Obama "Strongly Objects" to Religious Liberty Amendment....

[Ringo]

Interesting side discussion above. Of course, atheists don't (can't in fact) argue about whose brand of atheism is the best and only legitimate one, whose lack of belief is the strongest and purest, whose atheist book is the genuine one, whose god not believed in is the genuine (or phony) one...

Considering that atheists believe that "nothing, plus nothing, plus time, equals something","Can't in fact" is your strongest point. Of course, you can't argue, even among yourselves, "fools by choice" you're so opposed to anything linked to God that your lack of belief & hatred gets in the way of "common sense". The only thing genuine (not phoney) about you is you're regenerate state of existence (reference-The Genuine Book) characterized by the very nature and essence of your father the devil!

 

[tricolordad]

TCD, I have been sitting on the sidelines reading away in enjoyment. I got to jump in here for a second. You make mention above that "You have talked to those assholes". That's interesting. How so? Your argument is that less than 1% of Muslims are terrorists. Thats the proverbial needle in the haystack. How did you talk to them? It's just an odd statement.

You get to meet them when the ones you shoot don't die. Interrogations can be a *****...especially when you're gut shot and out of ammo. Just ask hajji.

 

[mojoman]

Trumpets I hope! :dance3:

Soon my brother, soon the Lord have already spoke to me and told me that He coming soon.

 

[nosreme]

Soon my brother, soon the Lord have already spoke to me and told me that He coming soon.

Maybe he'll bring a grammar tutorial with him.

 

[gunnerbob]

Considering that atheists believe that "nothing, plus nothing, plus time, equals something","Can't in fact" is your strongest point. Of course, you can't argue, even among yourselves, "fools by choice" you're so opposed to anything linked to God that your lack of belief & hatred gets in the way of "common sense". The only thing genuine (not phoney) about you is you're regenerate state of existence (reference-The Genuine Book) characterized by the very nature and essence of your father the devil!

An intelligent atheist would be smart enough to understand that they don't understand the exact origins of everything, and thus should with hold their conclusions about existence. Most non-theist scientists I have studied do not follow the line of thinking you've described Ringo. In fact, time as we know it, according to quantum physics... did not exist before existence. Time itself, was created at the moment of existence. Thus, time is not what we generally associate it as, it is in fact growing... in the same manner as our universe. The space-time theory, as we know it. However, time itself is an entirely human creation IMO (and others). Time isn't required in any remote sense to existence. We use time to describe the world around us as it flows in its ways and to describe distances that are beyond our minds true ability to comprehend.

I do not know the exact origins of existence, I will never claim so. IMO, all beliefs humans have about existence and its origins are theories... all of them. It is however, completely acceptable to come to some sort of conclusion about such things while we live out our lives. Why not, right? I will never say that you are wrong in your beliefs Ringo... who the hell am I to say so? The most interesting discussions I have ever had are about existence, or creation... or whatever term we deem appropriate. Some of the most spectacular things about this life are matters of the universe... how fortunate we humans are to be able to even attempt to understand it.

Thanks for the insight into your beliefs Ringo, I hope you keep up the comments. I truly enjoy reading and trying to understand them. Cheers friend.

 

[Ringo]

An intelligent atheist would be smart enough to understand that they don't understand the exact origins of everything, and thus should with hold their conclusions about existence. Most non-theist scientists I have studied do not follow the line of thinking you've described Ringo.

I do not know the exact origins of existence, I will never claim so. IMO, all beliefs humans have about existence and its origins are theories... all of them. It is however, completely acceptable to come to some sort of conclusion about such things while we live out our lives. Why not, right? I will never say that you are wrong in your beliefs Ringo... who the hell am I to say so? The most interesting discussions I have ever had are about existence, or creation... or whatever term we deem appropriate. Some of the most spectacular things about this life are matters of the universe... how fortunate we humans are to be able to even attempt to understand it.

Thanks for the insight into your beliefs Ringo, I hope you keep up the comments. I truly enjoy reading and trying to understand them. Cheers friend.

What difference does it make whether it took a billion years or 6,000 years to make the Earth? Why does it matter? It comes back again to the authority of God's Word, the Scriptures. When do we believe it? When do we not believe it? The world looks at Christians to see if we are really consistent in our beliefs. If we don't believe in our Bibles, then how can we ask other people to believe in it? Let me give you a great example here of consistency. I love to ask this question. Do we as Christians really believe Jesus Christ died on that cross? We'll say, "Yes." But, do we believe that He rose again on the third day? And, we'll say, "Yes." My question after that is, "Why do you believe that? You were not there to observe it." The answer is when it comes to God's Word, we believe it by faith. But, let me add one more thing. Did you know according to all known Science that you cannot be dead for three days and come back to life? So, are you still willing to go against known Science and believe the Resurrection. We'll say, "Yes." But, then are you willing to believe that God created everything in six literal days as His Word says, even though our best scientists refuse to do so? The world sees this, too. They see many Christians say, "I believe the Resurrection, but I don't believe in the Creation." The world sees that inconsistency there. When we adopt an old Earth, we ourselves become as the Church a stumbling block for people accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior because we don't accept that truth ourselves.

As Christians we need to accept God's Word for what it says, from the beginning to the end. If the plain sense makes sense, don't look for any other sense, or you'll end up with nonsense. God knows how to communicate. He wants to communicate. You don't have to have a Ph.D. in hermeneutics or imagination. You do have to have the Holy Spirit residing in you to understand all of God's Word, though. I've often made the point that there is a tremendous relationship between the beginning of the Bible and the end of the Bible. If you start off spiritualizing the story of the Creation, then you will probably end up spiritualizing what the Bible teaches about the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. To me you've got to take both of them for what they say. They go hand-in-hand. What we lose in Genesis, we get back again in the book of Revelation. There's an amazing correlation between those two books. They need to be approached from the viewpoint that they are understandable, and that God wants you to understand. People say that the book of Revelation is hard to understand, they're wrong. It's not hard to understand. It's hard to believe. If you will believe it, you will understand it. The same is true of the Genesis story.

It's the same with Evolution. We base our belief in God on faith, and Evolution also believe what they are taught by faith. Evolution is a faith-based system. Therefore, Evolution is really a religion, isn't it? Yes, because both have to be accepted by faith. But, then it comes down to this matter - what does your faith have to offer you? Your faith in Evolution offers me nothing, because when I ask, "Who am I?" it answers with, "We are just a chance accident" ("nothing, plus nothing, plus time, equals something"). Or, as the Bible teaches, are we made in the image and likeness of our Creator God? Evolution offers the freedom to sin. But that leads one to the ultimate question, "What happens when we die?" Do I just become nothing? Stop and think for a moment about what is the greatest hope of an Atheist? The greatest hope is that there is nothing after death.The Christian's hope is that we are going to live eternally with our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[gunnerbob]

What difference does it make whether it took a billion years or 6,000 years to make the Earth? Why does it matter? It comes back again to the authority of God's Word, the Scriptures. When do we believe it? When do we not believe it? The world looks at Christians to see if we are really consistent in our beliefs. If we don't believe in our Bibles, then how can we ask other people to believe in it? Let me give you a great example here of consistency. I love to ask this question. Do we as Christians really believe Jesus Christ died on that cross? We'll say, "Yes." But, do we believe that He rose again on the third day? And, we'll say, "Yes." My question after that is, "Why do you believe that? You were not there to observe it." The answer is when it comes to God's Word, we believe it by faith. But, let me add one more thing. Did you know according to all known Science that you cannot be dead for three days and come back to life? So, are you still willing to go against known Science and believe the Resurrection. We'll say, "Yes." But, then are you willing to believe that God created everything in six literal days as His Word says, even though our best scientists refuse to do so? The world sees this, too. They see many Christians say, "I believe the Resurrection, but I don't believe in the Creation." The world sees that inconsistency there. When we adopt an old Earth, we ourselves become as the Church a stumbling block for people accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior because we don't accept that truth ourselves.

As Christians we need to accept God's Word for what it says, from the beginning to the end. If the plain sense makes sense, don't look for any other sense, or you'll end up with nonsense. God knows how to communicate. He wants to communicate. You don't have to have a Ph.D. in hermeneutics or imagination. You do have to have the Holy Spirit residing in you to understand all of God's Word, though. I've often made the point that there is a tremendous relationship between the beginning of the Bible and the end of the Bible. If you start off spiritualizing the story of the Creation, then you will probably end up spiritualizing what the Bible teaches about the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. To me you've got to take both of them for what they say. They go hand-in-hand. What we lose in Genesis, we get back again in the book of Revelation. There's an amazing correlation between those two books. They need to be approached from the viewpoint that they are understandable, and that God wants you to understand. People say that the book of Revelation is hard to understand, they're wrong. It's not hard to understand. It's hard to believe. If you will believe it, you will understand it. The same is true of the Genesis story.

It's the same with Evolution. We base our belief in God on faith, and Evolution also believe what they are taught by faith. Evolution is a faith-based system. Therefore, Evolution is really a religion, isn't it? Yes, because both have to be accepted by faith. But, then it comes down to this matter - what does your faith have to offer you? Your faith in Evolution offers me nothing, because when I ask, "Who am I?" it answers with, "We are just a chance accident" ("nothing, plus nothing, plus time, equals something"). Or, as the Bible teaches, are we made in the image and likeness of our Creator God? Evolution offers the freedom to sin. But that leads one to the ultimate question, "What happens when we die?" Do I just become nothing? Stop and think for a moment about what is the greatest hope of an Atheist? The greatest hope is that there is nothing after death.The Christian's hope is that we are going to live eternally with our Lord Jesus Christ.

Thanks for the reply Ringo, I like the questions posed...

I do have to ask a question though. What was before God? If the answer is, "There wasn't ever a without God." Then I have to ask, how do you know? If the answer was, "Nothing." Then that in itself supports the idea of "nothing, plus nothing equals something." But, like I said... this is not the theory of the non-theist scientist I have studied. In quantum physics, the theory is not that there was ever a point of nothing. In fact, the nothing that most people believe in, like the percieved empty space between objects in space... is acually filled with what has been coined Dark Matter. Dark Matter, as we have learned a bit about it, acts upon objects around it b/c it has weight. The 'nothing', has weight... which means there isn't any such thing, as nothing. Now, this brings us back to who or what created the 'nothing'? Who created the first particle? Who decided it would be so heavy, and so dense that it would implode in a massive burst of energy... alas, the universe. The universe is nothing more than energy, everything is energy. Anyway, I rambled... if the answer to who created something from the percieved 'nothing' is God, then that means that something can come from nothing... we just don't associate it as such b/c we have to put a face to it, God.

Then, we ask ourselves, "Why are we here?" or "Who created us?". I submit to you that, these questions are pointless to ask. IMO, it doesn't matter why we're here... we're here, so lets get on with it. Or, I could say, as you hinted to... we are here b/c of chance and necessity. This theory is just as logical as God, whether people choose to accept it or not. In this universe (there may very well be many), we exist through the necessity of chance. We're here b/c we have to be, otherwise we couldn't ask the question. Or, God got bored and decided to create stuff. I'm cool with both I suppose. Again, doesn't really matter. Here's an interesting thing to think about, if one believes in a personal God... then one has to believe in fate, b/c God is Omnipotent so he knows all and decides all. Free will is a falacy b/c he has already created the past, present and future. Your life is already decided for you, you make none of your own choices... no one anywhere is free. I reject fate, I do it b/c to place the reason for all the terrible things that happen thoughout history have been the work of God. Theist reject this too, with the theory of free will. When bad things happen, it's not God's fault... even though he has already decided everything for all time.

When we die, we're either buried or burned (among others). Our bodies are decomposed by other living beings eventually, whether it's in a few hundred years after we're buried and the casket loses its integrity or our ashes are poured into the ocean. All life forms become another, all energy is stored in different forms at different times. We are all apart of the same amount of energy, in the same moment. Remember, time is an illusion... man created the idea of time. Time is a singular moment, ever expanding with the universe. Seconds don't exist... there is only now. I'm okay with this, other's aren't.

Red pill, blue pill?

 

[kwimby]

Gawd, I wish people would not quote the dimwits on my ignore list.

It's tempting to refresh my memory of why they are there in the first place.

 

[gunnerbob]

My bad, kwimby....

Do you have anything to offer to the discussion?

 

[gejoslin]

Thanks for the reply Ringo, I like the questions posed...

I do have to ask a question though. What was before God? If the answer is, "There wasn't ever a without God." Then I have to ask, how do you know? If the answer was, "Nothing." Then that in itself supports the idea of "nothing, plus nothing equals something." But, like I said... this is not the theory of the non-theist scientist I have studied. In quantum physics, the theory is not that there was ever a point of nothing. In fact, the nothing that most people believe in, like the percieved empty space between objects in space... is acually filled with what has been coined Dark Matter. Dark Matter, as we have learned a bit about it, acts upon objects around it b/c it has weight. The 'nothing', has weight... which means there isn't any such thing, as nothing. Now, this brings us back to who or what created the 'nothing'? Who created the first particle? Who decided it would be so heavy, and so dense that it would implode in a massive burst of energy... alas, the universe. The universe is nothing more than energy, everything is energy. Anyway, I rambled... if the answer to who created something from the percieved 'nothing' is God, then that means that something can come from nothing... we just don't associate it as such b/c we have to put a face to it, God.

Then, we ask ourselves, "Why are we here?" or "Who created us?". I submit to you that, these questions are pointless to ask. IMO, it doesn't matter why we're here... we're here, so lets get on with it. Or, I could say, as you hinted to... we are here b/c of chance and necessity. This theory is just as logical as God, whether people choose to accept it or not. In this universe (there may very well be many), we exist through the necessity of chance. We're here b/c we have to be, otherwise we couldn't ask the question. Or, God got bored and decided to create stuff. I'm cool with both I suppose. Again, doesn't really matter. Here's an interesting thing to think about, if one believes in a personal God... then one has to believe in fate, b/c God is Omnipotent so he knows all and decides all. Free will is a falacy b/c he has already created the past, present and future. Your life is already decided for you, you make none of your own choices... no one anywhere is free. I reject fate, I do it b/c to place the reason for all the terrible things that happen thoughout history have been the work of God. Theist reject this too, with the theory of free will. When bad things happen, it's not God's fault... even though he has already decided everything for all time.



When we die, we're either buried or burned (among others). Our bodies are decomposed by other living beings eventually, whether it's in a few hundred years after we're buried and the casket loses its integrity or our ashes are poured into the ocean. All life forms become another, all energy is stored in different forms at different times. We are all apart of the same amount of energy, in the same moment. Remember, time is an illusion... man created the idea of time. Time is a singular moment, ever expanding with the universe. Seconds don't exist... there is only now. I'm okay with this, other's aren't.

Red pill, blue pill?

Gunner I see and understand you. It's the last about time that I don't agree with or rather "like".

 

[gunnerbob]

Gunner I see and understand you. It's the last about time that I don't agree with or rather "like".

Might I inquire why you don't like the last bit? To me, it's simple... You see, if we are to say that time itself existed before existence, than that would mean that existence had already existed. Make sense? Seconds, minutes, hours and light years are all a creation of the human mind... what we refer to as time is an ever expanding, singular moment growing at the same pace as the universe. It is not XX years old, in a literal sense... only expanded. The space-time theory states, basically, that time was created at the moment of existence. It had to be, otherwise... we haven't found the "nothing" moment yet, as we like to refer to it. One can't be without the other... there can be no time without the universe and no universe without the time. We associate time like a timeline... a horizontal line with dates from A to Z. This isn't how the universe operates, the universe isn't a singular plain of events, but rather a rapidly expanding sphere (basically) where the energy released plays out its parts. Thus, time must actually be thought of as expanding... not passing. Our explanations of age are for us and us alone. The universe has no use to know how 'old' it is... that's useless.

 

[gejoslin]

Might I inquire why you don't like the last bit? To me, it's simple... You see, if we are to say that time itself existed before existence, than that would mean that existence had already existed. Make sense? Seconds, minutes, hours and light years are all a creation of the human mind... what we refer to as time is an ever expanding, singular moment growing at the same pace as the universe. It is not XX years old, in a literal sense... only expanded. The space-time theory states, basically, that time was created at the moment of existence. It had to be, otherwise... we haven't found the "nothing" moment yet, as we like to refer to it. One can't be without the other... there can be no time without the universe and no universe without the time. We associate time like a timeline... a horizontal line with dates from A to Z. This isn't how the universe operates, the universe isn't a singular plain of events, but rather a rapidly expanding sphere (basically) where the energy released plays out its parts. Thus, time must actually be thought of as expanding... not passing. Our explanations of age are for us and us alone. The universe has no use to know how 'old' it is... that's useless.

~snip~
man created the idea of time. Time is a singular moment, ever expanding with the universe. Seconds don't exist..
~snip~

I see where your going with your statement about "man created the idea of time and your right. Man certainly set up the rules of measurement of time. The passing and expanding moment of time and seconds don't exist are mans creation.
Thanks for explaining that, I now understand what you mean by singular moment ever expanding. But I just don't think there is much difference in "time passing". If time isn't made of of small moments then from the creation til now is one long moment!
But Gunner I had no idea you were such a deep thinker. I'm happy to know this about you. It gives your personality more depth.

 

[gunnerbob]

I see where your going with your statement about "man created the idea of time and your right. Man certainly set up the rules of measurement of time. The passing and expanding moment of time and seconds don't exist are mans creation.
Thanks for explaining that, I now understand what you mean by singular moment ever expanding. But I just don't think there is much difference in "time passing". If time isn't made of of small moments then from the creation til now is one long moment!
But Gunner I had no idea you were such a deep thinker. I'm happy to know this about you. It gives your personality more depth.

I appeciate the compliment, that's how I take it anyway. Quantum mechanics can be a total mind-f*ck, but it's the most fascinating subject I've ever come across. The amazing thing about it all, is the laws we percieve that contain our universe could be completely void in another one. If you think the multiverse theory has merit, we could be a universe within a universe and our laws might not work in another. The way I look at it, the theory is possible. Why would existence only have one set of laws allowing it to be? The possibilities are turly endless and in this sense... everything, everywhere is immortal. Our energy is stored and released in different forms at different times in different places... in what we could refer to as a billion years ago or infinity years in the 'future'.

You should look into the theory of expanding and collapsing universes. The only potential energy forcing the universe to expand is extreme heat, but the universe is cooling... a cooling universe becomes a collapsing one, given enough 'time'. The process could then start all over again after matter and anti-matter become dense enough to expand again. Much like a white dworf becoming a black hole over and over agin. Fascinating.

 

[gejoslin]

EXACTLY! This is the conclusion I've come too. You must read the same articles I do. To think I'd run across a person who reads the same far out stuff I do. Fascinating!

 

[kwimby]

Why would existence only have one set of laws allowing it to be?

Well obviously because that's a real convenient way of looking at it if you are a control-freak religious nutbag.

 

[gunnerbob]

Well obviously because that's a real convenient way of looking at it if you are a control-freak religious nutbag.

Wow, that's harsh man...

 

[gejoslin]

Link Removed Originally Posted by kwimby Link Removed
Well obviously because that's a real convenient way of looking at it if you are a control-freak religious nutbag.

Wow, that's harsh man...

That's because kwimby isn't a "appreciate your view point" kind of guy.

 

[Oldgrunt]

Wow, that's harsh man...

When Kwimby was seven years old, he found out there was no Santa Claus and he has been mad ever since.

 

[r1derbike]

Quantum mechanics/physics proves how little we know about anything. It also boggles my mind what little we do know about subatomic particles.

I've always been a cynic who believed based on the "if I may see it, it must be real" philosophy. That's worked well for me on large targets (no pun intended).

Wish I were not so old that witnessing unimaginable discoveries were a possibility. I want to see manipulation of the fabric of space/time, allow us to discover multiple universes up close and personal, if theory is to be believed.

For now, the universal void between my ears is the only thing I may manipulate, with some difficulty.

 

[gunnerbob]

One of the most revered Quantum Theory physicists once said that the moment you think you've completely understood the subject, you know you have no idea what you're doing.