Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jamie_L · 02-25-2003, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by darkfrog
I ask this to any that dare to answer. First, why do you believe there is no God?

Because nothing has ever made me believe there is one. Also because the universe makes much more sense if you assume it is a mindless, uncaring system. It makes much less sense when you try to bring some sentient creator into it.

Quote:

Second, where did we come from if there is no God?

I don't know. And that proves nothing.

Jamie

frostymama · 02-25-2003, 01:48 PM

The bible would be much more interesting if Ruth was the "wife" of Naomi. Naomi was a desolate widow and Ruth was her daughter-in-law (also a widow and a Moabite...IIRC). Long story short, Naomi tells Ruth to lay down at Boaz's feet while he is sleeping. Boaz marries Ruth and takes care of them both. Ruth is praised for her obedience. *Nice puppy. Here is a treat.*

darkfrog · 02-25-2003, 02:17 PM

frostymama,

Wow, thanks for that clarification. I looked back at what I wrote in amazement.

I guess you shouldn't be carelessly writing while talking on the phone, huh?

-darkfrog

darkfrog · 02-25-2003, 02:21 PM

Mageth,

I bookmarked that site as I definitely want to go through all of that, but please sum up for the benefit of this discussion how you disagree with the notion that nothing can be gained in the effect that was not also in the cause?

What was Einstein's Theory......
"For every action there is an equal but opposite reaction."

I believe that is relevant here as the reaction cannot be greater than the action upon it. That contradicts the laws of science.

-darkfrog

darkfrog · 02-25-2003, 02:27 PM

Mageth,

You wrote, "...at the dawn of life, a first collection of chemicals that self-organized into replicating entities..."

I believe there is sufficient reason to doubt this argument in other avenues, but the primary basis I have to disbelief is you can keep going back until you get to a single atom that comes together for the first time, but you're still left with the question, 'WHERE DID IT COME FROM?"

It's the inescapeable quandry. You can explain it back as far as you want to as great a complication as you like, but none of the things of which you refer are self-sustaining. They are still terminal. Everything in our universe has a life-span that it will live and then run out. Logically the only way your theory would work is if "something" were perpetual, but we don't see ANYTHING in our world that is.

-darkfrog

JubalsCall · 02-25-2003, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by WWSD

My reasons for not believing in western theologies are mostly based around the inconsistencied found within the religions, and amongst the believers. This is compounded by the inconsistencies with reality, for example, age of the earth, flatness of the earth, etcetera.

But there are so many more reasons that it would take quite some time to go through them all.

Thanks for your answer, but all inconsistencies you gave me aren't true. The Bible never says the earth is flat.(The Catholic chruch did.) The Bible never says how old the earth is either.(Many Christians just think is young.)

And what is etcetera?

What are some other reasons, if you have time?

Thanks
Tibbs

Ensign Steve · 02-25-2003, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by frostymama
The bible would be much more interesting if Ruth was the "wife" of Naomi.

Tell me about it! I couldn't wait to rush home and read that chapter. Maybe open up a bottle of wine and read through it with my girlfriend.

Jen

JubalsCall · 02-25-2003, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gcameron

But then Infinite Regression (which I have never seen answered to my satisfaction) looms, and also it occurs to me how little we really know about the underlying roots of nature's complexity, and I suspend judgment on the matter.

What is "Infinite Regression?"

Tibbs

Ensign Steve · 02-25-2003, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JubalsCall
The Bible never says the earth is flat.

Isaiah 11:12
Isaiah 40:22
Ezekiel 7:2
Daniel 2:35
Daniel 4:10-11, 20
Matthew 4:8

Some of those verses describe the earth as being flat (and sometimes with four corners, and/or held up by pillars). Others of those verses decribe events that would only be possible on a flat earth (such as something being visible to all people on earth at the same time).

Jen

Philosoft · 02-25-2003, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by darkfrog
I would go so far as to state that the reason so many of you have a problem with the Christian God is because you have no clue who He is.

Well, that's true on at least some level. I must rely on the testimony of others to gather information about God. Unfortunately, others seem to have as little clue as I do who, or better yet, what God is, despite their assertions otherwise.

Quote:

I would be happy to explain in detail any questions you have about how God can be loving and all this other stuff that seems to be common to throw out, but my answers come straight from the Bible and are logical and sufficient if only looked to with discernment.

I am highly skeptical that much of anything that comes "straight from the Bible" can be objectively understood by looking with "discernment." I suspect, by "discernment," you mean, "my personal brand of interpretations and apologetics."

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-25-2003, 01:48 PM	#52
frostymama Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Georgia USA Posts: 927	The bible would be much more interesting if Ruth was the "wife" of Naomi. Naomi was a desolate widow and Ruth was her daughter-in-law (also a widow and a Moabite...IIRC). Long story short, Naomi tells Ruth to lay down at Boaz's feet while he is sleeping. Boaz marries Ruth and takes care of them both. Ruth is praised for her obedience. Nice puppy. Here is a treat.

02-25-2003, 02:17 PM	#53
darkfrog Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Oklahoma Posts: 7	frostymama, Wow, thanks for that clarification. I looked back at what I wrote in amazement. I guess you shouldn't be carelessly writing while talking on the phone, huh? -darkfrog

02-25-2003, 02:21 PM	#54
darkfrog Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Oklahoma Posts: 7	Mageth, I bookmarked that site as I definitely want to go through all of that, but please sum up for the benefit of this discussion how you disagree with the notion that nothing can be gained in the effect that was not also in the cause? What was Einstein's Theory...... "For every action there is an equal but opposite reaction." I believe that is relevant here as the reaction cannot be greater than the action upon it. That contradicts the laws of science. -darkfrog

02-25-2003, 02:27 PM	#55
darkfrog Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Oklahoma Posts: 7	Mageth, You wrote, "...at the dawn of life, a first collection of chemicals that self-organized into replicating entities..." I believe there is sufficient reason to doubt this argument in other avenues, but the primary basis I have to disbelief is you can keep going back until you get to a single atom that comes together for the first time, but you're still left with the question, 'WHERE DID IT COME FROM?" It's the inescapeable quandry. You can explain it back as far as you want to as great a complication as you like, but none of the things of which you refer are self-sustaining. They are still terminal. Everything in our universe has a life-span that it will live and then run out. Logically the only way your theory would work is if "something" were perpetual, but we don't see ANYTHING in our world that is. -darkfrog

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.