Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
91
All I can say is that I'm glad I don't live in your little world, you know, the one where you are absofrickiin'lutely helpless, except for the part where you might get to avoid demons if you pick exactly the right version of christianity. Here we all are, helpless puppets, forced to live through this battle between your god and your satan, free will out the door. The fact that we're sinners is being irrelevant because all we can do is sit in front of our TV sets and watch the events prophesied take place. Because there is no way for them not to take place.

What you fail to realize is the things prophesied to occur are man made.  "If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened -- Mt 24:22.  This situation is brought about by man, not God.  God intervenes to stop it.

Quote
You and your brethren have constructed a fantasy world, one in which you think you understand everything, know everything, can predict everything, and in which you are helpless, other than thinking that, as individuals, you can selectively choose whose ass to kiss.

If you are not helpless then end the building tensions between the U.S. and Russia.  End the wars in the Middle East.  Stop the problems in Ukraine.  Stop the violence in Africa.  Stop the development of more nuclear weapons and biological weapons.  We are not talking about predictions.  We're talking about reality.  And what are you going to do?  You're going to sit helplessly and watch.

Quote
Satan's so called "fear" that his time is coming is, and I'm pretty sure this is just a coincidence  , is exactly the same fear that christians have. That their own lives will actually end at death, a fear so great that they are willing to fantasize their whole lives about alternate endings just so they can make it through the day. You know, the day they've filled with so much terror and foreboding they can't enjoy it anyway.

Why do you think that?

Quote
You're doing it wrong. Each and every one of you. And you're ruining it for the rest of us.

What am I ruining for you?

Quote
If you are able to take even a smidgen of comfort from the story you just told, then you haven't a the slightest idea about what reality is. And yet you're proud of it.

The only comfort is that God will interefere and he "makes wars cease to the ends of the earth." (Ps 46:9)

Quote
And of course, with your god taking his own sweet time about dealing with the devil, he gets to use that as an excuse to threaten us with crispy critterdom if we don't kowtow to his every whim, which he has lots of time for, since he's letting satan run the planet.

What do you mean "his every whim"?  What are his "whims" for a Christian?

Quote
We're born, we live, and we die.

No that is not correct.  There is going to be a resurrection of the dead because of the "whims" of the creator.




92
"Particle Physics allows the study of something that might exist (HB) based on something that do exist"
"Theology allows the study of something that might exist (God) based on something that do exist."
Do you have any counter argument that could withstand critics? Or do you accept that these phrases are true?

This is a highly disinegneuous statement.  The things that "might exist" in each case are quantifiably different. 

IN particle physics, new particles are theorized based on mathematical models.  That is, the current models - like e=mc2 - are incomplete and have some error to them.  That error is explained in variouse ways, like dark matter or new particles.  Then, based on the math, the new particle is defined.  That definition makes predictions.  And here is the crucial difference: then they go look for the particle.  They test the predictions and compare observed reality to their hypothesis.

In theology - which is a pretend field to begin with - they don't do that. They have no way to study their particular "something that might exist," except through what other people have written, sometimes thousands of years ago.  And, let's face it, what they wrote is almost certainly bullshit.  On top of that, they do not make predictions because even if they did, they have no way to verify, no way to compare observed reality to their hypothesis.

And for all the basic reasons why theology is bullshit and the answer is "god is imaginary" I've outlined many of them above including a specific example of a "medical miracle!"  which was not the product of a miracle at all but simply trying a radical new approach based on science since past approaches had failed.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/health/47465427.html
http://www.jsonline.com/news/health/47469357.html
http://www.jsonline.com/news/health/47473837.html

This is considered a miracle because the family believes it was... but if you read the article, the only people actually doing anything useful at all are the doctors.

The family could have been tossing salt over their shoulders onto horseshoes and gotten the exact same result.  Believers have to cling to scientific successes as "miracles" because "god" doesn't ever do ANYTHING.

What kind of being would take all the credit for everyone else's hard work, then blame them for their failings?  The Christian God!  Worst manager in the history of the universe.  Lol.



93
Are you saying that all those claims 1 to 10 you can back up in a way that the Catholic church can't?

I understand how "Ask and ye shall receive" could be interpreted as "ask to be cured and you will be cured" I totally agree with you. It is one of the possible interpretation of that passage from the Bible. But when people go to church and learn their catechism, they understand that for God time is not the same. So, basically when he says "Ask and ye shall receive" he does not say when. We, Catholics believe in the after-life and the resurrection of the body. This body will be perfect and those people who ask for a cure will receive it. Just maybe not exactly when they want it.

Quote
Your claim that God allowed a precious little girl to be molested abused and rejected then possessed by demons is a CRUEL god.
Are you saying that a God that allow a precious little girl to be molested abused and rejected then possessed by demons is NOT a CRUEL god? Or is a cruel God? I'm having difficulty following you. Do you believe that God does not allow violence?
In the Catholic Church we learn that God allows people to be free, he does not control them if they don't want to be controlled.
Unfortunately that means that people are free to do bad things, like using violence.
Fortunately that means that people are free to do good things too, which is what they do most with their freedom.
94
Formal Debates / Re: Debate Challenges
« Last post by Lukvance on Yesterday at 01:00:45 PM »
Of course I would argue that the Catholic church IS a force for good in the world.

That wasn't what I asked.  I asked if you would be prepared to argue the other position.
Going against my belief? Sure I am prepared. But it will require some sort of trickery on my part.
Trickery?  No.  Just an honest willingness to evaluate and present without bias a position you do not hold.  I'm interested to see the results.  Shall I PM screwtape to set up a debate room?
Playing the devils advocate require me to lie/trick/hide information that I have. I cannot do it otherwise, sorry. Also, if we were to debate, you would have to support the fact that the Catholic church is a force for good in the world. And that you will have to invalidate all my counter arguments. Are you prepared to support a faith that you do not hold on to?
95
"Particle Physics allows the study of something that might exist (HB) based on something that do exist"
"Theology allows the study of something that might exist (God) based on something that do exist."
Do you have any counter argument that could withstand critics? Or do you accept that these phrases are true?

This is a highly disinegneuous statement.  The things that "might exist" in each case are quantifiably different. 

IN particle physics, new particles are theorized based on mathematical models.  That is, the current models - like e=mc2 - are incomplete and have some error to them.  That error is explained in variouse ways, like dark matter or new particles.  Then, based on the math, the new particle is defined.  That definition makes predictions.  And here is the crucial difference: then they go look for the particle.  They test the predictions and compare observed reality to their hypothesis.

In theology - which is a pretend field to begin with - they don't do that. They have no way to study their particular "something that might exist," except through what other people have written, sometimes thousands of years ago.  And, let's face it, what they wrote is almost certainly bullshit.  On top of that, they do not make predictions because even if they did, they have no way to verify, no way to compare observed reality to their hypothesis.




96
Hopefully it's just a matter of time before they find out stuff about Ken Hamm like they've done about every other major Christian leader... and he's totally discredited as a person.  It makes me sick that anyone could find him believable.
97
Formal Debates / Re: Debate Challenges
« Last post by Lukvance on Yesterday at 12:54:43 PM »
This would never have shown that any god had an independent existence.
I totally agree with you. Good thing that it wasn't what I was supposed to debate there. You seem to want to change the subject too. The subject is very simple "does God exist" I don't have to prove that something is independent to prove it's existence. I never had to and never will I have to.
Ps: I am not saying they were wrong in their judgement.
I'm saying that like you they made a mistake on the subject of the debate. They both thought the debate was "Does god exist independently?" and argue from that point when I was arguing from another point, closer to the subject.
I would have judge the same thing if I was them. I would have also agree to change my verdict upon realizing the assumption I made on the subject. Even if it was only to retract it and maybe even suggest the two debaters to create a new debate this time making sure they are debating the same thing.
But, that's me.
98
Speaking of miracle cures... I saw them mention on this site about a girl who got rabies and was in the advanced stage.  No human had ever survived that.  She was the first.   Her family and church prayed like crazy for her.   This is represented as a miracle from god.

I read the story to find out what actually happened.

The girl contracted rabies by trying to save a small bat that'd fallen to the floor in her church, getting a tiny pin-prick bite.
The girl was a high school athlete with a strong body and immune system to start with.
Doctors contacted the CDC and found out everything there was to find out about rabies.
They discovered that, given enough time, human immune system could fight off rabies, but it was faster than the immune system and got too far into the brain before the body produced it's own resistance.
They discovered that the disease couldn't pass between cells that were "blocked" by something like the drugs that cause medicinal coma in patients.
For the very first time in history, doctors tried a new cocktail of forced coma + anti-viral drugs to cure the girl.
After many weeks, she woke up, and spent the next painful and frustrating year learning again how to walk and stand and talk.


It's infuriating and insulting to think that "god" cursed this kid with the most horrific situation possible in response to her trying to save one of his creatures, and then 100s of years of medical know how and viral study lead to a risky "first time ever" medical solution which was attempted with the idea in mind that it MIGHT WORK... and then it's called a miracle?

The ONLY thing in that whole equation that's not needed at all to get the same result is PRAYER and "god".

If that's your "god" he's a piece of crap who doesn't deserve worship.   You only make excuses for all the awful random things that happen because god does not exist, and awful, random things happen that would not happen if there was a loving god.
99
I'll say it again
"Particle Physics allows the study of something that might exist (HB) based on something that do exist"
"Theology allows the study of something that might exist (God) based on something that do exist."
Do you have any counter argument that could withstand critics? Or do you accept that these phrases are true?

Jumping in on the discussion, I agree with you that there's a very small chance that a "god" (not necessarily jesus) might exist.   If you'd assume that "a" god did exist, then you'd have to look at the universe to try to determine his characteristics.   If he did exist, would he resemble the god described in the Bible?

1 - The universe is seemingly infinite and very hostile to life, with very small numbers of planets even potentially able to support life, and those planets can be damaged through any number of cosmic catastrophes.

2 - Life on our planet appears to evolve through natural selection rather than a benevolent design.  We have body odor, cancer, parasites and diseases, children are born with severe retardations through no fault of their own, and there are animals that would surely eat us given the chance and opportunity.   If a deity created beautiful rainbows and puppy dogs they also created tapeworms, sulfurous springs, and vampire bats.

3 - If you assume that a loving, benevolent, caring god created us... why do things like set the price of a slave in the old testament?  Why do things like say it's ok to force young virgin women into marriage after killing their family?   Why insist that the only way to get to a magical place after we die is to believe in something of which there is zero proof?

4 - Why are so many things in the Bible absolutely untrue?   The earth is not 6000 years old.  A global flood never covered the planet or drained off through a magic drain in the grand canyon to nowhere.  Millions of species didn't fit on a boat and not eat each other for a full year.   8 people didn't repopulate 7,000,000,000 people of all ethnicities in 4,000 years.   There were civilizations on earth writing histories down while the "great flood" was going on.   No person has ever risen from the dead.  No one could survive in the belly of a whale for three days.  There's no outside writing or evidence of Jesus in spite of all his miracles.   Why are all Jesus's miracles the type that a stage magician can duplicate and the type that left no lasting proof?

5 - Why does the Bible promise in at least a dozen places that God will answer prayers and then God answers no prayers?    All seemingly answered prayers are coincidences that happen equally to believers and non-believers alike, and no impossible prayer is ever answered, no matter who agrees in prayer.   Why would god hide himself to scientific studies when he was happy to "prove" himself to Elijah to justify the murder of all the Baal Priests.


Theology is what makes atheists into atheists Lukvance.  We've all studied this stuff and it's not plausible or logical to believe in your description of God at all.

There's nothing wrong with studying the question, but the answer is that "God is Imaginary"
100
What doctors? How many? Where? Who exactly were these doctors who who had consulted on the case and pronounced it incurable or fatal?
It depends on what miracle you are looking at. The answer is "enough" there was enough doctors. If you want to add one, go ahead and add one of your own. The files are not locked in a vault. They are available to every scpecialist who want to consult them. If you had read the book I suggested you to read, you would have known such things. You keep making assertions about miracle without enough knowledge. This does not help the discussion at all. All it does is confuses other readers, presenting them false/unbased ideas as real. I think there is a word for that...

Quote
was it the two or three physicians who happened to be available at the local hospital in town, probably not even experts on the type of illness or condition? (Yes.)
Again, it depends on what miracle you are looking at. I'm pretty sure you just invented these numbers.

Quote
So, why are the religious so willing to accept that the "doctors" knew what they were talking about when they said the condition was incurable? But not willing to accept that the "doctors" know what they are talking about when they say that 2% of these cases get better by themselves, or that the treatment took longer to work than usual, or that the original diagnosis was a mistake.
They are not willing? What article makes you believe that? You keep making claims like that without supporting them. Do you have an example of a Doctor that wrote to the Vatican about some miracle that shouldn't be considered as such and the Vatican said "we refuse your opinion"?

Quote
Especially with a rare condition where even an expert might not have seen very many cases, on what basis, and for what purpose are doctors making these kinds of statements?
You'll find the answers in the book that I suggested you to read.

Quote
Finally, if god is the decider of who gets well and who doesn't and it is all a part of his perfect plan, why ever go to a doctor at all?
We need doctors because miracles are not what you make them to be. They are not a cure!
Remember when I tried to explain to you :
Now what you are talking about is a clinical research on the use of miracle as a cure for disease.
IT IS NOT A SOLUTION. It has never been a solution to the disease, it will never be.
Miracles are acts from God. Not a "medicinal product"or a treatment.
What did you understand then?

Miracle are not medicine. They are not some kind of solution to a illness.
THEY ARE VISIBLE ACTIONS FROM GOD, proof of him existing outside our body.
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]