1 + 1 + 1 = 1

[SkyWriting]

The book is only about the condition of man in that we are not beings from this material world.  If we were we would be happy as pigs in slop.  Every watch "Hoarders" ?    That is how people want to live when their spiritual life is messed up. They want to gather as much STUFF as they can get.   Some rich people are "Hoarders" as well.

According to the scriptures, you don't need some book to explain that this ball of dirt is not really living as we are craving to live.

This is one of the most ignorant things I've ever read. Hoarders? Really? So, your explanation of people who hoard things is some "spiritual" mumbo jumbo? <snip>

Well, if you watch the show, you can see that the people they bring in to help are nearly clueless.

[median]

Sorry.  I meant theory of science.

God doesn't fit what I don't know. 
As I explained, it fits what I do know.

"Theory of science"? I'm still not following these terms you seem to be inventing. How is this term "God" an explanation for anything? What exactly is it that you think you "know" that supposedly this mysterious Yahweh somehow explains? You do know that attempting to answer a mystery by an even bigger mystery doesn't work, don't you?

[median]

Well, if you watch the show [Hoarders], you can see that the people they bring in to help are nearly clueless.

So you are basing your assertions purely upon a fricking TV show? WOW. Why would you do this? Even more, what do you know about whether these people are "clueless"? Have you actually done any research or investigation in this area of psychology? Have you done some homework, talked to some professionals working in the field, or talked to some people who have recovered from hoarding? Have you attempted to educate yourself in these areas, or are you just talking out of your ass?

What it sounds like is you just want to believe what you want to believe, regardless of the evidence. Sadly, that isn't a very reliable method for separating fact from fiction.

[SkyWriting]

Well, if you watch the show [Hoarders], you can see that the people they bring in to help are nearly clueless.

So you are basing your assertions purely upon a fricking TV show? WOW.<snip>

Nope.  That is an example, or illustration.

[SkyWriting]

Sorry.  I meant theory of science.

God doesn't fit what I don't know. 
As I explained, it fits what I do know.

"Theory of science"? I'm still not following these terms you seem to be inventing. How is this term "God" an explanation for anything? What exactly is it that you think you "know" that supposedly this mysterious Yahweh somehow explains? You do know that attempting to answer a mystery by an even bigger mystery doesn't work, don't you?

There are a variety of theories on what exactly "reality" is.
My observations are in line with what I have read in the
Christian scripture.  The other versions don't match as well.

God gets the credit for revealing this to me, it is not of my doing.

[SkyWriting]

Reality is obvious.  Nothing in our reality appears out of nothing
without a directing force.  Newtons law.   So a super-natural
force is needed to create reality.   It's obvious.   Many people do
avoid the obvious.

Yes, many people (including you) avoid the obvious fact that no deities needed to "create" anything and that no deities are checking in on us.

Btw, who said "something appeared out of nothing"? Certainly not us, and certainly not science. This sounds like the ever so common misunderstanding of cosmology/physics by those religionists who don't really care whether their beliefs are true. Besides, even if I agreed that "a supernatural force" needed to create the things we observe that wouldn't make it a God, and it certainly wouldn't make it intelligent. The term "supernatural" is merely a term synonymous with that which we do not understand yet. So it is one big argument from ignorance fallacy.

I agree that the force need not be intelligent.
But as I have rejected the mindless force theory
on scientific principals as I've never seen
stupidity produce any workable systems.

Engineers work long hours just to design a bridge
that won't collapse.  Yet an Atom seem to be
fairly stable in most cases.  The odds of Atoms
coming into being without intelligent design
are small.

[SkyWriting]

What is "true" has always been obvious.  Creation is the work of something huge and intelligent.
I discovered that Christianity agreed with what I already observed during my first 30 years.
The truth came first, I became a Christian because it agrees with my observations.

Huh? Your "observations"? What observations in the natural world say "made by Jesus" or "Yahweh's property" on the trees or on DNA?<snip>

That would be the bias toward intelligent design.
I know people with low processing power.
They don't design things well.
For example, my coworker often burns his hand on things that are hot.
The same things time after time.

[median]

Nope.  That is an example, or illustration.

Why would you attempt to use such a terrible example which fails miserably at demonstrating your point? Are you willing to retract this example? B/c it doesn't, in any way, prove what you are attempting to say it does. There is simply no reason for thinking that hoarders (or alcoholics, or depressed people, or drug addicts) are such b/c of some "spiritual" deficiency. Such can be demonstrated quite easily by the fact that psychotherapy has helped people (including tons of non-Christians) to recover (without religion). "Spiritual" is not an explanation. It is a non-answer.

[median]

There are a variety of theories on what exactly "reality" is.
My observations are in line with what I have read in the
Christian scripture.  The other versions don't match as well.

God gets the credit for revealing this to me, it is not of my doing.

God revealed it to you...but just not in any way you can demonstrate, right? So you are claiming to have some special access to this alleged Yahweh deity thing which you claim exists and secretly communicates with you? And why should anyone believe you again? You do know that nearly every other religion makes similar claims, don't you? The Mormons claim that God the holy spirit secretly tells them that the Book of Mormon is true. Do you accept this?

Self-diagnosing an alleged "personal experience" with an alleged deity is unreliable. It opens the door for personal prejudice, confirmation bias, and egregious error. And it does this regardless of the religion (Muslims, Mormons, New Agers, Christians, etc). Have you ever thought to question this claim you are making? More importantly, do you even care whether or not your beliefs are actually true?

[median]

I agree that the force need not be intelligent.
But as I have rejected the mindless force theory
on scientific principals as I've never seen
stupidity produce any workable systems.

Engineers work long hours just to design a bridge
that won't collapse.  Yet an Atom seem to be
fairly stable in most cases.  The odds of Atoms
coming into being without intelligent design
are small.

Exactly what data set have you collected, or done research upon, in order to determine a "small" probability?? Have you even taken an introductory Statistics course? If you have no data set, then how can you claim any probability...at all? Secondly, where did you get this idea of "atoms coming into being"?? You seem to have the all too common Christian misconception ("something from nothing") of what science has NOT stated regarding cosmology. What have you read regarding this? How much research or study have you actually done in this area?

[median]

That would be the bias toward intelligent design.
I know people with low processing power.
They don't design things well.
For example, my coworker often burns his hand on things that are hot.
The same things time after time.

The "Intelligent Design" hypothesis has been falsified a long time ago (see here: www.talkorigins.org) but thank you for admitting that you are practicing bias. Why would you do that? Why would you just ASSUME your position in advance of actually doing your homework, researching what scientists have to say, and actually studying the evidence?

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001.html

http://www.talkdesign.org/cs/taxonomy_menu/2


We contrast what has been designed by what has NOT been designed (i.e. - by nature). Claiming the universe, or what we call 'life' was "intelligently designed" requires evidence. Yet ID proponents like William Dembski and Phillip Johnson don't have evidence. They have claims. That is all - claims to "complexity" - but just b/c something is complex doesn't mean it is designed by a mind.

[SkyWriting]

The "Intelligent Design" hypothesis has been falsified a long time ago <snip>

Theories must be tested constantly.  Online rag magazines are for entertainment only.

The "Stupid, Ignorant, Mindless Design Theory" is falsified for me daily.
I don't need a online rag magazine to suggest that my co-worker can cook a pizza.  He can't.
That he can learn not to pick up hot molten plastic, he does. That he could loose the end of his finger if he reaches under things at the wrong time, he did. That he could learn not to reach into the cutting blades where he could loose his hand, he still does. That he could read his own name or write it without daily practice, nope. See, reduced processing power can't tell the difference between thick or thin crust pizza and adjust cooking time. What about when he runs to the lunchroom on the hour or half hour because those are the ONLY positions on the clock where he can determine when 30 minutes is up?   

Stupidity cannot cook a pizza, much less, produce you.

Because 40% of scientists believe in God, you should consider actual journals.
 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1451211/

[SkyWriting]

I agree that the force need not be intelligent.
But as I have rejected the mindless force theory
on scientific principals as I've never seen
stupidity produce any workable systems.

Engineers work long hours just to design a bridge
that won't collapse.  Yet an Atom seem to be
fairly stable in most cases.  The odds of Atoms
coming into being without intelligent design
are small.

Exactly what data set have you collected, or done research upon, in order to determine a "small" probability?? Have you even taken an introductory Statistics course? If you have no data set, then how can you claim any probability...at all? Secondly, where did you get this idea of "atoms coming into being"?? You seem to have the all too common Christian misconception ("something from nothing") of what science has NOT stated regarding cosmology. What have you read regarding this? How much research or study have you actually done in this area?

My background (B.S. degree) has no influence on any data.



"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing."

[junebug72]

Hey Skywriter,

You have questions in the 2 threads you abandoned.  What do you say about a loving God killing children by way of drowning them.  I said the God I believe in would not do such a thing.  I thought you could handle our questions with one hand behind your back.  Now I see why.  You don't answer them.  So far you failed at validating Noah and the ark and does God love people in hell.  Fail, Fail, Fail.  It is very important to answer questions here as a representative of belief.   I have been smited for answering questions with stories instead of direct answers.  You won't convince any body here of God with your bible. 

Would you still believe in God if there was no bible? I do, the bible is a disgrace to God.

If you keep on dropping out the mods will take action.  Keep this up and you only fuel their non belief.

[SkyWriting]

There are a variety of theories on what exactly "reality" is.
My observations are in line with what I have read in the
Christian scripture.  The other versions don't match as well.

God gets the credit for revealing this to me, it is not of my doing.

God revealed it to you...but just not in any way you can demonstrate, right? So you are claiming to have some special access to this alleged Yahweh deity thing which you claim exists and secretly communicates with you? And why should anyone believe you again?

You have the brain power to determine if I am insane or liar.
You received that brain power by accident because as mud
you laid in the sun a lot, or it came from intelligent source.

Either way, I think you are bright enough to come to a conclusion.
Hopefully, you'll decide I'm lying or self deceived and weak minded.
The insane direction is possible, but my wife would be offended by that.

[SkyWriting]

Nope.  That is an example, or illustration.

Why would you attempt to use such a terrible example which fails miserably at demonstrating your point? Are you willing to retract this example? B/c it doesn't, in any way, prove what you are attempting to say it does. There is simply no reason for thinking that hoarders (or alcoholics, or depressed people, or drug addicts) are such b/c of some "spiritual" deficiency. Such can be demonstrated quite easily by the fact that psychotherapy has helped people (including tons of non-Christians) to recover (without religion). "Spiritual" is not an explanation. It is a non-answer.

Yes, hoarders have a spiritual problem. 
They are just one example of people with
spiritual problems.  Drug abusers are another.

They are people with a deficiency in their lives
attempting to fill the void in their spirit.
Or mask the empty feeling with drugs.
 

[junebug72]

Skywriting

I really need you to answer my question.  At least acknowledge I'm talking to you.  You are being so rude.  I don't think Christ would approve.

Run, run, run, run, run away baby before I put my spell on you. Bruno Mars

[Astreja]

Yes, hoarders have a spiritual problem.  They are just one example of people with spiritual problems.  Drug abusers are another.

So, SkyWriting, can you explain the actual neurology and neuropsychology of a "spiritual" problem?  What diagnostic tests do you use to eliminate other possibilities such as OCD, depression and/or PTSD in the differential diagnosis?  Which brain centres does a "spiritual" pathology affect, and how do you distinguish such from demyelination, ischemia, hemorrhage or other brain lesion?  How does it respond to pharmacological treatment such as antipsychotics, anxiolytics and SSRIs?  What signs would one expect to see on brain MRI or CT scan?

And most importantly, what peer-reviewed studies can you cite in support of this hypothesis?  I was unable to find Journal of Argumenta Ex Rectum in the medical library at work.

[SkyWriting]

Yes, hoarders have a spiritual problem.  They are just one example of people with spiritual problems.  Drug abusers are another.

So, SkyWriting, can you explain the actual neurology and neuropsychology of a "spiritual" problem?  What diagnostic tests do you use to eliminate other possibilities such as OCD, depression and/or PTSD in the differential diagnosis?  Which brain centres does a "spiritual" pathology affect, and how do you distinguish such from demyelination, ischemia, hemorrhage or other brain lesion?  How does it respond to pharmacological treatment such as antipsychotics, anxiolytics and SSRIs?  What signs would one expect to see on brain MRI or CT scan?

And most importantly, what peer-reviewed studies can you cite in support of this hypothesis?  I was unable to find Journal of Argumenta Ex Rectum in the medical library at work.

All of those are spiritual problems. 
If man had chosen to remain with God, such physical problems would not exist.
But we chose a different path, and physical problems are common.
We live in a version of Hell.

[Astreja]

All of those are spiritual problems.

Nonsense!  It's vastly easier to ameliorate them with physical solutions such as surgery and medicine than with "spiritual" methods.  Belief and prayer only seem to fix illnesses with a somatic basis, and I think we can attribute that to the placebo effect rather than to divine intervention.

[screwtape]

All of those are spiritual problems. 
If man had chosen to remain with God, such physical problems would not exist.
But we chose a different path, and physical problems are common.
We live in a version of Hell.

SkyWriting,

You've been making a lot of claims without any evidence.  Please provide evidence that what you say above is a true and accurate description of reality.

Thanks.

[median]

The "Intelligent Design" hypothesis has been falsified a long time ago <snip>

Theories must be tested constantly.  Online rag magazines are for entertainment only.

The "Stupid, Ignorant, Mindless Design Theory" is falsified for me daily.
I don't need a online rag magazine to suggest that my co-worker can cook a pizza.  He can't.
That he can learn not to pick up hot molten plastic, he does. That he could loose the end of his finger if he reaches under things at the wrong time, he did. That he could learn not to reach into the cutting blades where he could loose his hand, he still does. That he could read his own name or write it without daily practice, nope. See, reduced processing power can't tell the difference between thick or thin crust pizza and adjust cooking time. What about when he runs to the lunchroom on the hour or half hour because those are the ONLY positions on the clock where he can determine when 30 minutes is up?   

Stupidity cannot cook a pizza, much less, produce you.

Because 40% of scientists believe in God, you should consider actual journals.
 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1451211/

"Stupidity" is a red herring (another logical fallacy). No one said "stupidity" caused life, or the universe. An "I don't know and neither do you" is a perfectly acceptable answer (one which for some reason you can't tolerate). You are, once again, committing yourself to logically fallacious arguments (in this case, the argument from authority and the genetic fallacy) in order to substantiate these absurd objections which stem from yet another fallacy (the argument from incredulity). Did you study the logical fallacies in your "persuasion" education? Calling a reference of mine "rag" doesn't make the arguments any less true. Arguments stand or fall on their own merits.

Now, the number of people who believe a certain proposition X is irrelevant to whether a proposition is true (ever heard of the Nazis, or early American slave owners?). So too, where an argument came from is also irrelevant to it's truth value. Third, just because you personally cannot understand how a certain scientific phenomena works or may have occurred doesn't make it false - nor does it give you license to claim it "impossible". For that, you need evidence. Not just SAYING SO.

[median]

Exactly what data set have you collected, or done research upon, in order to determine a "small" probability?? Have you even taken an introductory Statistics course? If you have no data set, then how can you claim any probability...at all? Secondly, where did you get this idea of "atoms coming into being"?? You seem to have the all too common Christian misconception ("something from nothing") of what science has NOT stated regarding cosmology. What have you read regarding this? How much research or study have you actually done in this area?

My background (B.S. degree) has no influence on any data.


"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. [Hawking]"

You are committing more logical fallacies. In this case, an equivocation on the term "nothing". A physicist talking about 'nothing' is different from a metaphysics professor. Did you know that? You also just completely avoided the question I asked you. Why are you so dishonest? Again, please provide the data set that you used to come up with this low probability you are claiming. If you don't have it, then you are simply lying or making shit up. Secondly, a mere assumption that I agree with a particular person's statement (Hawking, etc) is also absurd. Should I just assume your position?

[median]

You have the brain power to determine if I am insane or liar.
You received that brain power by accident because as mud
you laid in the sun a lot, or it came from intelligent source.

This is the logical fallacy called a False Dilemma. You are assuming there are only two possibilities when there isn't. Furthermore, it demonstrates that you don't know shit from shinola about the anthropological sciences, evolutionary biology, or origin studies. You think I believe we came from mud? Really? WOW. That degree didn't do you very much good in the intelligence dept. (nor the logic dept), did it? It sounds like you've been listening to your pastor, reading creationists, and avoiding reading any real science on the subject. No evolutionary biologist claims we came from mud! Besides that, lots of Christians accept evolution! Ever hear of Ken Miller at Brown University? You really need to do your homework. Whether or not evolution is true has absolutely nothing to do with whether there is a God. Lots of Christians accept evolution as do many others. Your ignorance doesn't change the facts.

Finally, I may have the "brain power" for determining if you are insane but that doesn't mean I have the data, research, or study. Determining if you're a liar, that's another story altogether.

[median]

Yes, hoarders have a spiritual problem. 
They are just one example of people with
spiritual problems.  Drug abusers are another.

They are people with a deficiency in their lives
attempting to fill the void in their spirit.
Or mask the empty feeling with drugs.

Just not in any way you can demonstrate...

Again, merely claiming they have a "spiritual" problem (whatever that nonsense word means) doesn't mean they do. It just means you've assumed your theological position in advance. But anyone can just assume anything, and it doesn't make it true. What you've demonstrated is nothing more than wishful thinking. "Because I want it to be a spiritual problem, therefore it is."

No, it's not. To demonstrate that you need a little something called...evidence.

HINT: Credulity and gullibility are not sufficient tools to do the job.

[nogodsforme]

SW, you don't have to be a liar or insane to be wrong. You could just be jerking us around because you think your god requires it, or it could be you are truly ignorant of things like the scientific method. That's kinda expected, many theists like to come here and jerk us atheists around, so we are used to it and have pretty thick skins. And many people, not just theists, are ignorant of science.

But if you refuse to acknowledge that you don't know something, and refuse to investigate what it is you don't know when given the opportunity, then we can add the adjective willfully to ignorant. And we can continue to try to inform you, for the benefit of lurkers if nothing else. Or we can just write you off as another theist jerk and treat you accordingly.

How do you want to represent your god and your faith? It's up to you. 

[The Gawd]

Hey Skywriter,

You have questions in the 2 threads you abandoned.  What do you say about a loving God killing children by way of drowning them.  I said the God I believe in would not do such a thing.  I thought you could handle our questions with one hand behind your back.  Now I see why.  You don't answer them.  So far you failed at validating Noah and the ark and does God love people in hell.  Fail, Fail, Fail.  It is very important to answer questions here as a representative of belief.   I have been smited for answering questions with stories instead of direct answers.  You won't convince any body here of God with your bible. 

Would you still believe in God if there was no bible? I do, the bible is a disgrace to God.

If you keep on dropping out the mods will take action.  Keep this up and you only fuel their non belief.

These seem like fair questions/issues to raise. What say you Skywriting?

[SkyWriting]

Hey Skywriter,

You have questions in the 2 threads you abandoned.  What do you say about a loving God killing children by way of drowning them.  I said the God I believe in would not do such a thing.  I thought you could handle our questions with one hand behind your back.  Now I see why.  You don't answer them.  So far you failed at validating Noah and the ark and does God love people in hell.  Fail, Fail, Fail.  It is very important to answer questions here as a representative of belief.   I have been smited for answering questions with stories instead of direct answers.  You won't convince any body here of God with your bible. 

Would you still believe in God if there was no bible? I do, the bible is a disgrace to God.

If you keep on dropping out the mods will take action.  Keep this up and you only fuel their non belief.

These seem like fair questions/issues to raise. What say you Skywriting?

I work 12 hour days and am a full time student.   So I answer in my free time.
You may tumble your mind imagining my motives all day.  If that's what you want to do with your day. 
The most important part of conversation is learning that you have full control

of your half.

I don't recall either of those questions.   Likely because I'm busy with another train of thought.
Humans cannot multitask. 

God is interested in all humans being with Him.  Keeping all humans alive
for eternity on earth is the priority of healthcare workers alone.  God does not keep the same priorities.

Children are much more adaptable to new environments than cranky old people so if God takes children
out of this world, it's better for them than us adults.

Yes, God loves his children no matter what they do.  God forgives every sin except for rejection of the Holy Spirit.
Those who reject the Holy Spirit end up without.   Being without God on earth is one thing.  Being without God
AND not having "the world" is Hell.   How would God provide a good situation for non-believers?

Should God visit with those who reject him?   How would that benefit them?  They would hate it.
For God to bring those who reject Him into heaven.....well.....would that be like Hell ...or worse? 

Worse than Hell......Is that what you want for those who reject God?  Isn't Hell lonely enough without
a deity you don't trust hanging around?

[ParkingPlaces]

God is interested in all humans being with Him. 

...

Should God visit with those who reject him?   How would that benefit them?  They would hate it.
For God to bring those who reject Him into heaven.....well.....would that be like Hell ...or worse? 

Worse than Hell......Is that what you want for those who reject God?  Isn't Hell lonely enough without
a deity you don't trust hanging around?

Interesting that your God, though interested in our salvation, is powerless to convert us. For an omnipotent being, he is somewhat lacking.

Were there actually a deity, at least the issue wouldn't be one of belief. But it is. The deity we dislike is the one invented by humans. The one that is ridiculous in every aspect and non-existent. So when we are attacking your god, what we are really attacking is the ridiculous concept and the inhumanity built into him by his creators: i.e., humans.

Omnipotent powers don't require, let alone bother with, being fickle, angry, impatient, cruel or missing.