| Welcome to Godlimations. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Pastafarianism; The atheist religion | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: 23 Jul 2009, 08:03 PM (3,246 Views) | |
| Deleted User | 8 Nov 2009, 03:41 PM Post #61 |
|
Deleted User
|
Thats because you dont except the proof of an intimate relationship with God. When i say i have it you dont except that because your reasoning reasons you out of it-you would rather look for a catch-22 when i talk about knowing God and more impoertantly being known or talk about God incarnate,God unchanging and Gods Majesty its part of the proof of inimate relationship. When i say God is wise and talk about Gods wisdom and our wisdom and how they differ its not good enough for you. Then there is Gods word the bible and you totally disregard this as any truth-even though this is one way we communicate Talking about his traits of Love,saving Grace,divine judgement,wrath,jealousy and unchanging mercy are rejected by you-all experiance of how i know him. Then there is pray and answered prayer another form of communication. Also walking with him along side of me and his presence. i once did not know him and now i do. Do Christians of the world not have relationship or know their God or does he not exsist because we are all deluded ? or we lack of your endless reasoning???!! |
|
|
| Concolor | 8 Nov 2009, 04:52 PM Post #62 |
|
Barabbas
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
But ARAZEC, it is perfectly understandable for me that you believe in the God of the Bible because of all your personal experience. But that experience is yours alone, and not mine. I don't have any experience that points me in the direction of one specific God or the other. All my experience fits best with a natural world. I understand that it must be really frustrating for you to feel so certain in this case, and the only response you get from me is a shrug of the shoulders and a request for objective evidence. But I think it should be possible to understand my side of this as well. After all, when I speak to a devout Muslim he will talk about his relationship with Allah in just as passionate terms as you speak of the God of the Bible. He will mention the wisdom of the Koran, the sense of his presence, the answered prayers, and how Allah's greatness is beyond our comprehension. When I speak to a Hindu, he will tell me how he strives to become one with Atman, and how he has been guided by his many incarnations throughout life. I think it is understandable not only that this makes it difficult for me to choose which of these testimonies I should consider to be the result of a true interaction with the divine, and a sign that this person really has found the right path. I also think it is apparent why I'm doubtful that personal revelation can indeed be a reliable source of knowledge. |
|
Life is beautiful, love heals, people come through. Reason, compassion and love comes first. Everything else is secondary. Except for Skittles. - And emperor Cheezy!
| |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | 8 Nov 2009, 09:17 PM Post #63 |
|
Deleted User
|
no i dont find it frustrating that you dont beleive in God or cant accept Jesus died for your sins or even that you think you are your own God. i dont find it frustrating that you think the intricate design of the world is chance and not by design what is frustrating is that you see others that do as prententious. and that you say we "claim" to have a knowledgble relationship-i am not asserting or strongly affirming- I ACTUALLY DO HAVE A RELATIONSHIP with my creator -its the truth- its a fact that has been verified. Now should you not beleive me as a witness testifying of this truth-thats your perogative -but calling me pretentious because of it is frustrating |
|
|
| Concolor | 9 Nov 2009, 03:52 AM Post #64 |
|
Barabbas
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I'm not saying that this is not the truth to you. I'm saying that it doesn't count as objective knowledge. And I believe I have explained why it is not objective knowledge as well. |
|
Life is beautiful, love heals, people come through. Reason, compassion and love comes first. Everything else is secondary. Except for Skittles. - And emperor Cheezy!
| |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | 9 Nov 2009, 07:31 AM Post #65 |
|
Deleted User
|
no you have not empirically and exhaustively used objective knowledge because you have no faith ! because you dont know God until you possess all knowledge in totality of a relationship with him you will need faith to believe an understanding to be correct or incorrect in total affirmation but you will put your faith in a racest scientist beleiving him to be honest and faithfull about his reasearch and impartial to bias in his investigations. |
|
|
| Concolor | 9 Nov 2009, 10:14 AM Post #66 |
|
Barabbas
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I'm sorry, did you just label scientists as racists? It's a little too early in the morning for ad hominem attacks. Anyway, the point I'm making is that it would be extremely difficult for me (if not maddening) to have a personal relationship going with both the God of the Bible, Allah, Atman, Krishna, Odin, Zeus, Xutulu etc. at the same time. You are asking me to give your God special preference before the others just because he's a friend of yours. You must admit that this is not fair. Don't they all deserve an equal opportunity? |
|
Life is beautiful, love heals, people come through. Reason, compassion and love comes first. Everything else is secondary. Except for Skittles. - And emperor Cheezy!
| |
![]() |
|
| conradw | 9 Nov 2009, 01:16 PM Post #67 |
|
Goliath
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Wow arazec, its almost as if you HAVEN'T read all of the racist things in the text you put your faith in. Or haven't you? unlike Concolor, I'm happy to go ad hominem. Did you know Tomás de Torquemada, the first Grand Inquisitor of Spain didn't believe in evolution? |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | 9 Nov 2009, 04:26 PM Post #68 |
|
Deleted User
|
someone can say they are not a racist but their behaviour shows they are. thats why we look to Jesus as an example and Saviour and not mortal man as having the answers to life You see we can go tit for tat but remember i already state that man is imperfect after the fall. @Concolor not all scientists are racists but you need to be realistic about the motives and bias of all men-if you put your faith in evoulutionary doctrine that has ideas of prejudice and racism toward ppl it cant help but be flawed. from scripture- all ppl are equal before God- all humans are decendants of adam all ppl are sinners in need of salvation all behaviours,attitudes,beleifs etc..should be judged againest the absoulutes of Gods word no matter what culture you are from Each person must build his or her thinking on Gods word i am not saying there was no racism before Darwin-just that he gave it a scientific respectability |
|
|
| Concolor | 9 Nov 2009, 05:33 PM Post #69 |
|
Barabbas
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
@ARAZEC: Please demonstrate how the theory of evolution through natural selection has anything to do with racism. Also, do you know what the word "doctrine" means and how this is different from the word "scientific theory"? Also, we are not discussing evolution, we are discussing the theory of evolution by natural selection. Mixing the two is like saying we're discussing chemistry when we're really talking about quantum physics. |
|
Life is beautiful, love heals, people come through. Reason, compassion and love comes first. Everything else is secondary. Except for Skittles. - And emperor Cheezy!
| |
![]() |
|
| conradw | 9 Nov 2009, 06:01 PM Post #70 |
|
Goliath
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Oh no, You're not getting away that easily: Scripture does not have all people equal before God. in the bible God commands people to break his own absolute law (by slaying the Midianites for one) It also says there is the Unforgivable sin: to blaspheme the holy spirit - no salvation if you did that. And the bible goes one step further and says that all people are descended from Noah, not just Adam. No, Darwin did not give racism scientific respectability at all. For one thing, racism was endemic at that time, even the Great Emancipator himself said In the Descent of Man Darwin puts forward more forcefully than anyone had before that all the different 'races' were only as different as our prejudices made them seem and that culture, not biology accounted for the differences we see.
Racists may claim a scientific basis for their beliefs in evolution, but they won't find a supporter in Darwin (nor for that matter, evolution, as genetic diversity, not purity, is what favours a population). |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | 9 Nov 2009, 06:17 PM Post #71 |
|
Deleted User
|
i would say you are indoctrined in scientific theory all of us are to a point i am by no means saying that because Darwin sparked the craze for pickled Aboriginal brains his theroies were racist- its his writings about civilized races inevitably wiping out much less evolved savage ones or Amalie Dietrich asking station owners to shot them for specimens or the evolutionary doctrines of Nazism to do away with the genetically inferior mentally and physically disabled next the gypsies,Jews and the rest is history...Today respectable evolutionary thinking enables doctors otherwise dedicated to save life to murder millions of unborn human beings who like the Aboriginals of earlier Darwinian thinking are also deemed "not yet fully human" NOT TO MENTION OTA BENGA a Pygmy who was put on Display in an American Zoo as an example of an inferior race ! before you snap into reminding us of all the churchs failings throughout history let me just reiterate thats why my faith is in God and not man |
|
|
| Concolor | 9 Nov 2009, 06:26 PM Post #72 |
|
Barabbas
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
@ARAZEC: I feel that I am somewhat trying to understand your position. I try studying arguments for your side, and investigate everything you tell me. I've even agreed to study the Bible with you (still waiting for that one). Is it too much to demand in return that you at least try to investigate some of the relevant scientific theories and history around it? Your post sounds like some leaflet handed to me by a Jehova's witness, it has little or nothing to do with anything in the real world. Why would you post this before checking if it's true or not? |
|
Life is beautiful, love heals, people come through. Reason, compassion and love comes first. Everything else is secondary. Except for Skittles. - And emperor Cheezy!
| |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | 9 Nov 2009, 06:42 PM Post #73 |
|
Deleted User
|
oh good on the Jehovas ! i am partial to a good tract i must say.... but no what evidence do you have to disprove the curator of the Australian muesem? |
|
|
| conradw | 9 Nov 2009, 06:51 PM Post #74 |
|
Goliath
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Darwin talked of colonialist expansion wiping out savage peoples, yes but that isn't to say he agreed with it. If anything it was a warning. Let me reiterate, this has nothing at all to do with Darwin or the theory of evolution. |
![]() |
|
| Concolor | 9 Nov 2009, 06:55 PM Post #75 |
|
Barabbas
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I have no proof against the curator of the Australian museum, I have not even debated his existence. But if you claim that he exists, it is your task to provide the evidence for him. I really, really hope that this is what you meant, and not "this is true because the curator of the Australian museum said it". That would be an argument from authority, which in my opinion is one of the most atrocious logical fallacies one could possibly make. This fallacy is the anti-thesis of all rational inquiry, critical thinking and the scientific method. It is the argumentative equivalent of eating a baby at a funeral. |
|
Life is beautiful, love heals, people come through. Reason, compassion and love comes first. Everything else is secondary. Except for Skittles. - And emperor Cheezy!
| |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Debate · Next Topic » |






![]](http://z4.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)


6:46 PM Jul 10