since you've acknowledged that you've never argued otherwise, and acknowledged the possibility exists...therefore, we agree! Hasta la vista...

Assume for a moment that it is provable that the universe had not existed forever. Now you have the un-enviable task of describing what existed before it. Maybe you'll find it's God.

It makes perfect sense. I have no reason to believe God exists (despite many people trying), just as I have no reason to beleive that Geoffrey is an alien. It's important to note that I can not say with 100% confidence that Geoffrey is not an alien just as I can't say with 100% confidence that some sort of God exist. But it seems highly unlikely that either are true. Well then, you cannot be 100% sure...therefore the possibility still exists! This is just another of the many theories...whatever it is. I didn't bother to read it at all, to be honest. Your answer above is proof enough....that your link had failed in providing the proof that would've given you that 100% confidence!

How?

But scientific theories are based on, and confirmed by, evidence. If further evidence contradicts that theory, then yes it would have to be modified. The problem is that there is no verifiable evidence at all that God exists. If there was any evidence at all, then the theory could be taken seriously. But that is what faith is all about! No requirements of proof or evidence. Tell me what steps you would have followed to go about proving he is not an alien? Your statement is not logicall...it doesn't make sense. "It's like asking me to prove that God does not exists. I cannot prove that He does not exists, but I have no reason to believe that He does. Therefore, it's safe to say that He probably does not exists." You can't conclude anything from this. Except that you've decided to abandon the inquiry. Anyway, by your last statement, He could either exist...or not exist! And Geoffrey could either be an alien...or not an alien!

Happy Chanukah!

Besty, you are quite right on this. Science is ever expanding our understanding of our surroundings and how we interact with them. Faith and religion were used to explain things we were ignorant about, but as science progresses, we as a race understand more. Science has been used to prove the world is round. People who had faith were the ones thinking the earth was flat and you would fall off the edge of the ocean into space. (without thinking that all the water would run off as well, and the oceans would be dry) Faith and logic sometimes do not belong in the same sentence. You had faith the world was flat, now there is evidence to show and prove the world is round and you now commonly accept it as such. We learn. Now your faith is no longer valid once you understand the true situation (through scientific and analytical methods) I have never seen religion/faith prove anything. Science usually debunks it, or sometimes does not have an answer. That does not mean we won't find one. I put my faith in science. It has proven itself over the years, and more so as we progress in our own evolutional understanding of our environment. Faith and religion is stagnant and cannot offer anymore than some basic values for our daily lives, which is not bad in itself. But other than that, religion as I see it, has outlived it's purpose. Time for use to open up the mind and understand what things are about. How does one do that? Using science, methods to prove and disprove things. I like proof, for I am skeptic. Always have been. Simply because, science has time and time again proven 'faith' wrong. OK, so there is science we KNOW of 100%, and there is science we are not sure of. Theoretical sciences. But again most of the theories are based on other known scientific facts, and are put into a way that seems to make sense. Sometimes real science will prove these theories wrong as we understand more. Here is how I see it now. Science is about the understanding of things, through methods to prove right or wrong. Religion/Faith just tells us how it is without much to back it up, and you should just accept it as such. I hate being told what to do and think. Also with this kind of stagnation in place with religion, I do not believe it allows a person to 'grow and understand' things. Keeps them in a narrow frame of mind. And for the most part, faithers like science as long as it does not contradict their faith. That seems dangerous to me. Scientists debunked faith just like liberals debunked religion...but that doesn't mean science debunked faith. Scientists require proof...they work on a different ground. They can't prove the tenets of religion anymore than they can disprove them. This is a real dilemma for scientists. Of course not all scientists fall in this category. There are brilliant scientists who have faith, and who reconcile their faith and science naturally. Everybody believed the Big Bang of Steven Hawkins was a brilliant revelation. Now it's proven to be wrong. Secularists believed in the Communist state, in Marxism...in socialism. Now it's proved to be not only unworkable, but dangerous. Canadian liberals continue to tout the merits of taxpayer-supported medicare...but it doesn't work. Clearly it's going broke. The basic belief is that the state should pay for the wlefare of all its citizens. Communism tried that. Yet we persist. Why won't they budge? Faith! Science requires faith. You have to believe in your premise before you can begin. This is fine. The problem is many scientists, like liberals, do not give up when their faith proves to be misguided. There are many examples of science proving to be stabbing in the dark: theories regarding the extinction of dinosaurs (asteroids, climate change, axis shifts). How about today's theories of climate change, none of which are completely convincing. The Mycenean civilization (invasions from the north, climate change, fires, tyranny). And the ultimate example is creation of the universe. You name it, it's been discussed. What theory is behind door #3? You say: "Science is about the understanding of things, through methods to prove right or wrong." If you mean it is about trying to understand events around us....then what is religion, if not the attempt to understand events around us....the meaning of life. But then there is no point in arguing for it is all a matter of belief....of faith. You have as much faith in your science as I have in my belief.

Gee, you really did that? Calling to the Lord of The Underworld? What would've happened if a loud voice answered with a booming, "Yes?"...and it was, unknown to you, coming from the tv nextdoor? You see, what had happened to me just happened. I was not expecting something like it...nor was I pre-occupied about it. Unlike you, I was not doing anything that could be said it was psychologically induced. One recent experience in our house now happened while I was engrossed in a chick-flick comedy! It just suddenly intruded without me having anything to do or think that might've psychologically induced it to happen. My attention was in the comedy movie I was watching! I've never dabbled with nor participated in any mediums trying to contact the dead.....actually I'll be the skeptic in the group if ever I did happen to find myself in a circle. I still am skeptics about "mediums"...and anything that can be used to exploit and scam others. My mom had a near death experience...and to this day, at the back of my mind I'm still asking, "was she hallucinating?" The only sure thing I've noticed about her was the gungho zeal she tackled helping in the renovations of the church after that experience. Whatever it was she saw...or believed she saw...obviously was real to her. And it spurred her on and inspired her. She was quite old at the time too. Who am I to conclude then that what she saw was not real? What is my proof for my argument...other than say, "well, it couldn't be real. There could be some explanations to that...some rational cause." But who am I to say? I may try to rationalize it....but what if it's something that cannot be rationalized....at this present time? What if it's something beyond science's capability right now? Twenty years ago, DNA experimentation and cloning were purely cheesy sci-fi movie stuffs! Now, it's real! How can you differentiate hallucinations and delusions from real? It's so easy to write it off as halluscination or delusion. But why is it so hard to think that someone can be possibly experiencing something real? Or maybe you've reached out telepathically to her and she responded because she felt the same way towards you! Or it was like something you said: your brain wanting some closure. Who knows? You opted to discount the other possibilities...and instead chosed to rationalize it....even using the same terminology that is commonly ingrained into our lives these days, "closure." If you were telling this story ten years ago, I doubt that "closure" would be the very word that you would've used. For sure. That's why we cannot simply dismiss all the numerous personal accounts happening all over the world from different cultures, different stations in life, and information depicted on Newbie's link. I personally believe science is just simply not that fully developed yet...to tackle these kinds of things.