Author Topic: The big bang theory is bs!  (Read 21865 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Godexists

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Darwins +0/-65
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #290 on: October 22, 2011, 07:37:21 AM »


The idea that we, mortal human beings have an eternity to "spend" anywhere is senseless.

What does it mean, its senseless ?

Quote
We are mortals who die and cease living.

Here on earth, yes, correct.


 
Quote
While we are alive, it is possible to "live a perfect sinless life" if Jesus did it right? THink about it for a minute, if living a perfect life was not possible, then being punished for sin would not be justifiable and God would be totally unfair for demanding holiness ("Be holy as I am holy") and wanting us to NOT fall short of His glory.

Thats why God does not demand us to live a perfect live, since we cannot. He asks us to believe in Jesus Christ, which DID live a perfect live, because he is God, and only he was capable of doing so, he did live it for us, on our behalf, and he paid for our sins. So his justice can be attributed to us, and we can find forgiveness, Gods grace and love,  and eternal joy in heaven.



Quote
The part of us that thinks, feels, and perceives emerges in us because we are alive, so guess what naturally happens when we die. No more thinking, feeling, or experiencing anything because we are dead.

Our body will be dead. but our soul and spirit will live forever. Think about it. The cells in our body are renewed at every 7 years. You do not carry one single cell , that is older than 7 years. If so, your soul should also have been expelled and gone, if older than seven years, and you would not remember anything, you had done a longer time than seven years ago.  i have to go now. the rest, i answer  later.


Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12575
  • Darwins +703/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #291 on: October 22, 2011, 08:20:07 AM »
Nowhere the bible says God will send children and mentally ill people to hell.

then again, it also doesn't say he won't.  And when you make sweeping statements like "ALL people deserve hell"  that does not leave wiggle room for kids or tards.

Also, you've not addressed my post.
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,399.msg451037.html#msg451037

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Online jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5082
  • Darwins +586/-20
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #292 on: October 22, 2011, 08:38:48 AM »
Thats why God does not demand us to live a perfect live, since we cannot. He asks us to believe in Jesus Christ, which DID live a perfect live, because he is God, and only he was capable of doing so, he did live it for us, on our behalf, and he paid for our sins. So his justice can be attributed to us, and we can find forgiveness, Gods grace and love,  and eternal joy in heaven.
Kindly prove that Jesus did in fact live a perfect life, using sources other than the Bible (because the Bible is propagandistic and has undergone centuries of editing).  After all, Jesus was willing to allow Thomas to feel his wounds after his resurrection.  What these atheists ask for is nothing more complicated than that - proof they can observe and analyze for themselves, rather than having to depend on some kind of "spiritual understanding" based on ideas someone long ago came up with.

Our body will be dead. but our soul and spirit will live forever. Think about it. The cells in our body are renewed at every 7 years. You do not carry one single cell , that is older than 7 years. If so, your soul should also have been expelled and gone, if older than seven years, and you would not remember anything, you had done a longer time than seven years ago.  i have to go now. the rest, i answer  later.
No, you think about it.  The "we replace all the cells in our bodies over a seven year time frame" is a gross oversimplification of matters, and furthermore, it is actually wrong.[1]  For example, the neurons in the cerebral cortex - what we use to think - are never replaced.  If they die, they stay dead.  Some cells, such as fat cells, are replaced at about 10% a year.  Whereas the cells in the heart (cardiomyocytes or myocardiocytes) replace themselves more slowly as we age, but even at age 25, only 1% of those cells are replaced in a year.  People can very easily have original heart muscle cells in their body at the time of death, even if they live to be 100 years old.  So, there is no reason at all to conclude that a soul must be necessary in order to maintain human consciousness while we are alive because of cell replacement.
 1. Source:  http://askanaturalist.com/do-we-replace-our-cells-every-7-or-10-years/

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #293 on: October 22, 2011, 09:54:47 AM »
The cells in our body are renewed at every 7 years. You do not carry one single cell , that is older than 7 years. If so, your soul should also have been expelled and gone, if older than seven years, and you would not remember anything, you had done a longer time than seven years ago.

LOL.....oh wait, you're being serious.  I thought you might be going on to say how, when every cell renews after 7 years, we all turn from men into women or white to black or our eyes change colour or......

....or could it be that some cells - such as those in the neurons and synapses where memory reside - are just a siiiitle bit more complicated than you want to make them out to be?
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline relativetruth

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 632
  • Darwins +11/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #294 on: October 22, 2011, 01:56:36 PM »

Our body will be dead. but our soul and spirit will live forever. Think about it. The cells in our body are renewed at every 7 years. You do not carry one single cell , that is older than 7 years. If so, your soul should also have been expelled and gone, if older than seven years, and you would not remember anything, you had done a longer time than seven years ago.  i have to go now. the rest, i answer  later.

Where do you get your information from?

A woman has just one set of eggs. Those that she is born with. That is why women giving birth in their 40's have a much greater risk of having an abnormal child with those deteriorated eggs.

Can you JUST THINK ABOUT IT for a second.

Do the souls of retarded newborns start with the same blank sheet of normal babies?
« Last Edit: October 22, 2011, 02:02:17 PM by relativetruth »
God(s) exist and are imaginary

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3950
  • Darwins +265/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #295 on: October 22, 2011, 04:12:23 PM »


Spiritual things must be understood spiritually........



And Magickal thing musts be understood Magickally.

And Shamanic thing must be understood through the eyes of a shaman.


Or I can see how the measure up to real world standards and understand they are bullshit.


 
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline pingnak

Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #296 on: October 22, 2011, 05:02:05 PM »
But shamanistic things could at least be fun, since there are often hallucinogens involved.

But bullshit is truly best understood through long experience with bullshit.

Offline Zankuu

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2117
  • Darwins +135/-3
  • Gender: Male
    • I am a Forum Guide
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #297 on: October 22, 2011, 05:20:46 PM »
A woman has just one set of eggs. Those that she is born with. That is why women giving birth in their 40's have a much greater risk of having an abnormal child with those deteriorated eggs.

Not to derail the thread but don't women, on average, release well over 300+ eggs in a lifetime?
Leave nothing to chance. Overlook nothing. Combine contradictory observations. Allow yourself enough time. -Hippocrates of Cos

Offline pingnak

Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #298 on: October 22, 2011, 06:00:16 PM »
Women knocked up by men in their 40s have significantly higher risks of birth defects, too.

http://www.google.com/search?gcx=c&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=age+of+father+versus+birth+defects

http://www.google.com/search?gcx=c&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=age+of+mother+versus+birth+defects

Errors in the chromosomes accumulate.  Just because the man is making fresh swimmers every day doesn't mean that they're error free.

Either way, the older the parents are when they conceive, the more likely their KIDS will be fucked.


Offline Historicity

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2350
  • Darwins +80/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • (Rama, avatar of Vishnu)
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #299 on: October 22, 2011, 06:08:07 PM »
A woman has just one set of eggs. Those that she is born with. That is why women giving birth in their 40's have a much greater risk of having an abnormal child with those deteriorated eggs.
Not to derail the thread but don't women, on average, release well over 300+ eggs in a lifetime?

The Wiccan Goddess gave birth to the Universe and she is the Universe as well.  (Something like that.)  So since women are created in her image, how many eggs a woman has tells us something about the Goddess.  (How's my Magic Decoder Ring working?  Really.  How well.  And How.  At the end of that paragraph I don't know.)

Women lose 1000 eggs per cycle.  Only 0.001 go on to be the egg for that cycle. 

I decided not to consult the Holy Scriptures[1] on this one.

Here's what the Cleveland Clinic says:
Quote
How many eggs does a woman have?
During fetal life, there are about 6 million to 7 million eggs. From this time, no new eggs are produced.

The vast majority of the eggs within the ovaries steadily die, until they are depleted at menopause. At birth, there are approximately 1 million eggs; and by the time of puberty, only about 300,000 remain. Of these, 300 to 400 will be ovulated during a woman's reproductive lifetime. The eggs continue to degenerate during pregnancy, with the use of birth control pills, and in the presence or absence of regular menstrual cycles.

The WebMD has new doubt on this:
Quote
But a new study published in the March 11 {2004} issue of Nature shows that female mice continue to produce eggs to replace damaged ones after birth.

Researchers say the discovery indicates that females may share the ability to replenish reproductive cells during life, and if the same process occurs in humans it may also help explain why female fertility declines rapidly after age 30.

Researchers say that the theory that female mammals are born with a fixed supply of eggs stems from studies that showed females develop a finite number of egg-producing follicles in their ovaries during fetal life, as opposed to males who continue to generate sperm-producing cells throughout their lives.

"Although this dogma has persisted for more than 50 years, the present study provides evidence that challenges the validity of this belief, which represents one of the most basic underpinnings of reproductive biology," write researcher Joshua Johnson of Harvard Medical School and colleagues.
 1. I mean Wikipedia.

Offline Godexists

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Darwins +0/-65
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #300 on: October 22, 2011, 09:12:35 PM »

Kindly prove that Jesus did in fact live a perfect life, using sources other than the Bible (because the Bible is propagandistic and has undergone centuries of editing).  After all, Jesus was willing to allow Thomas to feel his wounds after his resurrection.  What these atheists ask for is nothing more complicated than that - proof they can observe and analyze for themselves, rather than having to depend on some kind of "spiritual understanding" based on ideas someone long ago came up with.

If you really want to find the truth, read the bible, make your inquiry, ask God to reveal himself to you, and you will find it. There is enough evidence, that God exists, and that it is the one that revealed himself in the bible. And in regard of the bible being manipulated. No. We have thousands of fragments of the new testament, that prove your assertion is wrong.

, and furthermore, it is actually wrong.[1]  For example, the neurons in the cerebral cortex - what we use to think - are never replaced.  If they die, they stay dead.  Some cells, such as fat cells, are replaced at about 10% a year.  Whereas the cells in the heart (cardiomyocytes or myocardiocytes) replace themselves more slowly as we age, but even at age 25, only 1% of those cells are replaced in a year.  People can very easily have original heart muscle cells in their body at the time of death, even if they live to be 100 years old.  So, there is no reason at all to conclude that a soul must be necessary in order to maintain human consciousness while we are alive because of cell replacement.
 1. Source:  http://askanaturalist.com/do-we-replace-our-cells-every-7-or-10-years/

even if so, there is other hard evidence, that our body, spirit and soul are separated entities.

http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivio/TheLancet_NDE.htm

Quote
"During a night shift an ambulance brings in a 44-year-old cyanotic, comatose man into the coronary care unit. He had been found about an hour before in a meadow by passers-by. After admission, he receives artificial respiration without intubation, while heart massage and defibrillation are also applied. When we want to intubate the patient, he turns out to have dentures in his mouth. I remove these upper dentures and put them onto the 'crash car'. Meanwhile, we continue extensive CPR. After about an hour and a half the patient has sufficient heart rhythm and blood pressure, but he is still ventilated and intubated, and he is still comatose. He is transferred to the intensive care unit to continue the necessary artificial respiration. Only after more than a week do I meet again with the patient, who is by now back on the cardiac ward. I distribute his medication. The moment he sees me he says: 'Oh, that nurse knows where my dentures are'. I am very surprised. Then he elucidates: 'Yes, you were there when I was brought into hospital and you took my dentures out of my mouth and put them onto that car, it had all these bottles on it and there was this sliding drawer underneath and there you put my teeth.' I was especially amazed because I remembered this happening while the man was in deep coma and in the process of CPR. When I asked further, it appeared the man had seen himself lying in bed, that he had perceived from above how nurses and doctors had been busy with CPR. He was also able to describe correctly and in detail the small room in which he had been resuscitated as well as the appearance of those present like myself. At the time that he observed the situation he had been very much afraid that we would stop CPR and that he would die. And it is true that we had been very negative about the patient's prognosis due to his very poor medical condition when admitted. The patient tells me that he desperately and unsuccessfully tried to make it clear to us that he was still alive and that we should continue CPR. He is deeply impressed by his experience and says he is no longer afraid of death. 4 weeks later he left hospital as a healthy man."

Online wright

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1939
  • Darwins +83/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "Sleep like a log, snore like a chainsaw."
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #301 on: October 22, 2011, 10:08:55 PM »
Greetings, Godexists.

even if so, there is other hard evidence, that our body, spirit and soul are separated entities.

http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivio/TheLancet_NDE.htm

Quote
*snip*

This is very far from hard evidence. This is one story that really amounts to no more than an anecdote.

Seriously, if even a fraction of so-called "out-of-body-experiences" could be reliably shown to be real, there would be a literal explosion in such diverse fields as medicine, religion, espionage...

That consciousness has something other than a physical basis is an extraordinary claim. So far, there is no reliable, repeatable evidence to back it up.

« Last Edit: October 22, 2011, 10:10:57 PM by wright »
Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.
--Marcus Aurelius

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3045
  • Darwins +270/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #302 on: October 22, 2011, 10:26:34 PM »
The idea that we, mortal human beings have an eternity to "spend" anywhere is senseless.

What does it mean, its senseless ?

Because there is no credible evidence that any aspect of our self-awareness or personality survives physical death.  At the instant that the human brain shuts down, our thoughts and our sense of self automatically terminate, and once the cells of the brain have sufficiently decayed it is impossible for them to be restored.

There is no evidence for a "soul" that might serve as a vehicle for our continued sentient existence.  The fact that we can have dreamless sleep, in which no "soul" appears to be present and operating and keeping us aware of who we are, strongly suggests that our awareness is dependent upon certain types of brainwave activity.  At 4 Hz and below we are asleep; 4-7 Hz can be sleep or deep relaxation; and 8 Hz appears to be the threshold for normal awareness.  The average frequency after brain death is 0 Hz, or no activity at all.  No activity = No awareness, thought or belief of any kind.

Quote
Our body will be dead. but our soul and spirit will live forever.

No.  Not going to happen.  I think it unspeakably tragic that you have pinned your life's hopes upon the false promise of an ancient myth, and are gleefully defecating all over your real life.
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Online jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5082
  • Darwins +586/-20
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #303 on: October 22, 2011, 10:40:56 PM »
Kindly prove that Jesus did in fact live a perfect life, using sources other than the Bible (because the Bible is propagandistic and has undergone centuries of editing).  After all, Jesus was willing to allow Thomas to feel his wounds after his resurrection.  What these atheists ask for is nothing more complicated than that - proof they can observe and analyze for themselves, rather than having to depend on some kind of "spiritual understanding" based on ideas someone long ago came up with.
If you really want to find the truth, read the bible, make your inquiry, ask God to reveal himself to you, and you will find it. There is enough evidence, that God exists, and that it is the one that revealed himself in the bible. And in regard of the bible being manipulated. No. We have thousands of fragments of the new testament, that prove your assertion is wrong.
You are not copping out of this.  Telling me, "go read the Bible and ask God yourself" is nothing but an excuse.  If the first Christians had tried to pull that, Christianity would never have gotten anywhere in the first place.  And here you sit, their 'spiritual' heir, and you aren't even willing to make a real effort.  Oh, you talk about things, and you talk at people, but you don't bother to listen to them, you don't bother to even try to engage their objections rationally, and then you act like it's their responsibility to convince themselves.  Plus, you pull out quotes from other people who actually make the effort, not even bothering to put what they say in your own words.  And when it doesn't work, what do you do?  You keep on doing the same thing, not even trying to figure out what you might be doing wrong.

And yeah, we have thousands of fragments from the New Testament.  None of which actually go back to when those books were written!  Have you even bothered to read what real Biblical scholars say on the subject?  A number of them say quite clearly that there were Christian groups that had radically different opinions on the subject during the first couple of centuries of Christianity; go look up "antiadoptionistic alterations"[1], "antidocetic alterations"[2], and "anti-separationist alterations"[3], for starters.  Oh, and let's not forget alterations to diminish the role women played in the early churches, and to change Christianity from a Jewish sect to an anti-Jewish religion all its own.  Don't you dare try to tell me that my assertions are 'wrong', or that the Bible wasn't changed in a propagandist manner when you haven't even bothered to seriously research any of this for yourself.

even if so, there is other hard evidence, that our body, spirit and soul are separated entities.

http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivio/TheLancet_NDE.htm
First off, that isn't hard evidence.  Hard evidence is something that you can show to other people in order to verify your claims.  That is nothing more than someone claiming knowledge that they theoretically shouldn't have.  Leaving aside the fact that even if someone is in a coma, the senses don't automatically shut off, there's no guarantee at all that someone else didn't tell him about the dentures, or that he didn't hear someone else talking about them, perhaps without even realizing he heard it.  Plus, the brain picks up a huge amount of sensory information, of which only a small amount is consciously processed.  But the rest is processed by the subconscious; it doesn't just vanish into thin air.

Second, there's a scientific explanation[4] for the concept of an "out of body" experience.  If the body's sensory signals get messed up, specifically the ones that keep track of the body's spatial position, it can generate an "out of body" experience, even though they were in their body the whole time.  You know that sensory information I just got done saying that the subconscious processes?  That's part of it too, and someone being in a comatose state could very possibly trigger the sensation of being "out of body" if that part of the brain wasn't working right.
 1. Jesus was completely human and was adopted as God's son after the fact.
 2. Jesus was never human and never had more than the apperance of being human
 3. Which have both a human Jesus and a divine Christ, where Jesus was 'indwelt' by Christ.
 4. Source:  http://www.physorg.com/news107099946.html

Offline Historicity

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2350
  • Darwins +80/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • (Rama, avatar of Vishnu)
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #304 on: October 22, 2011, 10:51:36 PM »
In blood anoxia the muscles are paralyzed first.  The person shows no activity.  For a while they can still hear and they see a narrowing vision.  That is because there are a cluster of vessels at the fovea of the eye and it is better fed.

For something to see it has to focus and absorb light.  If there were a ghost in the room looking at you it could not be entirely invisible.  You would have to see one or more dark spots hovering in the air.

Likewise hearing would take an organ that can draw energy from pressure waves in the air and select them for frequency.  What organ would a ghost have?  This would have to be an organ with some solidity because it has to resist pressure.

It has long been shown that witnesses with partial information create more in order to create a scenario. 

Blind people do not report out-of-body experiences where suddenly they can see.

Offline Historicity

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2350
  • Darwins +80/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • (Rama, avatar of Vishnu)
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #305 on: October 22, 2011, 11:05:55 PM »
If you really want to find the truth, read the bible, make your inquiry, ask God to reveal himself to you, and you will find it. There is enough evidence, that God exists, and that it is the one that revealed himself in the bible.

Okay, I just did:
Quote
Exodus 29:10 And thou shalt cause a bullock to be brought before the tabernacle of the congregation: and Aaron and his sons shall put their hands upon the head of the bullock. And thou shalt kill the bullock before the LORD, by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And thou shalt take of the blood of the bullock, and put it upon the horns of the altar with thy finger, and pour all the blood beside the bottom of the altar.  And thou shalt take all the fat that covereth the inwards, and the caul that is above the liver, and the two kidneys, and the fat that is upon them, and burn them upon the altar. But the flesh of the bullock, and his skin, and his dung, shalt thou burn with fire without the camp: it is a sin offering.Thou shalt also take one ram; and Aaron and his sons shall put their hands upon the head of the ram. And thou shalt slay the ram, and thou shalt take his blood, and sprinkle it round about upon the altar. And thou shalt cut the ram in pieces, and wash the inwards of him, and his legs, and put them unto his pieces, and unto his head.

29:18 And thou shalt burn the whole ram upon the altar: it is a burnt offering unto the LORD: it is a sweet savour, an offering made by fire unto the LORD.

29:19 And thou shalt take the other ram; and Aaron and his sons shall put their hands upon the head of the ram.  Then shalt thou kill the ram, and take of his blood, and put it upon the tip of the right ear of Aaron, and upon the tip of the right ear of his sons, and upon the thumb of their right hand, and upon the great toe of their right foot, and sprinkle the blood upon the altar round about.

29:21 And thou shalt take of the blood that is upon the altar, and of the anointing oil, and sprinkle it upon Aaron, and upon his garments, and upon his sons, and upon the garments of his sons with him: and he shall be hallowed, and his garments, and his sons, and his sons' garments with him.

Dang!  You're right.  I feel downright spiritual now. 

Offline pingnak

Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #306 on: October 22, 2011, 11:19:22 PM »
I think the blind people 'out of body' thing is not necessarily true.
http://www.google.com?q=NDE+Blind

Offline ungod

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 580
  • Darwins +15/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #307 on: October 23, 2011, 05:10:46 AM »
But shamanistic things could at least be fun, since there are often hallucinogens involved.

But bullshit is truly best understood through long experience with bullshit.

"Bullshit makes the world go round."   :laugh:
Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.
Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

"What good fortune for those in power that people do not think." - Hitler

Offline ungod

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 580
  • Darwins +15/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #308 on: October 23, 2011, 05:27:52 AM »

even if so, there is other hard evidence, that our body, spirit and soul are separated entities.


As someone obviously knowledgeable on the human spirit/soul, we would beg your indulgence in educating us on the very intriguing topic.
Since the spirit/soul is the very eternal core of our being, it is puzzling how our soul has no memory of events while we are under anasthesia. After all, being non-material, shouldn't the soul be unaffected by chemicals?
It is equally puzzling that a head injury can affect memory - shouldn't the soul remember things independentally of material memory. Because, if it doesn't, then how could we have concious existence when we leave this material life? And why is memory dependant on our developing brain, if the soul is non-material and eternal, shouldn't we have memory of our time in the womb?
Oh, and where does this spirit/soul exist? Does it reside in the brain, or is it distributed throughout the body? If so, does the soul shrink back in terror during a haircut or manicure, lest some of it be lost with the trimmings?
It is suspicious that those with knowledge of the soul are so vague on the details....
Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.
Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

"What good fortune for those in power that people do not think." - Hitler

Offline ungod

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 580
  • Darwins +15/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #309 on: October 23, 2011, 05:51:31 AM »

even if so, there is other hard evidence, that our body, spirit and soul are separated entities.


That's very interesting. In  that case, the soul being independent of the body, we should expect that the human personality, i.e. the core being, would be completely indepedent of genetic (material) inheritance, and children's personality would be totally unrelated to their parent's.
We do wonder just when the soul becomes part of the human. Is it at the moment of conception? Even as we speak, there are millions of humans engaging in coitus, and God must be one busy guy, running around with buckets of souls, to insert at the moment that sperm penetrates the egg. How does He still find time to run the |Universe? Or, is the soul implantation delegated?
Still, is it just random chance as to which soul from the bucket gets splashed into the fertilized egg, or is it according to His Plan? It is worrisome that souls such as Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Bugsy Seigel, have been implamted into humans. Would seem to detract from God's infallibility.
And, if nothing comes from nothing, what were these souls created from?
So many questions - we are indeed fortunate in having someone like you, who has communication from the Almighty on these matters to enlighten us!


« Last Edit: October 23, 2011, 05:54:37 AM by ungod »
Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.
Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

"What good fortune for those in power that people do not think." - Hitler

Offline Godexists

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Darwins +0/-65
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #310 on: October 23, 2011, 05:53:22 AM »
Greetings, Godexists.

even if so, there is other hard evidence, that our body, spirit and soul are separated entities.

http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivio/TheLancet_NDE.htm

Quote
*snip*

This is very far from hard evidence. This is one story that really amounts to no more than an anecdote.

Seriously, if even a fraction of so-called "out-of-body-experiences" could be reliably shown to be real, there would be a literal explosion in such diverse fields as medicine, religion, espionage...

That consciousness has something other than a physical basis is an extraordinary claim. So far, there is no reliable, repeatable evidence to back it up.

This IS hard evidence, backed up by many more.

 http://www.near-death.com/evidence.html

Dr. Ken Ring published a paper in the Journal of Near-Death Studies (Summer, 1993) concerning near-death experiencers who, while out of their bodies, witness real events that occur far away from their dead body. The important aspect to this phenomenon is that these events seen far away are later verified to be true. Experiencers not only witness events from great distances, but they have been documented to hear conversations between people at the same events. Conversations such as these have also verified to be true. An even more fascinating phenomenon occurs when the experiencer actually appears in spirit to someone, usually a loved one, during their NDE and it is verified to be true by the experiencer and the loved one. It is evidence such as this, if scientifically controlled, that can provide absolute scientific proof that consciousness can exist outside of the body. A scientifically controlled NDE that can be repeated which provides such evidence would be the scientific discovery of all time. However, science does not yet have the exact tools to accomplish this. But, science is coming very, very close. This kind of evidence and others provide very strong circumstantial evidence for the survival of consciousness.

the case for a creator pg 163

One scientist whose opinions were reversed on the issue is Wilder Penfield, the renowned father of modern neurosurgery. He started out suspecting that consciousness somehow emanated from the neural activities in the brain, where synapses can fire an astounding ten million billion times a second. "Through my own scientific career, I, like other scientists, have struggled to prove that the brain accounts for the mind," he said.9
But through performing surgery on more than a thousand epileptic patients, he encountered concrete evidence that the brain and mind are actually distinct from each other, although they clearly interact. Explained one expert in the field:
Penfield would stimulate electrically the proper motor cortex of conscious patients and challenge them to keep one hand from moving when the current was applied. The patient would seize this hand with the other hand and struggle to hold it still. Thus one hand under the control of the electrical current and the other hand under the control of the patient's mind fought against each other. Penfield risked the explanation that the patient
had not only a physical brain that was stimulated to action but also a nonphysical reality that interacted with the brain."
In other words, Penfield ended up agreeing with the Bible's assertion that human beings are both body and spirit. "To expect the highest brain mechanism or any set of reflexes, however complicated, to carry out what the mind does, and thus perform all the functions of the mind, is quite absurd," he said. "What a thrill it is, then, to discover that the scientist, too, can legitimately believe in the existence of the spirit."
Similarly, Oxford University professor of physiology Sir Charles Sherrington, a Nobel Prize winner described as "a genius who laid the foundations of our knowledge of the functioning of the brain and spinal cord,"11 declared five days before his death: "For me now, the only reality is the human soul."14
As for his one-time student John C. Eccles, himself an eminent neurophysiologist and Nobel laureate, his ultimate conclusion is the same. "I am constrained," he said, "to believe that there is what we might call a supernatural origin of my unique self-conscious mind or my unique selfhood or soul."'
But is it really rational in the twenty-first century to believe in John Calvin's sixteenth-century claim that "the endowments we possess cannot possibly he from ourselves," but that they must have a divine source?16 Is the Bible's insistence that people consist of both body and spirit-a belief called "dualism"-a defensible assertion?17 Or is the human brain simply, in the famous words of MIT's Marvin Minsky, "a computer made of meat," with conscious thought as its wholly mechanical output?
Consciousness, declared Searle, is "the single most important fact about our existence, except for life itself." 18 It was clear to me that the answer to the mystery of our mind would either be a powerful confirmation of Darwinian naturalism or a persuasive affirmation of a far greater mind in whose likeness we were created.

SURPASSING THE BRAIN'S BOUNDARIES
It was a news dispatch from the front lines of the scientific investigation of human consciousness. Published by the journal Resuscitation and presented to scientists at the California Institute of Technology in 2001, the year-long British study provided evidence that consciousness continues after a person's brain has stopped functioning and he or she has been declared clinically dead.19 It was dramatic new evidence that the brain and mind are not the same, but they're distinct entities.
"The research," said Reuters journalist Sarah Tippit, "resurrects the debate over whether there is life after death and whether there is such a thing as the human soul."20
In their journal article, physician Sam Parnia and Peter Fenwick, a neuropsychiatrist at the Institute of Psychiatry in London, describe their study of sixty-three heart attack victims who were declared clinically dead but were later revived and interviewed. About ten percent reported having well-structured, lucid thought processes, with memory formation and reasoning, during the time that their brains were not functioning. The effects of oxygen starvation or drugs-objections commonly offered by skeptics-were ruled out as factors. Later, the researchers found numerous cases that were similar.21
While large-scale studies are still needed, the once-skeptical Parnia said the scientific findings so far "would support the view that mind, `consciousness,' or the `soul' is a separate entity from the brain."22
He speculated that the brain might serve as a mechanism to manifest the mind, much in the same way a television set manifests pictures and sounds from waves in the air. If an injury to the brain causes a person to lose some aspects of his mind or personality, this doesn't necessarily prove that the brain was the source of the mind. "All it shows is that the apparatus is damaged," he said.
Active research is continuing in this area and into other aspects of human consciousness.24 Meanwhile, the scientists who are committed to finding a purely physical answer-appropriately called "physicalists"-are candid in admitting that they currently have no explanation for how the brain might spawn consciousness.
Conceded Searle: "We don't have an adequate theory of how the brain causes conscious states, and we don't have an adequate theory of how consciousness fits into the universe."2'
Still, Searle and many others find refuge in their unshakable faith that science will eventually discover a completely naturalistic explanation. Given Darwinism as a non-negotiable starting point, there's really no other choice.
"I am firmly in the confident camp-a substantial explanation for the mind's emergence from the brain will be produced and perhaps soon," predicted professor of neurology Antonio R. Damasio. "The giddy feeling, however, is tempered by the acknowledgment of some sobering difficulties."26
Eccles calls this kind of attitude "promissory materialism ... extravagant and unfulfillable."27 Instead, many researchers are following Eccles's example by pursuing the evidence of science and the logic of philosophy wherever they lead, even if they point toward dualism. Said anthropologist Marilyn Schlitz:
I would take the position of a radical empiricist, in that I am driven by data, not theory. And the data I see tell me that there are ways in which people's experience refutes the physicalist position that the mind is the brain and nothing more. There are solid, concrete data that suggest that our consciousness, our mind, may surpass the boundaries of the brain.28
As for the Bible, both the Old and New Testaments consistently teach that humans are "a hyphenate creature, a spirit/body dichotomy," said anthropologist Arthur C. Custance. Then, quite significantly, he added: "To this extent there is no quarrel between theology and the findings of recent research."20 Custance continued:
[The Bible] makes it very clear that when the soul or spirit leaves the body, the body is dead and that if the spirit is somehow returned to the body, the whole person comes back to life.30 This duality is repeated in hundreds of places in the Bible31.... Indeed the formation of Adam as the first human being is expressly stated as the result of the animation of a body by a spirit, constituting it as a living sou1.32
Do Christianity and contemporary research really support each other, while at the same time contradicting the Darwinian claim that the brain is solely responsible for consciousness? As I went looking for answers, I didn't have to travel far from my home in Southern California. It was just a short drive to the house of a prominent professor trained in science, philosophy, and theology, who has pondered and written about these topics for years.


Offline Godexists

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Darwins +0/-65
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #311 on: October 23, 2011, 05:57:00 AM »
Because there is no credible evidence that any aspect of our self-awareness or personality survives physical death.

It depends what you cound as solid evidence.....you can even say that there is no evidence YOU exist. You might be just a illusion, a phantom......


 
Quote
At the instant that the human brain shuts down, our thoughts and our sense of self automatically terminate.

Where is the evidence it is so ? In my view, that is a baseless claim.




Offline Godexists

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Darwins +0/-65
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #312 on: October 23, 2011, 06:09:21 AM »

You are not copping out of this.  Telling me, "go read the Bible and ask God yourself" is nothing but an excuse.

No, its not. Thats the way i councel you to take, if you are REALLY willing to find the truth. What seems to me however is, that your only motivation is to justify your actual position, you do not WANT God.

Quote
If the first Christians had tried to pull that, Christianity would never have gotten anywhere in the first place.

Well, i am giving the first step, testifying to you my position. The rest, to investigate further, is you business.


 
Quote
And here you sit, their 'spiritual' heir, and you aren't even willing to make a real effort.

Then i would not be even here, answering your questions.


 
Quote
Oh, you talk about things, and you talk at people, but you don't bother to listen to them, you don't bother to even try to engage their objections rationally

As said, there are things, that can be understood only spiritually. What exactly do you not understand about this ?


Quote
and then you act like it's their responsibility to convince themselves.

Oh, thats absolutely true. Don't try to shift YOUR responsability to me....each one is responsable for its own decisions.


Quote
And yeah, we have thousands of fragments from the New Testament.  None of which actually go back to when those books were written!

Thats not true.

http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/bib-qur/bibmanu.htm

Quote
We have today in our possession 5,300 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, another 10,000 Latin Vulgates, and 9,300 other early versions (MSS), giving us more than 24,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament in existence today! (taken from McDowell's Evidence That demands a Verdict, vol.1, 1972 pgs.40-48; and Time, January 23, 1995, pg.57). Though we do not have any originals, with such a wealth of documentation at our disposal with which to compare, we can delineate quite closely what those originals contained.

What's more, a substantial number were written well before the compilation of the Qur'an. In fact, according to research done by Kurt and Barbara Aland, a total of 230 manuscript portions are currently in existence which pre-date 600 AD! These can be broken down into 192 Greek New Testament manuscripts, 5 Greek lectionaries containing scripture, and 33 translations of the Greek New Testament (Aland 1987:82-83).

Magdalene Ms (Matthew 26)   1st century   50-60 AD   co-existant (?)   
John Rylands (John)   90 AD   130 AD   40 years   
Bodmer Papyrus II (John)   90 AD   150-200 AD   60-110 years   
Chester Beatty Papyri (N.T.)   1st century   200 AD   150 years   
Diatessaron by Tatian (Gospels)   1st century   200 AD   150 years   
Codex Vaticanus (Bible)   1st century   325-350 AD   275-300 years   
Codex Sinaiticus (Bible)   1st century   350 AD   300 years   
Codex Alexandrinus (Bible)   1st century   400 AD   350 years

Quote
  Have you even bothered to read what real Biblical scholars say on the subject?  A number of them say quite clearly that there were Christian groups that had radically different opinions on the subject during the first couple of centuries of Christianity; go look up "antiadoptionistic alterations"[1], "antidocetic alterations"[2], and "anti-separationist alterations"[3], for starters.  Oh, and let's not forget alterations to diminish the role women played in the early churches, and to change Christianity from a Jewish sect to an anti-Jewish religion all its own.  Don't you dare try to tell me that my assertions are 'wrong', or that the Bible wasn't changed in a propagandist manner when you haven't even bothered to seriously research any of this for yourself.
 1. Jesus was completely human and was adopted as God's son after the fact.
 2. Jesus was never human and never had more than the apperance of being human
 3. Which have both a human Jesus and a divine Christ, where Jesus was 'indwelt' by Christ.

How do you know ? What do you know about my reserches ? The fact that i have come to a different conclusin, does not mean i did not study the subject.



Offline relativetruth

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 632
  • Darwins +11/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #313 on: October 23, 2011, 06:25:52 AM »
Quote from: Godexists
Penfield would stimulate electrically the proper motor cortex of conscious patients and challenge them to keep one hand from moving when the current was applied. The patient would seize this hand with the other hand and struggle to hold it still. Thus one hand under the control of the electrical current and the other hand under the control of the patient's mind fought against each other. Penfield risked the explanation that the patient
had not only a physical brain that was stimulated to action but also a nonphysical reality that interacted with the brain."
In other words, Penfield ended up agreeing with the Bible's assertion that human beings are both body and spirit. "To expect the highest brain mechanism or any set of reflexes, however complicated, to carry out what the mind does, and thus perform all the functions of the mind, is quite absurd," he said. "What a thrill it is, then, to discover that the scientist, too, can legitimately believe in the existence of the spirit."

Godexists
I am giving you the benefit of the my doubt that the above are your words.

As such I have one question!

Given all the research between right and left brain activity since the 1980's a purely physical explanation for the above has been done many times.

If you don't know what I am talking about you don't know what you are talking about.
God(s) exist and are imaginary

Online jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5082
  • Darwins +586/-20
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #314 on: October 23, 2011, 07:34:34 AM »
No, its not. Thats the way i councel you to take, if you are REALLY willing to find the truth. What seems to me however is, that your only motivation is to justify your actual position, you do not WANT God.
And this isn't a cop-out how?  You suggest that if a skeptic were really interested in the truth, they should go research all this on their own, and then you say that since they aren't willing to do that research, they're not interested in being convinced.  Both of those free you from the necessity of actually making the effort yourself of convincing them.  That is a cop-out.

Well, i am giving the first step, testifying to you my position. The rest, to investigate further, is you business.
The first Christians did a lot more than simply testify to their positions.  They had to, for the simple reason that most of the people they were talking to were illiterate.  Admittedly, the people on this site are not illiterate, but that is no excuse for you to cop out of doing more than just stating your position.  The fact that someone can read material for themselves does not justify telling them that they have to convince themselves of something they're skeptical about.  All that does is tell the skeptic that you can't convince them.

Then i would not be even here, answering your questions.
You haven't been answering questions for the most part.  What you do is quote a source when someone asks a question, expecting them to accept that as your answer.  But it isn't your answer, it's someone else's argument, and it isn't convincing when you just throw it out in dollops and dregs.

As said, there are things, that can be understood only spiritually. What exactly do you not understand about this ?
I understand quite well what you're really saying here.  To say that someone needs to "spiritually understand" something is to say that you can't explain it to them, that they have to get an answer from a "spiritual experience".  Which conveniently allows you to avoid the responsibility of convincing someone who is highly skeptical to your claims, because you can always pretend that they don't have the proper "spiritual understanding".

Oh, thats absolutely true. Don't try to shift YOUR responsability to me....each one is responsable for its own decisions.
Actually, that's my line.  Don't try to shift your responsibility to convince me, or the atheists on this site, onto us.  At a minimum, that includes demonstrating that you know what you're talking about, that you are worth listening to, that your reasoning is solid, and that you can respond appropriately to objections.  So far, you haven't exactly been consistent in any of those categories.

Thats not true.

http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/bib-qur/bibmanu.htm
Yes, it is true.  Your quote even explicitly acknowledges that: "Though we do not have any originals".[1]  The fact that someone can extrapolate something back to a presumed original does not make that extrapolation the same as the original.

How do you know ? What do you know about my reserches ? The fact that i have come to a different conclusin, does not mean i did not study the subject.
The point is that I don't know what you actually know.  I don't know what research you've actually done.  You haven't bothered to lay any of that out; the most you've done is trawl documents others have written, most of the time not even giving your own interpretation of what they're saying.  So yes, I think asking if you've done the research and pointing out things that you should know about if you had done the research is appropriate.  If you can't even answer that much...then you don't have any business trying to convince other people until you've gone out and done real research on the subject.
 1. I have to wonder if you actually did more than just skim the document for a few seconds before deciding to quote it at this point.

Online jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5082
  • Darwins +586/-20
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #315 on: October 23, 2011, 08:06:22 AM »
Godexists
I am giving you the benefit of the my doubt that the above are your words.
And you would be incorrect in so doing (which is hardly your fault, since he couldn't be bothered to actually quote any of it).  I very strongly suspect that every single word after his near-death link is quoted from some source or another.

For example, Amazon has a book called "The Case for a Creator" (Lee Strobel), which has a "look inside" link.  On page 249 of the "look inside" link, you find the exact quote Godexists uses and that you quoted from him.  It is most definitely not his own words, because they match exactly.  In fact, everything following "the case for a creator pg 163" is from the same source, looks like from the 2009 edition (Amazon's is the 2004 edition), which he copied from Google books.

Online JeffPT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2097
  • Darwins +240/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm a lead farmer mutha fucka
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #316 on: October 23, 2011, 08:10:25 AM »
No, its not. Thats the way i councel you to take, if you are REALLY willing to find the truth. What seems to me however is, that your only motivation is to justify your actual position, you do not WANT God.

Since when has the factual truth or falseness of a thing been influenced by what we WANT to believe?  I believe that we all die at some point.  I believe that eating too much ice cream will make me fat.  I believe that I have to work or I won't be able to support my family.  None of those things are changed at all by the fact that I wish they were not true.  Now, people can convince themselves that something is true or not true; or they can be fooled into believing that something is true or not true, but that goes both ways.  You say here that we don't want God, but what if it's simply that you DO want there to be a God. And the people who indoctrinated you to believe in God, did so because they also wanted to believe in God. What if you LOVE your belief in God so much that you've actually suspended your reasonable judgement in order to make it so?  After all, you don't have to look far to see what kind of nutty things people will believe in.  (Heaven's Gate, Jim Jones, Joseph Smith, etc.)

It is very important to me to know whether or not God is real.  I really want to know the truth.  But is it so bad to ask for real proof in the understanding that the human mind can be tricked and fooled easily, and has been since man first invented religion?  Is it so bad to want to bring the most powerful truth detection tool we have (the scientific method) to bear on the question?  There have been billions and billions of people throughout the history of time that have been tricked and fooled by other religions, correct?  Without some form of reasonable proof, how can you sit there and say you aren't just like them? 

Reading the bible from a position of neutrality is NOT the way to believe in God.  It is a sure fire way to become an atheist.  Nobody in their right mind would believe any of it.  You have to FIRST believe that God is real.  Not the other way around.  If you FIRST believe that God is real, then everything inside it, no matter how whacky or nutty it is, just reinforces that belief. 

I do not NEED God, but if He is real, I wish to know it.  In fact, living here in the bible belt, it would make my life a lot easier if I did. 

Well, i am giving the first step, testifying to you my position. The rest, to investigate further, is you business.

And that's not good enough, because its really, really, REALLY possible that you're wrong.  Is it good enough that we testify our position to you?  The more you investigate, the less likely you are to believe in God. 


As said, there are things, that can be understood only spiritually. What exactly do you not understand about this ?

It's not an intelligible answer.  It's like saying you can only understand something if you ojklar.  There is no such thing as a "spirit", and until you define what it is, you're not speaking English.  The most reliable way in which to understand things in our world is via the scientific method.  What do you not understand about that? 

Quote
And yeah, we have thousands of fragments from the New Testament.  None of which actually go back to when those books were written!

Thats not true.

Yes, it most certainly is true.  Even your quote says it.  Read it again and see the bolded part...

Quote
We have today in our possession 5,300 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, another 10,000 Latin Vulgates, and 9,300 other early versions (MSS), giving us more than 24,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament in existence today! (taken from McDowell's Evidence That demands a Verdict, vol.1, 1972 pgs.40-48; and Time, January 23, 1995, pg.57). Though we do not have any originals, with such a wealth of documentation at our disposal with which to compare, we can delineate quite closely what those originals contained.

There are no original copies of anything, Godexists.  None.  It's been manipulated, changed and transformed heavily for 1400 years.  Before the printing press was invented in the 1400's, every copy of the bible was passed on BY HAND.  It didn't drop out of the sky and land in somebody's lap. 

Today, it's actually more than 5,700 Greek Manuscripts.  The number has gone up a bit.  But that doesn't change the fact that all of them are copies of copies of copies of copies.  The fact of the matter is that there are hundreds of thousands of discrepancies among ALL of those manuscripts, and NONE of them go back to the original. It is true that there are methods that can be used to help determine what is closer to the original, (the historical critical method) but saying you can get close is simply not true.  There are too many problems.  The following quote is from Bart Ehrman, "Misquoting Jesus".

Quote
Not only do we not have the originals, we don't have the first copies of the originals. We don't even have copies of the copies of the originals, or copies of the copies of the copies of the originals. What we have are copies made later—much later. In most instances, they are copies made many centuries later. And these copies all differ from one another, in many thousands of places. As we will see later in this book, these copies differ from one another in so many places that we don't even know how many differences there are. Possibly it is easiest to put it in comparative terms: there are more differences among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.

The original words are lost. They're gone.

What's more, a substantial number were written well before the compilation of the Qur'an. In fact, according to research done by Kurt and Barbara Aland, a total of 230 manuscript portions are currently in existence which pre-date 600 AD! These can be broken down into 192 Greek New Testament manuscripts, 5 Greek lectionaries containing scripture, and 33 translations of the Greek New Testament (Aland 1987:82-83).

Substantial???  Of the 24,000, only 230 pre-date 600 AD?  Less than 1%?  Um... these quotes did you no favors.  In fact, it highlights how terrible your argument is.  It's a glaring reminder that over 99% of the manuscripts touted by McDowell et. al. are not useful.  BTW, again, check and see just how many discrepancies there are.  You might learn something.   

How do you know ? What do you know about my reserches ? The fact that i have come to a different conclusin, does not mean i did not study the subject.

Have you done any NON CHRISTIAN research?  You know, the people who have nothing to gain or lose by stating the truth?  Of course you can say that Non-Christian research is biased, but are you really going to try and tell us that Christian research is unbiased?  Why don't you look at the argument from both sides and see what other people are saying? 

Honestly, it doesn't matter if the copies are old.  Hell, it wouldn't matter if all the copies we had were handed down by the apostles themselves in a glass, vacuum sealed box.  That says nothing about the truth or fiction of them.  So it really doesn't matter that much; it's just an interesting thing to study for atheists that further leads to the undeniable conclusion that there is no Christian God.  But for Christians, this matters immensely.  Having the original words is very important.  So you could imagine them doing whatever they could to try and make it seem like they had those original words.  Even to the point of insinuating that they can figure out what the original writings said after studying 24,000 manuscripts; 99% of which were written well over 6 centuries after the fact.  You have to ask yourself then... which side has the most to gain or lose by simply admitting they don't have the originals?  That's right... the Christians.  So they have the most motivation to lie about things.  And Christian lying goes back a long, long way. 
Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT

Offline Ambassador Pony

  • You keep what you kill.
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 6858
  • Darwins +71/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • illuminatus
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #317 on: October 23, 2011, 01:53:51 PM »
Lying and wanting to rape babies, Christian staples, or Godexists personal pacadillos?

You believe evolution and there is no evidence for that. Where is the fossil record of a half man half ape. I've only ever heard about it in reading.

Online nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6886
  • Darwins +925/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: The big bang theory is bs!
« Reply #318 on: October 23, 2011, 03:03:35 PM »
Godexists, can you explain why god would send sweet little grannies to burn in everlasting hellfire? I know a lot of sweet little grannies in 3rd world countries who do not believe the things about god and heaven and so on as you do.

The reason they don't want your Christian god is because they were taught about Christianity by white people who were from the same culture as those who kidnapped their ancestors amd enslaved them. The same white people who drunkenly raped the women and killed the men. The same white people who stole the land and food and gold and diamonds, and then forced the local people to build Christian schools and churches. Who taught the children about a foreign culture that was supposed to be better than their own, although the white people acted far more like "savages" than the local people. Who made the people change their children's names to "Christian names" and burn their own religious objects. Who cut off hands and ears when the people refused to obey them, and made necklaces of the hands and ears to wear. This was the exposure to Christianity that these people got. >:(

And god will burn the sweet grannies forever while the bastards who killed and pillaged and raped go to heaven? No wonder they want no part of your religion. If your god wants people to buy, he should send out a better sales force. :P
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.