Humans by nature need more to be motivated to do good.Not everyone has it in them to be self motivated when they themselves are having a hard life.
At these points those who believe have the promise of the Hereafter and the Almighty to turn to and to do good to please Him.

Not all of us has the means of giving to the needy,or charities or other organisations,but we all have kind words and good deeds in abundance.

Doing good as far as I believe is not just doing things for others outside of the family,but it begins with oneself and one's family.The kind word we have with our loved ones,the food we prepare with love,all these tiny things done with a sincere heart are good deeds.
The striving we do to be good,the anger we hold in check,the outbursts we hold back,each of these has a chance to be counted as good deeds.

I have seen many a non believer ask that do we as believers need the religious guidelines we have.
As a believer in an Almighty God,I would say yes.This does not mean that those who do not believe are bad or do not know right from wrong.

The guidelines I follow are there because human standards vary from person to person according to their individual views,but having a set of guidelines of right and wrong, it brings all humans on one standard set of rules.Who better to send guidelines to humans than our creator who knows our flaws.

And yes I do believe that the universal guidelines we speak of among believers and non believers are from the same source,the reason why everyone has it in them to know right from wrong.
But we must remember that not all are made aware of these rules,depending on in what situation they grew up in,it gets distorted and flawed.

We cannot say a believer does more good than a disbeliever because we are not with one another 24/7 taking down the deeds,nor do we know one another's hearts,to see whether we are sincere or not.
And we cannot judge a person's fate as we do not know how each of us will die. We may change as time passes, our hearts change and in the end the only judge is the Almighty.

As a believer my hope is that within me is the sincere faith that makes me who I am,my hope is that as time passes my faith increase,every time I see a wonderous thing in nature that I may remember the Creator of it all,that in times of trial I find the strength to bear with patience,and to remember the favours the Almighty has bestowed upon me.
To be in happiness and sorrow,health and illness, ups and downs,a firmbeliever.

In the end I pray for peace,complete peace which comes only beyond this worldly life...

Humans by nature need more to be motivated to do good.
WHY do you CLAIM that, and on WHAT do you base your CLAIM?
.
I know a lot of people who are motivated to do good WITHOUT any (further) stimulation, religious or not.
But I agree with you that many people seem to need the stimulation by religious support to BE good (while almost always even religion fails to produce results). Actually I doubt if one needs religion to do good. If "doing good" is not part of your standard lifestyle, religion won't help neither, as at best any improved results will be based on wrong reasoning.
.

Not everyone has it in them to be self motivated when they themselves are having a hard life.
A hard life is no valid reason for NOT being "good".
.

Not all of us has the means of giving to the needy,or charities or other organisations,but we all have kind words and good deeds in abundance.
This suggests that doing good is mainly a "means" based activity. I can guarantee you it is not. One can do a lot of "good" without any money or value involved. Think about the value of human and moral support, the will to assist where and when needed - like a friendly word and/or a helping hand, like youngsters showing some respect for the older in full busses and metro by offering them their seats, etc.
.

I have seen many a non believer ask that do we as believers need the religious guidelines we have. As a believer in an Almighty God,I would say yes.
How sad that you herewith admit that you - like the donkey and the carrot - need an incentive to be a good human being.
.

We cannot say a believer does more good than a disbeliever because we are not with one another 24/7 taking down the deeds,nor do we know one another's hearts, to see whether we are sincere or not.
With that I agree. But note that the believer seems to need religion to do good, while the non-believer does that automatically without any incentive. Which of the two is the sincere one here, the one truly inspired?
.

In the end I pray for peace,complete peace which comes only beyond this worldly life...
Why not peace here and now? Why that totally unnecessary shifting to "the hereafter"?
People have been praying for peace for eons. Unless humanity makes it their lifestyle to really become peacefull in mind, all that praying is meaningless and will lead to nothing.
What is needed is to strengthen the fineer thin layer of moral justification for our deeds, and put the responsibility of our actions there where it belongs : on our own shoulders.
What is needed also is that we stop being so greedy - specially those in the western society - and share all available resources evenly over all of humanity, instead of what is happening now in a world dominated by greed and selfinterest above anything else.
.
One does not need religion to be or become a "good human being". All we need is to learn to stop being so greedy and selfish.
.
:rolleyes:

Credendovidis, You believe in " To see is to Believe"
At least I do not believe in what someone else claims to be true, claims that always lack any objective support.
.
Why do you not react to the points I made in my previous post? You know I am right, don´t you?
.
Look : for me nobody has to defend his-her religious views. But at least be honest when you claim something to be a fact, as I have never seen any religious claim or `one and only truth´ to be supported by objective evidence. All that support such claims is the personal BELIEF of the one who states the claim.
:rolleyes:

Humans by nature need more to be motivated to do good.Not everyone has it in them to be self motivated when they themselves are having a hard life.
At these points those who believe have the promise of the Hereafter and the Almighty to turn to and to do good to please Him.

Not all of us has the means of giving to the needy,or charities or other organisations,but we all have kind words and good deeds in abundance.

Doing good as far as I believe is not just doing things for others outside of the family,but it begins with oneself and one's family.The kind word we have with our loved ones,the food we prepare with love,all these tiny things done with a sincere heart are good deeds.
The striving we do to be good,the anger we hold in check,the outbursts we hold back,each of these has a chance to be counted as good deeds.

I have seen many a non believer ask that do we as believers need the religious guidelines we have.
As a believer in an Almighty God,I would say yes.This does not mean that those who do not believe are bad or do not know right from wrong.

The guidelines I follow are there because human standards vary from person to person according to their individual views,but having a set of guidelines of right and wrong, it brings all humans on one standard set of rules.Who better to send guidelines to humans than our creator who knows our flaws.

And yes I do believe that the universal guidelines we speak of among believers and non believers are from the same source,the reason why everyone has it in them to know right from wrong.
But we must remember that not all are made aware of these rules,depending on in what situation they grew up in,it gets distorted and flawed.

We cannot say a believer does more good than a disbeliever because we are not with one another 24/7 taking down the deeds,nor do we know one another's hearts,to see whether we are sincere or not.
And we cannot judge a person's fate as we do not know how each of us will die. We may change as time passes, our hearts change and in the end the only judge is the Almighty.

As a believer my hope is that within me is the sincere faith that makes me who I am,my hope is that as time passes my faith increase,every time I see a wonderous thing in nature that I may remember the Creator of it all,that in times of trial I find the strength to bear with patience,and to remember the favours the Almighty has bestowed upon me.
To be in happiness and sorrow,health and illness, ups and downs,a firmbeliever.

In the end I pray for peace,complete peace which comes only beyond this worldly life...



Amazing. In name, we have different belief systems, but the more I read what you believe, the more in common I see.

Very well put Firm.

WHY do you CLAIM that, and on WHAT do you base your CLAIM?

Personal experience with friends,family,work etc.Humans need the feel good factor for doing something,whether it be a feeling of satisfaction or praise or any other little thing as motivation.
Such motivation may not always be there,people are sometimes not appreciative of helping hands or even rude at times or even think it their due.Such times the motivation is there for those who believe that the Almighty knows what is in our hearts.


I know a lot of people who are motivated to do good WITHOUT any (further) stimulation, religious or not.
I did not say there aren't any...


But I agree with you that many people seem to need the stimulation by religious support to BE good (while almost always even religion fails to produce results). Actually I doubt if one needs religion to do good. If "doing good" is not part of your standard lifestyle, religion won't help neither, as at best any improved results will be based on wrong reasoning.
If doing is good is not part of our standard lifestyle a believer will try harder to make oneself be good.


A hard life is no valid reason for NOT being "good".
No it is not,but when one is scraping by to get the basic necessities,it is that much harder to smile and be kind and happy.Unlike the one who has the basics and more,who might find it easier to be cheery and kind and helpful(which doesn't always happen either).


Think about the value of human and moral support, the will to assist where and when needed - like a friendly word and/or a helping hand, like youngsters showing some respect for the older in full busses and metro by offering them their seats, etc.

Wasn't I saying the same thing?



With that I agree. But note that the believer seems to need religion to do good, while the non-believer does that automatically without any incentive. Which of the two is the sincere one here, the one truly inspired?
I do not mind being judged by humans to be flawed or un-sincere.


Why not peace here and now? Why that totally unnecessary shifting to "the hereafter"?
People have been praying for peace for eons. Unless humanity makes it their lifestyle to really become peacefull in mind, all that praying is meaningless and will lead to nothing.
If you have complete peace in this world,congratulations! You are one of the few.
I am working for a life I believe exists beyond this world,if I am wrong I have nothing to worry about,but if you are wrong... good luck to you.
You like to think that praying will lead to nothing,I believe otherwise.



One does not need religion to be or become a "good human being". All we need is to learn to stop being so greedy and selfish.
Oh and when you have got everyone on the same level of not being greedy and selfish,do let me know:)

Another thing... I am not into debating just so you know.
I don't have to prove anything to any human regarding my beliefs.I believe it is the truth and I follow it to the best of my abilities.



Amazing. In name, we have different belief systems, but the more I read what you believe, the more in common I see.
Very well put Firm.
Thank you.
We are from the same Source and unto Him is our final return:).

Oh and when you have got everyone on the same level of not being greedy and selfish,do let me know:)Well that's part of the problem - the greedy and selfish are equally divided up between the believers and the non-believers.

That's true NK,all of us are human.

... I hope and pray that I don't become a hypocrite.

A hypocrite as in doing deeds to show off to others that I am good or to get praise from people or for people to know that I am doing something good.

.. Another thing...I am not into debating just so you know.
I dont have to prove anything to any human regarding my beliefs.I believe it is the truth and I follow it to the best of my abilities. ...
Than why did you post this in "religious discussions"??
;)

Firmbeliever :
What did you actually intend to say with your topic statement?
As far as I can see it was not a real question.
;)

Firmbeliever I see nothing wrong with your post. You are only showing your faith in a nonjudgemental way. I would think that most nonchristians, such as myself would respect that. I for one thank you for not trying to make me feel like I have horns rising from my head.

I believe that topics can be discussed without a question asked. I know that I have posted my opinions or a story on the dog board simply because I wanted to make people aware of a particular situation. Three that come to mind is Michael Vick and his dog abuse and dogs being left in foreclosed homes and I often post about animals and the dangers of the holidays to them... No question asked. No one has ever shot me down over that or asked that I not post simply because I did not include a question with the post.. I don't know why firm should be treated any differently.

When I read this post I thought that she was telling people of no faith or little faith that she does not consider them to be damned sinners just because they do not belong to a certain faith or they do not have themselves labeled. Unlike some of the religious post that I have read. Maybe she was extending the olive branch.

So this is forum of daily affirmations now?

I did not say that but a lot of people start post and they don't ask a question. So why jump her rear because it just happens to be in the religious section. I am not a bible thumper but I don't see why cred had to pick her post apart.

He has a habit of picking things apart, not sure what the motivation is there. I'm just worried that we'll get a deluge of threads starting for the simple fact of stating something we believe versus asking a question looking for replies.

This is the ASKMEHELP board, isn't it?
A Q&A board with the intention to ask and answer questions, isn't it?
And a (religious) discussions board is to allow a discussion to develop based on the topic question, isn't it?
;)

And you are the AMHD police? If it bothered you so bad that a question was not asked why participate in such an obvious disregard to the rules why not let one of the mods take care of it?

and you are the AMHD police? If it bothered you so bad that a question was not asked why participate in such an obvious disregard to the rules why not let one of the mods take care of it?
I did not (dis) QUALIFY Firmbeliever's topic at all.
I asked him here literally :


What did you actually intend to say with your topic statement?
Why these long toes and all that criticism?
;)

Firmbeliever :
What did you actually intend to say with your topic statement?
As far as I can see it was not a real question.
;)

Hi Cred,
I am a SHE... just so you know:).
Yes, this is the religious "discussion board".

As I said before I do not do debates and I give information when people ask for it or if I think it is required under the circumstance, otherwise I believe that each person searching for the truth will ultimately find it or they will live in their current beliefs and die in the same belief.

This topic I started was due to many reasons,one is that I wanted to put my thoughts in here without getting anyone riled up.;)
I have seen believers accuse the non-believers many time the same as non believers do to believers (and I am talking about all religions).
Another thing I came across was someone (sorry can't remember who) said that non-believers were raising the devil's children (or something to that effect).
Sometimes I want to say so much on religious topics but I refrain from saying it to avoid debate.And I also do not want to debate with the Christians and Jews specially because I believe in their books being revealed from the same source as the book I believe in.And by calling false what is in their books I might be calling false the word of the Almighty.

As far as I believe no one alive at this moment can guarantee that they will be heaven or hell after death. Or people cannot predict what the future will bring or how much faith we will have in a few years.
It is up to us believers to live everyday as righteous people, and to tread the true path to peace and pray for the light of true guidance to brighten our paths.
As for those who do not believe, they too have their choices of whether to believe or not and they alone are responsible for the choices they make because in the end I believe that each of us will be questioned as to what we did in this life (sorry Cred I know you don't believe this:)…).

I do not blame the Christians for their urge to help people, it is in us believers to want to show the truth to others the same way non believers like to explain to us that what we believe is not fact(in their thinking).

As I said before, I say something(religious wise) only if I think it will benefit someone.
I do believe that I am following the truth and I also believe that anyone and I mean anyone could change in an instant. I do not believe that however much I try to change anyone's faith it will change until the moment comes when it seems right to them and they are guided I believe by the Almighty towards the light.

I believe in the Almighty and trust Him completely that if he wished for me to be the one to help a person be guided then it will happen, but I do believe that I cannot force anyone to believe, I can only help them see what I believe.

If it were up to us humans to make people guided, it would have happened each time a messenger was sent, all the people would have believed but it has never happened. Some believe some don't.

I know that disbelievers in what I believe might think me a fool for believing in what I believe, but this does not affect my belief or faith in what I believe.

"To you be your religion, and to me my religion”Quran-109:06





Firmbeliever I see nothing wrong with your post. You are only showing your faith in a nonjudgemental way.

Thank you for your support.

.

Instead of "believers" and "non-believers" I suggest "religious" and "non-religious" because I certainly have beliefs... just not in your gods.

Hi Cred,
I am a SHE...just so you know:).
Thanks for telling me that, Firm!
And I am a HE!
:D
.

Yes, this is the religious "discussion board".
As I said before I do not do debates and I give information when people ask for it or if I think it is required under the circumstance, otherwise I believe that each person searching for the truth will ultimately find it or they will live in their current beliefs and die in the same belief.
Precisely the reason for me asking you for your reasons to post this topic. If you do not like to debate, than why open a topic which only intention is to discuss what you posted as topic starter?
.

It is upto us believers to live everyday as righteous people, and to tread the true path to peace...
No! That is up to every human being. Theist or non-theist. I doubt there is any "true" path to peace. But it should be everyone's goal.
.

As for those who do not believe, they too have their choices of whether to believe or not and they alone are responsible for the choices they make ...
With all respect I disagree with that 100%.
If you check topic "Credendovidis : I believe it as soon as I see it" you will see that I explained there that believing (religion) is NOT a case of making a choice. Just as for you it seems impossible to believe anything else than you do, that also goes for non-believers. There simply is no choice : the religious belief option is no valid alternative to a non-theist. There is no choice, and it is no choice.
.

I do not blame the Christians for their urge to help people, it is in us believers to want to show the truth to others the same way non believers like to explain to us that what we believe is not fact (in their thinking).
The difference is that I never try to convince others that I am "right", but that it always are Christians who tell me I am wrong. WRONG? They only BELIEVE themselves that they are correct. There is no proof for anyone being right in this. I can't. You can't. Nobody can!
It is all based on BELIEF!
Next to that : If I tell a Christian that I do not need his/her advice in this, that should be "it" for him/her. All they should do is spread the word. Not push it forcibly through my throat!
.

I know that disbelievers in what I believe might think me a fool for believing in what I believe, but this does not affect my belief or faith in what I believe.
How wrong you are with that. Why would you be a fool to believe in religion? It is your right to believe whatever suits you best. You are not a fool to do so.
But neither is a non-believer a fool to believe whatever he/she believes or prefers.
As there is no "right" or "wrong" in that respect, the position by either believers and non-believers is equal. Qualifying non-believers "wrong" - as so many Christians do here on this board - THAT is wrong.
Unless of course someone can PROVE with objective support who is right.
But as that did not happen the last 20 thousand years, I do not expect anyone to stand up now and perform that trick...
.
There even is a topic on the board by someone trying to get support to "prove" that the Bible is "factual". Now : that is foolish. If he could, it would no longer be belief! But of course nobody can do that.
.

"To you be your religion, and to me my religion”Quran-109:06
Freedom of and freedom from religion. Combined with separation from Church and State. (Secular Humanism)
;)

Instead of "believers" and "non-believers" I suggest "religious" and "non-religious" because I certainly have beliefs...just not in your gods.
Theists and Atheists
.
Atheism
A Theism
A=without or no
Theism=belief in God(s)
Atheism=without ( or no) belief in God(s).
.
Atheism is the correct word : it does not exclude any other believes the person may harbour!
We all have "believes". From Santa Claus to the Tooth fairy to political views to personal preferences, etc.
;)

And I am a HE!
:D
I knew you were a He!


Precisely the reason for me asking you for your reasons to post this topic. If you do not like to debate, than why open a topic which only intention is to discuss what you posted as topic starter?

What I do is not debate,I write about what I believe in with the idea to get it across the cultural and religious/non religious divide we may have in our thinking.The purpose of such a thread is not to debate but put forth ideas in a nice way,debate can get heated up and even hurtful,which is not my intention.


I doubt there is any "true" path to peace. But it should be everyone's goal.
I believe there is a true path to peace and yes it should be everyone's goal.



With all respect I disagree with that 100%.
If you check topic "Credendovidis : I believe it as soon as I see it" you will see that I explained there that believing (religion) is NOT a case of making a choice. Just as for you it seems impossible to believe anything else than you do, that also goes for non-believers. There simply is no choice : the religious belief option is no valid alternative to a non-theist. There is no choice, and it is no choice.
I believe there is a choice, by opening yourself to possibilities and thinking in terms not in just what is tangible,there is the possibility of opening to what we call faith.
Faith in the existence of unseen things in this universe,things we do not have tangible proof of.

You have already chosen not to believe,and that is your choice,but you cannot prove to me that my belief is wrong because you cannot prove that an Almighty does not exist,the same way I cannot show proof in the way you want to see proof of His existence.

I am sure there are theists who believe in supernatural things(not just the Almighty but other beings) too as there are those that do not believe in it.
I am sure you have heard of many who have grown up without any religious background yet chosen a religious path in their adulthood,or those who grow up with faith,find that they do no believe anymore that their path is the true one and search for the truth.

Humans always have a choice.


The difference is that I never try to convince others that I am "right"...
I don't do that either even if I believe I am right:D.


How wrong you are with that. Why would you be a fool to believe in religion? It is your right to believe whatever suits you best. You are not a fool to do so.
But neither is a non-believer a fool to believe whatever he/she believes or prefers.
As there is no "right" or "wrong" in that respect, the position by either believers and non-believers is equal. Qualifying non-believers "wrong" - as so many Christians do here on this board - THAT is wrong.
Unless of course someone can PROVE with objective support who is right.
But as that did not happen the last 20 thousand years, I do not expect anyone to stand up now and perform that trick ...

Well according to you,I believe in things that do not have factual references for humans to see proof of what I believe in.
I did not say all non-believers call me a fool but that they might think me a fool,because just like you they cannot fathom how it is possible that a human being with all their senses intact and with the knowledge we have available could believe in an Almighty Power unseen,unheard and yet be willing to live this life in His guidance.

You do know you are not the first nor will you be the last to ask for proof of the existence of the Almighty.There were many and there will always be many who ask the same questions.Some find their answers in the most unusual circumstances when they least expect it while others will never find an answer to their question until death.
When death reaches us we,you and I will know for sure whether what you believe is right or what I believe is right.
Until then, as I said before search and research and live your life with your own choices.

Hello firmbeliever, just let me thank you for your kind thoughts regarding my dear Mum and Brother, it's comforting to know that there is someone out there who is thinking of me at this time in my life. Bless you for that.

Having read your post I think you are just giving your general thoughts on being helpful to are fellow man whether we are of any religion or of none. What you seem to be saying is that there is no judgement or should be no judgement on who ever we are in life be it a pauper or prince, are consideration for are fellow man should remain the same, and I agree with you.
Sadley I think in today's society many people are out for their own personal gain and could not give a jot for anyone else, it's a case of "i'm alright Jack" if you know what I mean, there are those who give very generously to various charities but make a point of letting everyone know that they have done so, it's the people who give quietly not necessarily money but as you say a kind word or a comforting hand a cup of tea and a chat just every day things but to an elderly lonely person it would mean the world and make their day.
IN my job I see such people daily sometimes it breaks my heart it's so obvious that they just want some company, the younger people that I work with have no patients and make all kinds of remarks not realizing that one day they also will be older,even sadder is that the parents who also come into where I work also laugh along with their chidrens remarks which says to me some of our societies problems stem from the home.
Having said all that you will get just the odd child who comes good at the last moment having a reputation for a thief etc... this lad about 13 was the only one who appoached me on the street one day after my dear Mum and my Brother died to say how very very sorry he was, well between the fighting back of tears I was totally amazed I thought under all of that nastyness there was really a lovely kid who had to be nasty in front of his mates and the gang, sadley he will probabley get into trouble with the law before to long just to save face with this gang it is such a shame .
The strange thing is all of the people that live in the area where I work have nothing- well legally anyway- but they would do anything to help you and give there last penny.

So to sum up really I think there are different levels of good and bad and indifferent throughout society whether you are religious or not, I think also there are many things that people believe in but wouldn't admitt it what ever the reason.

We are all originals changed by are society we live in.

Takecare

Firm,

I love your post and the beautiful way you shared your faith. It was you heart speaking so beautifully.

It spoke of a beautiful faith and love for Our Father and a love for religious and non-religious ( I like those terms much better NK... great suggestion).

Firm, you offered your faith in such a loving way. It was so peaceful. Let no one turn it into anything other then that.

God, did say we will be persecuted for our beleifs.

My advice to you (not that you asked :):), is when it is apparent that ugly is coming at your beautiful words, and they are being torn apart, I would then smile and then turn away.

You've done your part in offering insight in to your beleifs - You don't have to debate or defend, otherwise, in doing that, we sometimes end up dancing with the wrong partner :)

If any of that makes sense.

Bless you and your heart for sharing.

Thank you Orphan and Allheart.

You have already chosen not to believe,and that is your choice ...
I disagree. I had no choice. The option to accept deity/deities was unacceptable to my world view. Your belief in God is just as strong as my dis-belief in God. A choice indicates a personal selection. That was not the case for me.
.

... but you cannot prove to me that my belief is wrong because you cannot prove that an Almighty does not exist,the same way I cannot show proof in the way you want to see proof of His existence
I NEVER EVER CLAIMED that your belief is wrong. From me you may believe whatever you want. It are the fundamental (Christians) who tell me that I am wrong.
Besides that : I do not have to prove anything here, as it is near-impossible to prove a negative claim. Specially in the light that those who believe in God (a positive claim - much easier to prove) can not even prove that one! The "default" is that something does not exist till it's existence is objective supported by evidence.
Example : we know 4 dimensions (height, width, length, time). Any other dimensions are metaphysical till objective supported evidence has been supplied for such a hypothesis. (A major problem for "string theory").
.

I am sure there are theists who believe in supernatural things(not just the Almighty but other beings) too as there are those that do not believe in it.
So? There are very few Atheists who believe in ghosts, fairies, leprechauns, witches, Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, fortunetelling, or even in horoscopes. Most Atheists see no reason for "higher" powers of any kind to exist. Almost all believers in any of these are believers in religion.
.

I am sure you have heard of many who have grown up without any religious background yet chosen a religious path in their adulthood,or those who grow up with faith, find that they do no believe anymore that their path is the true one and search for the truth.
And there are those who grew up in a religious background, but rejected the religious path. However they do not search for any truth, as they realize that there is no such truth and/or see no reason for such truth.
.


I did not say all non-believers call me a fool but that they might think me a fool,because just like you they cannot fathom how it is possible that a human being with all their senses intact and with the knowledge we have available could believe in an Almighty Power unseen,unheard and yet be willing to live this life in His guidance.
Wrong! You really have it all wrong. What makes you think I can not fathom that? I just reject what you believe to be true. That is all. I am already married for 39 years to a Roman Catholic, whom I support in all ways I can. I have no problem at all that she leads in the weekly services in absence of the priest. I also supported her 2 year training that allowed her to do so. And I am a frequent volunteer for many various tasks (like projects that try to raise capital) and to repair or even replace technical facilities free of charge.
Still I do never attend to church services other than for marriage, funerals, etc.
I do not "hate" Christians. I just have a different world view.
.


You do know you are not the first nor will you be the last to ask for proof of the existence of the Almighty.
Wrong! And again you really have it all wrong. When I ask for proof of the existence of the Almighty etc. that is never in response to statements of personal belief, but in response to CLAIMS posted by believers, based entirely on their BELIEF, but stating that as "truth" or "factual". But what one believes is based on belief, and that can only be "truth" or "factual" when objective supporting evidence is supplied. And that never is. I ask for proof when claims are posted. Not when someone posts that he/she believes... this - that - whatever..
.

... When death reaches us we, you and I will know for sure whether what you believe is right or what I believe is right ...
Not really. When death reaches us, all brain activities stop, and we will no longer "know" anything. You may BELIEVE differently, but that does not prove that that is indeed so! That is one of these claims that you have to prove first... :D
;)

Crede,
Why do you insist on asking for tangible proof of the belief in an Almighty be provided?Especially when you believe it is a false claim.

As I have already stated in another thread...
It is not possible for you to find a sample of the Almighty,something you can view under a microscope or dissolve in some chemical or record its chemical properties,no one can provide you with such a sample of the Almighty for you to do lab tests on.

And yes,it is belief and faith in an unseen,being,which I am sure is hard for you to understand because you do not believe or acknowledge the possibility of an Almighty existing.

This disbelief in an Almighty does not necessarily make your claims to be the truth,it is just a conclusion you have come to based on what you believe.And there is no way you can prove my beliefs to be false,because all the scientific testing cannot take us back to a time before the universe existed.There are only certain things that can be scientifically tested,like you said tangible things.
There is so much out there in the universe and on this earth that science is still researching leading to new findings.

For a believer like me,each scientific finding makes me firmer in belief,some of it shows me the wonders of each living creature,their communities,their habits and their environment.
Science brings to me findings of communities that have lived before us and how they demised.Scientific research explains to me the wonders of our planet and others,how intricately balanced the whole system is.
Science helps explain our own bodies and what happens when a tiny thing goes wrong in it,how to help it heal or how to make it healthier or weaker or stronger physically.

All of these to me is amazing,but I believe there is something of the human and other living creatures that science finds it hard to explain because there is no tangible evidence to do any research on.
For a believer like me,it isn't hard to believe without evidence because there is so much unseen,untouched by our scientific research and I do believe all things cannot be scientifically explained.

Crede, why do you insist on asking for tangible proof of the belief in an Almighty be provided?
I don't ask that . At least not to prove the Christian religion as incorrect. I have nothing against Christianity. Actually most people that really know me realize that I am a very tolerant person towards religious preferences.

I pose my request to others to prove belief statements when people post what they BELIEVE as factual and/or "the one and only truth". Because without objective supporting evidence it is an empty and invalid claim.


Especially when you believe it is a false claim.
Who says that I believe that? So far the lack of any valid replies to my request for proof seems to indicate that these claims are fault. What I see as true is more based on lack of real support by believers for what they believe, than what I see myself as "true". When I say that for me belief in deities is an unacceptable option that is based on lack of belief in favor of that option. Not on some intended and willful disbelief.
.

This disbelief in an Almighty does not necessarily make your claims to be the truth.
I NEVER have claimed that this Almighty does not exist.
So why do you claim that to be my "disbelief"?
.

... it is just a conclusion you have come to based on what you believe.
I do not believe that, nor is that my conclusion. All I say is that so far nobody has ever been able to provide objective supporting evidence for it.
.

And there is no way you can prove my beliefs to be false...
I do not have to prove anything. Nor is it my intention to prove your beliefs to be false. Where do you get these ideas from? Please realize that the "default" here is not that a deity or deities exists. The default is that there is no objective supporting evidence for the existence of deities.
The one who disagrees with that has to provide the support for any other claims.
.

... because all the scientific testing cannot take us back to a time before the universe existed....
That is irrelevant. Nobody in his/her right mind asks to go back 14 odd Billion years.
All that I say is that people should not claim that what they BELIEVE to be factual and/or the "one and only truth".
And if they do that anyway I ask them to provide objective supporting evidence for their claims.
.
;)

Crede,

I wonder if you keep asking your believing wife every other day to show proof of her beliefs;) I hope not.(just kidding)
I know you said you are tolerant of believers,but sometimes I do wonder why do you insist on repeating the same phrase " "truth" or "factual" when objective supporting evidence is supplied"-as you already know there is no objective supporting evidence which you will find to be true.
Nevermind,you dont need to answer that,I think I can guess(almost):) what you might say.

As for me,I am not here to prove you right or wrong,I am just putting forward my beliefs and you dont have to follow them if you do not believe.

I believe it to be true and that is enough for me,to have faith and to believe in what I believe and follow the guidance I believe in.

I do not claim to know everything but I do believe in what I follow to be truth which is enough proof for "me" to live my life according to such a guideline.
Personally for me I find peace,assurance,practical guidelines,a goal,and so much more in my beliefs.

Crede, I wonder if you keep asking your believing wife every other day to show proof of her beliefs;)
No need to do that : she knows that what she believes is her world view and her "truth", but that that does not mean that it is an objectively supported reality, and/or the "one and only truth".
.


I know you said you are tolerant of believers,but sometimes I do wonder why do you insist on repeating the same phrase " "truth" or "factual" when objective supporting evidence is supplied"-as you already know there is no objective supporting evidence which you will find to be true. Nevermind,you dont need to answer that,I think I can guess(almost):) what you might say.
Well : to make sure, here is my answer to allow you to check if you were correct.
I ask for that evidence, because (and when) people CLAIM that what they BELIEVE is "truth" or "factual".
.
However I wonder about you line "... when objective supporting evidence is supplied... " : so far that evidence has NEVER been supplied, and therefore there is no support for these religious claims!
.
People should say "it is my personal belief that ..(whatever).. is true", or "I believe that ..(whatever).. is true". And NOT say "..(whatever).. is true" (without providing objective supporting evidence for that.
.

As for me, I am not here to prove you right or wrong,I am just putting forward my beliefs and you don't have to follow them if you do not believe.
I believe it to be true and that is enough for me, to have faith and to believe in what I believe and follow the guidance I believe in.
No problem with that! I do not question whatever you BELIEVE. I question unsupported religious claims.
.

I do not claim to know everything but I do believe in what I follow to be truth which is enough proof for "me" to live my life according to such a guideline.
Noted and agreed with that line of approach !
.

Personally for me I find peace,assurance,practical guidelines, a goal, and so much more in my beliefs.
My wife says the same, and I am glad for her that that seems to work for her.
Personally for me I also find peace, assurance, practical guidelines, a goal, and so much more in my Secular Humanist / Freethinking world view.
:rolleyes:

Hi guys :)

Just thought I would pop my head in.

I think as far as proof in an earthly sense, meaning, we can see and touch, or add up or any way we currently obtain proof of things. ( Johnny made a pie, we saw him make it, and the result is the pie, the pie being proof as well)

That sort of "proof", in my opinion, for prooving that God exsist, will never happen. Religious beleifs is an entitiy all on it's own. It stands alone. There are separate subject matters, such as Politics, Cooking, Real Estate, these are topics that stand alone. As does Religion.

When it comes to religion, the only proof that may be able to be seen, is by someone who does believe, has the love of God in his or her heart, and there actions match what they believe.

I know that is a stretch, but as far as the topic religion, all it takes is faith.

This is hard to describe, but one you do have faith, a different definition of proof, enters into the equation. But it enters you heart, and perhaps your eyes, by some things that you couldn't see before, but it will never be something you can touch, perhaps only feel.

I can perhaps share what I mean by, once you have faith, you begin to see things differently:

At work, or really in any one on one relationship, if I am having a difficult moment with someone (mostly at work), and there is "static" between us, and I just can't find a way to ease it, I stop in my tracks and pray for that person, even if maybe the hurt my feelings, or where harsh, I pray for them, I pray for their happiness, and May God watch over them.

My hand to my heart, every time I remember to pray for someone, in a sitiuation like that,
within hours, and no longer then a day, almost immediately, I am greeted with a smile, and/or a much better communication with that person. Because, I am human, I don't always remember to do this, as I get caught up in the hurt feelings or upset.

God said, that it is all well and good to pray for those that we love and love us back, but we are more importantly are to pray for those, who may not want the best for us.

We don't always have "proof" that our parents love us, we can't always see it, but within our hearts, we know it to be truth. It something along those lines.

I don't know if any of my ramblings help :), I hope they do, but I offer them from the heart not trying to convince of anything, but just to share my view and beleifs.

I believe that once someone opens their heart to Our Loving Father, it allows the proof that some seek, to enter as well.

When it comes to religion, the only proof that may be able to be seen, is by someone who does beleive, has the love of God in his or her heart, and there actions match what they beleive ... // ... once you do have faith, a different definition of proof, enters into the equation.
Hello Allheart!
Nobody should claim whatever he/she believes as "true" or "factual" unless that is preceded by "I BELIEVE THAT".

If anyone states that "I know that... " , or "it is... ", or "it is a fact that... " , it is no more than fair to ask that person to provide objective supporting evidence for that claim.

:rolleyes:

Hello Allheart!
Nobody should claim whatever he/she believes as "true" or "factual" unless that is preceded by "I BELIEVE THAT".

If anyone states that "I know that ..." , or "it is ... ", or "it is a fact that ..." , it is no more than fair to ask that person to provide objective supporting evidence for that claim.

:rolleyes:


Hi Cred :)

I believe, it to be fact, you make a very good point ( like that? :)

In all seriousness, I do agree with your statement. It is rare if ever I use those terms, in any aspect of my life.

One I claim to know, or it is fact, I fear I may be closing the door on that topic from further learning. That is offered in a general sense.

Hi Cred :)I beleive, it to be fact, you make a very good point ( like that? :)
In all seriousness, I do agree with your statement. It is rare if ever I use those terms, in any aspect of my life.
One I claim to know, or it is fact, I fear I may be closing the door on that topic from further learning. That is offered in a general sense.
I know that you (try to) formulate your posts and positions well. But you also will know that there are many who insist it is there religious freedom to make wild claims. There are even people on this board seriously posting topics like : "How can we prove the Bible is factual ". It is for that reason that I focus on these wild claims.
As to personal religious views, beliefs, and faith : I respect everyone's choice, and will never attack that. But just as people want to be free to chose the religion on their choice, there are also many who want to be free from religion. And on this board and on many other boards there is much to do still to ensure both sides keep that freedom of choice.
;)

HI again Cred,

But I don't see the wild claims on this board. I think, especially with Firm, she is just stating what she believes (her name even suggest that )

I don't judge, or ever try to force my beliefs on anyone. Do I want everyone to feel what's in my heart, that the words just don't seem to match,. with all my heart... yes

But I love and embrace one and all ( when having a good day :).

The issue is that in all areas things at times have to be taken with some faith, we are told that the earth is round, I guess it is, I have never been into space to see it for myself, I have to trust camera's and information that is provided to me. So I could say it is not and I won't accept it as a fact since I have not personally been proved. I could say that I don't believe there are planets outside of our solar system, I have never seen them, I understand that they claim their telescopes show them, but then I have to accept what they tell me as true, faith.

We accept as true 1000's of things everyday, but we accept things without question for to often from some sources.
The real situation is that all people have faith in unseen things from some sourse, it is where that persons heart lies that determines where that faith is put.

The issue is that in all areas things at times have to be taken with some faith, we are told that the earth is round, I guess it is, I have never been into space to see it for myself, I have to trust camera's and information that is provided to me. So I could say it is not and I won't accept it as a fact since I have not personally been proved. I could say that I don't beleive there are planets outside of our solar system, I have never seen them, I understand that they claim thier telescopes show them, but then I have to accept what they tell me as true, faith.

We accept as true 1000's of things everyday, but we accept things without question for to often from some sources.
The real situation is that all people have faith in unseen things from some sourse, it is where that persons heart lies that determines where that faith is put.


So well said Fr. Chuck. So very well said.

For me, having great love and immense appreciation in my heart for God, it is then that I can see His works in earthly things.

I see it most times, in a special needs child. I know that may sound odd, but if you think back whenever you see a mentally challenged child, you see a big huge happy smile and they are delighted by every beautiful thing on earth. To me, I see God's loving hands watching over them.

There are so many more, but this is one that always striked me the most.

how can you you call yourself a firm believer when you have not even read the quran

after reading the quran, and you call yourself a beleiver without even reading this?

my friend if you call yourself 'a true beleiver' then read the quran online in english, and if ALMIGHTY GOD opens up your chest to the truth, you will cry whilst reading the words of our CREATOR, any questions email me at [email protected]

Assalaam alaikum readnow,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
I am a practising muslima and I have read the Quran in Arabic and its translation many times.

Masha Allah,some verses in the Quran brings tears to my eyes too.
You might like to listen to the link in my signature,one of the best recitors I have heard.

Wa alaikum salaam

I know this is under religious discussions but I want to make it clear I am not here to prove or disprove anything.I am just stating things I believe. I would like to hear if you have thoughts about it,but if you are into debating I want you to know that I am not into debating.
Ok,now that is out of the way... :)

As a believer in the Almighty...
I believe in the existence of many things which we cannot always sense and I use sense because I mean the 5 human senses.
Our eyes,ears,nose,tongue, and touch/feel are limited in that it can perceive things only within a certain range.
For example a dog or other animals can hear a frequency which the human ear cannot hear.The eyes of birds of prey can see things from a far distance that human eyes cannot see.
The same with smell,touch and taste,our senses are limited to a specific range.

The same way there are things we cannot see that exist around us,like the things that we can only see under a microscope or only when added to a certain substance or when we change its state from gas to liquid or solid.

From all this I believe there are things that human knowledge and the sciences humans invented cannot understand or explain.Some call it the paranormal.
I was thinking in the sense of the bigger picture of the universe with all its finer details we never know,the paranormal we call is normal actually.
Only in the sense of the human comprehension and understanding of normal does things like spirits and ghosts seem paranormal.

I am just saying that although we cannot comprehend that a being could exist other than in the 3D form we see the world in does not mean that there cannot be beings which we are unable to see or touch or sense.

The same way, believers believe in a world that everything is not explainable and believe that there are parts of this world and the universe that we may never know about.We believe that angels,spirits,ghosts,souls are part of the universe the Almighty created.
We believe because it is part of faith to believe that the Almighty is All knowing and we are not.

I hope no one will take offense because of the general way I have written,but I mean to include all believers who believe in the existence of the Almighty and the possible existence of things we cannot fathom with human limitations:)

At least I do not believe in what someone else claims to be true, claims that always lack any objective support.

According to you. I don't think you would recognize objective support if it hit you in the face.


Why do you not react to the points I made in my previous post?

I'm getting to it. But first, the ridiculous nature of this next statement of yours caught my eye:

Look : for me nobody has to defend his-her religious views.

What a joke. That is precisely what you do in every discussion on this forum. You insist that everyone defend their religious views.


You know I am right, don´t you?

I know you are wrong.


But at least be honest when you claim something to be a fact, as I have never seen any religious claim or `one and only truth´ to be supported by objective evidence.

Because your subjective bias blinds you to objective truth.


All that support such claims is the personal BELIEF of the one who states the claim.
:rolleyes:

Again, you don't seem to know what belief means. You ascribe to that word a meaning which is very narrow, but let me show you AGAIN, what Webster says is the meaning of the word:

3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence
belief - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/belief)

So, essentially, you not only don't know what constitutes objective evidence. You don't know the meaning of the word to which you object.

So, here we go, your previous message:

WHY do you CLAIM that, and on WHAT do you base your CLAIM?

I claim the same thing based on my study of human behavior and Catholicism.
.

I know a lot of people who are motivated to do good WITHOUT any (further) stimulation, religious or not.

Are you sure? Have you asked them why they did what they did? If so, give an example of one who does good and is not motivated by anything, not pity, not a feeling of happiness, not a feeling of gratitude, no motivating factor at all.

Because I have yet to meet anyone who is not motivated by something to do anything at all. Even to turn on the TV. Most people turn on the TV for a reason. Therefore if you have met someone that does good but without any motivation for it at all, then I am very interested in this person.


But I agree with you that many people seem to need the stimulation by religious support to BE good (while almost always even religion fails to produce results).

I see that you claim to agree. But yet you feel the need to beat this person down with your analysis of his beliefs. In other words, he must defend his beliefs or justify them to you.


Actually I doubt if one needs religion to do good.

Well, you can probably use your subjective experience to answer this.

Apparently you eschew religion. Do you feel that you do good?


If "doing good" is not part of your standard lifestyle, religion won't help neither,

Won't help neither? Actually, I think it will. I know for a fact, that when I was atheist, I rarely helped any cause and anytime I did help any cause, I felt I needed to be paid somehow. At least I thought I should be thanked and that the people whom I helped needed to be appreciative.

However, now I pitch in when I'm asked or when I feel I'm needed and I do it simply because my faith in Christ says I should.


as at best any improved results will be based on wrong reasoning.

Really. Lets see your reasoning for this conclusion. I hope it isn't what follows?


A hard life is no valid reason for NOT being "good".

Oh my!! Did you arrive at this conclusion without religion?

I think then you'll have to provide objective proof of your stance, don't you? Why and what evidence do you have that a hard life is not a valid reason for not being "good"?

First explain what you mean by "being good".

Then tell me what constitutes a "hard life".

Then explain why a "hard life" does not justify not "being good"
.

This suggests that doing good is mainly a "means" based activity.

What suggests such? You have yet to say anything. You've suggested two fuzzy ideas which you haven't defined and now you've suggested another.

It all sounds really intelligent, but where's the beef?


I can guarantee you it is not. One can do a lot of "good" without any money or value involved. Think about the value of human and moral support, the will to assist where and when needed - like a friendly word and/or a helping hand, like youngsters showing some respect for the older in full busses and metro by offering them their seats, etc.

Are you now defining being good? And how do you define "a hard life"? What if a person has just hit you in the mouth? Does that constitute you're having a "hard day"? Will you then give him a friendly word? Or will you be justified in giving him a hit in the mouth?


How sad that you herewith admit that you - like the donkey and the carrot - need an incentive to be a good human being.

Sad? Is that a subjective opinion? Or it is objective, how do you support your conclusion?

As for me, I think it is humble and righteous to realize that we are not perfect but need assistance to reach for perfection.

So, please provide your objective evidence to support the conclusion that this individual's attitude is "sad".


With that I agree. But note that the believer seems to need religion to do good, while the non-believer does that automatically without any incentive.

I know a great many non-believers who don't do any good at all. In fact they do a great deal of evil. So, please provide the objective evidence that non-believers automatically do good.


Which of the two is the sincere one here, the one truly inspired?

Well you obviously have one particular non-believer in mind who never does anything that you believe is evil but only does good. I've yet to meet such a non-believer. So I think in your fantasy world, you have ascribed sincerity and inspiration to the non-believer.

However, since we are speaking subjectively, in the real world as I see it, it is usually non-believers who have an ill-formed conscience and therefore commit more evil than good. And when they do good, it is usually for what they can get out of it.

And believers, when they come to believe, learn to be humble and to accept their weaknesses. Therefore they respond by reaching to attain the greater Good who is God and who teaches us to love our neighbor and do good for them as we would like done for ourselves.


Why not peace here and now?

Because we recognize our limitations. But if you can produce peace in this world right now, please, by all means do so. Don't just talk about it. But you can't, so what's the point in berating this man about it?


Why that totally unnecessary shifting to "the hereafter"?

Because we believe in the hereafter and in eternity with God. Whereas you don't. So why are you concerned? It might be totally unnecessary to you, but it isn't to us.


People have been praying for peace for eons. Unless humanity makes it their lifestyle to really become peacefull in mind, all that praying is meaningless and will lead to nothing.

If all people would pray for peace, then they would become peaceful in mind.


What is needed is to strengthen the fineer thin layer of moral justification for our deeds, and put the responsibility of our actions there where it belongs : on our own shoulders.

Which is exactly what our faith teaches us.


What is needed also is that we stop being so greedy

Greedy. Now ther's a subjective concept. At what point is it greed? Owning a 10 bedroom house, a 3 bedroom house or a one bedroom house? Where do you draw the line? Should we have any possessions at all? Are you writing from your own computer?


- specially those in the western society - and share all available resources evenly over all of humanity, instead of what is happening now in a world dominated by greed and selfinterest above anything else.

How do you propose we get to this goal?


One does not need religion to be or become a "good human being". All we need is to learn to stop being so greedy and selfish.

Is that all? Isn't that what most religions are trying to achieve? And if you know a better way than through religion, why don't you provide it?


:rolleyes:

Exactly how I feel about this message of yours.

Sincerely,

De Maria

when I was atheist, I rarely helped any cause and anytime I did help any cause, I felt I needed to be paid somehow. At least I thought I should be thanked and that the people whom I helped needed to be appreciative.That's a personal weakness on your part that has nothing to do with religion.

I know a great many non-believers who don't do any good at all. In fact they do a great deal of evil. The people who don't do any good at all are evenly distributed amongst the religious and non-religious, you may be too blind to see it. Since they are many gods that you do not believe in then you are also a non-believer, remember that.

So, you don't mind debating after all.


That's a personal weakness on your part that has nothing to do with religion.

The weakness has nothing to do with religion, I'd have to agree.. But for me, religion was the remedy to that weakness. That's the point.


The people who don't do any good at all are evenly distributed amongst the religious and non-religious,

That sounds like a subjective assertion. Please provide quantitative data to substantiate your claim, otherwise I'll have to chalk it up to wishful thinking.


you may be too blind to see it.

No, I think my eyes are wide open to distinguish between an opinion and a statement of fact. That statement shows all the qualities of an opinion.


Since they are many gods that you do not believe in then you are also a non-believer, remember that.

?? If there was a point there it went over my head. But as they say on the playground, what's good for the gander is good for the goose. I'll play along.

And since there are many things in which you believe, you are also a believer. Remember that.

Sincerely,

De Maria

That sounds like a subjective assertion. Please provide quantitative data to substantiate your claim, otherwise I'll have to chalk it up to wishful thinking. Oh, you mean like you did here:

I know a great many non-believers who don't do any good at all. In fact they do a great deal of evil.Please provide quantitative data to substantiate your claim.


And since there are many things in which you believe, you are also a believer. Remember that.Absolutely! I believe in a lot of things, just not an unseen being in the clouds.

Oh, you mean like you did here: Please provide quantitative data to substantiate your claim.

Didn't get it, huh?

You kind of have to read the entire message NK. Don't just read little snippets here and there. Read what both parties have said.

As for my response which you've quoted, its called "irony".

# sarcasm: witty language used to convey insults or scorn; "he used sarcasm to upset his opponent"; "irony is wasted on the stupid"; "Satire is a ...
# incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs; "the irony of Ireland's copying the nation she most hated"
# a trope that involves incongruity between what is expected and what occurs
Wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Credendovidis had said, and I quote:


With that I agree. But note that the believer seems to need religion to do good, while the non-believer does that automatically without any incentive.

Since he literally pommels everyone with this idea that only he is objective:


At least I do not believe in what someone else claims to be true, claims that always lack any objective support.

I thought I'd give him a taste of the same type of evidence he actually produces.


Absolutely! I believe in a lot of things, just not an unseen being in the clouds.

?? Oh well, I guess you thought you made some kind of point there.

For the record, I don't believe in any unseen being in the clouds either. I believe in God.

Here's a question for you. Why do you feel it necessary to debate when you apparently have nothing relevant to add to the discussion? Do you feel some sort of loyalty to the unbelievers or something?

Sincerely, if you ever want to have a friendly discussion about what you believe vs what I believe, just ask me. We can do better than whatever this is.

De Maria

Here's a question for you. Why do you feel it necessary to debate when you apparently have nothing relevant to add to the discussion? Do you feel some sort of loyalty to the unbelievers or something?I'm the ying to yor yang. :) Why do you feel the need to debate everyone on this site? What relevancy do you bring? An unbeliever such as yourself can't seem to grasp that people are individuals.

I'm the ying to yor yang. :)

Does that mean you just like to debate with me? If so, thanks.


Why do you feel the need to debate everyone on this site?

I thought I answered that. I like to debate. Simple as that.


What relevancy do you bring?

Quite a bit. I've been studying my faith for approximately 20 years, so I'm fairly knowledgeable. As I said, I came on this forum to share my knowledge of Christianity and especially Catholicism with everyone here.

As far as debate, well I just joined in the prevailing culture of this forum. However, in those 20 years of study, I have accumulated about 10 years of experience in debate, so I was well equipped to defend my beliefs when you first challenged me.

If you notice, I normally answer the OP. Then people who disagree, respond to me in objection to my opinion. I then respond to them. If you remember our first encounter that was the precise sequence of events.

I have at times reserved the right to respond to people who didn't address me but to whose messages I objected however. Especially since it seems to be part of the culture on this site.


An unbeliever such as yourself can't seem to grasp that people are individuals.

I don't know where you get that impression. A believer like yourself can't seem to grasp that people have different opinions and that they might just disagree with you.

Sincerely,

De Maria

For De Maria

Actually I'm getting a little bit tired of your aggressive and disrespectful posts.
If it is your intention to be here an example of a "good" Christian, beware that you are actually supporting the Secular Humanist position a lot !


I don't think you would recognize objective support if it hit you in the face.
Your favoutite response : a wild claim. Without any support. And as usual totally lacking any respect.

===

I asked you : Quote : "Why do you not react to the points I made in my previous post?"


I'm getting to it. But first, the ridiculous nature of this next statement of yours caught my eye:

"Quote Cred : Look : for me nobody has to defend his-her religious views."

What a joke. That is precisely what you do in every discussion on this forum. You insist that everyone defend their religious views.
NOT TRUE !!!
I never ask anyone to defend his belief. I always state that you may believe whatever suits you. But if you insist that what you believe is the one and only truth (i.e. that what you believe is the reality), yes than I ask for objective supporting evidence. Which you can not provide, because all what you seem to believe are religious claims.

You fail to realize that in this situation you may of course claim as much as you want, but that I in return may ask for objective supporting evidence for each of your unsupported claims.
And I always do that with respect for your personal views. Something you fail to maintain time and time again !

===

As your selection of my previous points was extremely selective and frequently disrespectfull, I don't waste any further time on responses. I just repeat the first lines of this response :

If it is your intention here to be an example of a "good" Christian, beware that you are actually supporting the Secular Humanist position a lot !

For De Maria

Actually I'm getting a little bit tired of your aggressive and disrespectful posts.

What a coincidence, the reason I've been responding to your posts lately is because I'm tired of your aggressive and disrespectful posts.


If it is your intention to be here an example of a "good" Christian,

I hope so. But I don't think I can give much of an example via the internet. Mostly I just hoped to pass on accurate information about Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular.


beware that you are actually supporting the Secular Humanist position a lot !

Although there are many differences, there are also many ways in which many philosphical positions meet and agree with religious beliefs. Unless you are specific I can't tell you which Secular Humanistic ideas I agree with. But there is one with which I vehemently disagree. The idea that God doesn't exist.


Your favoutite response : a wild claim. Without any support. And as usual totally lacking any respect.

If you are saying that my responses are wild claims without any support, I have already debunked that accusation which you make of everyone Christian. And I have proven it is you making the wild claims without any support.


I asked you : Quote : "Why do you not react to the points I made in my previous post?"

And I said, wait a sec, I'm getting to it and I added my response to your previous post to that message.


NOT TRUE !!! I never ask anyone to defend his belief.

Perhaps. But by attacking and belittling their beliefs, you put everyone in the position of having to defend their beliefs.


I always state that you may believe whatever suits you. But if you insist that what you believe is the one and only truth (i.e. that what you believe is the reality), yes than I ask for objective supporting evidence. Which you can not provide, because all what you seem to believe are religious claims.

Again, your bias has clouded your mind so completely that you can't even think logically, you don't recognize objective supporting evidence when it is presented to you.

And because your bias is so great, you don't realize that you haven't provided any objective supporting evidence to support your wild claims.

And because you are overzealous bordering on fanatical concerning your beliefs, you assume that your definition of simple English words, such as "belief" are the only definition in the world. You are so overzealous in that matter that I assume you haven't even looked at a dictionary to verify that your definition is correct.


You fail to realize that in this situation you may of course claim as much as you want, but that I in return may ask for objective supporting evidence for each of your unsupported claims.

Which I have provided. And I have asked you for objective evidence to support your unsupported claims and you have provided nothing. Your entire argument consists of denials of the evidence provided to you.


And I always do that with respect for your personal views. Something you fail to maintain time and time again !

As I said, I show you as much respect as you show me.


As your selection of my previous points was extremely selective

What did you expect me to do? I selected that which was objectionable, which was most of the post and I addressed those portions.


and frequently disrespectfull,

As I said, my response is as respectful to you as you are to me.


I don't waste any further time on responses.

Ok.


I just repeat the first lines of this response :

See my response above as well.

Sincerely,

De Maria

What a coincidence, the reason I've been responding to your posts lately is because I'm tired of your aggressive and disrespectful posts.
Nowhere have I been disrespectfull to your world views

As stated before : I do not attack religious views. I allow everyone to believe whatever he/she believes, without any demands.

But that is : till the moment that a believer starts claiming that what he/she believes is the "one and only truth", i.e. that his/her religious views are factual.

At that moment I feel entitled to ask for objective supporting evidence for the religious claims. And if I do , I always do that in a respectful way - unlike you .

Enough said !

Nowhere have I been disrespectfull to your world views

Yeah, you have. Lets see, you claim Christians are brainwashed:

If you during your youth have been brainwashed into Christianity

You continually deny that a believer has examined the evidence:

as I have never seen any religious claim or `one and only truth´ to be supported by objective evidence.

You continually portray yourself as superior to believers:

Actually I doubt if one needs religion to do good. If "doing good" is not part of your standard lifestyle, religion won't help neither, as at best any improved results will be based on wrong reasoning.


As stated before : I do not attack religious views.

Yes you do. But you use a passive aggressive style. By continually stating that you don't attack religious views from one side of your mouth and then continually characterizing religious views as unsupported wild claims.


I allow everyone to believe whatever he/she believes, without any demands.

Only because there is nothing you can do about it. But you continually get into discussions which are besides the point of the OP. And it is always the same fanatical refrain, believe what you want but it is all unsupported wild claims:

Are believers motivated to do good? Your response, "it is all unsupported wild claims".

Another persons asks, what happened to Jesus body? Your response, "it is all unsupported wild claims."

And on and on. A person asked what is the definition of a fanatic and another posted this response:
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
Winston Churchill

That describes you.


But that is : till the moment that a believer starts claiming that what he/she believes is the "one and only truth", i.e. that his/her religious views are factual.

And that right there contradicts your previous statement that you permit people to believe the evidence as they see fit. If they don't believe as you do, you harangue them constantly.


At that moment I feel entitled to ask for objective supporting evidence for the religious claims. And if I do , I always do that in a respectful way - unlike you .

I've yet to see it.


Enough said !

If that were only true.

Sincerely,

De Maria

If it is your intention here to be an example of a "good" Christian, beware that you are actually supporting the Secular Humanist position a lot !


What is the"secular humanist" position?

On abortion
On origins of life
On eternal life
On good and evil
What is right, what is wrong?
What is your "bible"



Is it that there is no God? That position is disrespectful to the religious.

What is the"secular humanist" position?
on abortion
on origins of life
on eternal life
on good and evil
what is right, what is wrong?
what is your "bible"

Is it that there is no God? That position is disrespectful to the religious.
My PERSONAL Secular Humanist position is :

- on abortion : in general I am against abortion (except in cases of abuse and special situation in which the mother's life is at stake when the pregnancy is continued. But I leave it to every individual to come to his/her own conclusion. It's a moral question, not a religious one.

- on origins of life : all we know is that life started on earth. We do not know how, we do not know why. Seems that the conditions for first primitive life to form were some 4 billion years ago.

- on eternal life : We are born, we live, we die. That is it. Eternal life is a religious claim for which there is not one single iota of objective supporting evidence.

- on good and evil : there are good, and there are evil people. There is no supporting evidence that the percentages of good and evil are in general different in theist against non-theists.

- what is right, what is wrong : use the golden rule : do not do to others what you do not like to be done to yourself. Simple and clear. No need for any religious guidance there.

- I have no "bible". I do not need a "bible". The Christian Bible is just a book on the cultural and historical data - and religious views - of the jews (OT) and later of the early christians (NT).

- Nobody can provide objective supporting evience for the existence of a God or Gods.
To question and/or reject god/gods is not disrespectful to religious people.

Once more my standard point of view in all these matters : believe whatever you like to believe : no problemo! But do not claim that what you believe the "one and only truth".

Anything else?

;)

Yeah, you have. Lets see, you claim Christians are brainwashed
Many are indeed. Not only Christians : all believers in deity/deities.
People are born without any religious references. During their youth children are in some way indeed brainwashed into believing that God/Gods exist.


You continually deny that a believer has examined the evidence
Nonsense ! A strict believer can only make religious claims as he/she can not provide even a single iota of objective supporting evidence for what he/she believes. There simply is only belief. No evidence for any religious claim.


You continually portray yourself as superior to believers
I do not. But are you now blaming me for your own inferiority complex?

.. //..


Another persons asks, what happened to Jesus body? Your response, "it is all unsupported wild claims."
So? That is 100 % true ! Whatever you believe, it are claims, nothing else. That is : till YOU prove your claims to be true. So far you have never done that. No problem with me, but than do not claim that whatever you believe is "the one and only truth!"

Cred

My PERSONAL

[QUOTE][QUOTE]- on origins of life : all we know is that life started on earth.
We do not know how, we do not know why. Seems that the conditions for first primitive life to form were some 4 billion years ago.

Credo, scientists Do not KNOW with 100% certain that life began on earth and also scientist do not KNOW that the World is 4 billion years old. That figure is based on the assumptions that the methods used for dating the earth (like carbon dating) are accurate. There is no way to prove that the assumptions used in such methods are accurate. So if that is your belief, it is based on faith not Facts.



- on eternal life : We are born, we live, we die. That is it. Eternal life is a religious claim for which there is not one single iota of objective supporting evidence.

That is your belief. LIkewise, you do not have an iota of objective evidence to support your claim that there is no life after death.




- what is right, what is wrong : use the golden rule : do not do to others what you do not like to be done to yourself. Simple and clear. No need for any religious guidance there.

It seems your "golden rule conflicts with your beliefs on abortion. That small life growing in the womb of a mother who has been raped. If she terminates the pregnancy and ends the life of that baby, is she doing unto others what she wants done unto her?



- I have no "bible". I do not need a "bible". The Christian Bible is just a book on the cultural and historical data - and religious views - of the jews (OT) and later of the early christians (NT).

Again your beliefs..


- Nobody can provide objective supporting evience for the existence of a God or Gods.
To question and/or reject god/gods is not disrespectful to religious people.

Niether can you or anyone prove he does NOT exist.


Once more my standard point of view in all these matters : believe whatever you like to believe : no problemo! But do not claim that what you believe the "one and only truth".

There can only be one truth. At the end of the day one of us is right, and I think just based on rationality and common sense, that theist are right.

Credo, scientists Do not KNOW with 100% certain that life began on earth and also scientist do not KNOW that the World is 4 billion years old.

Yes they do. Life began on earth. At least the life we know. There may be billions of other life forms. But that is irrelevant. We live on earth. Life exists on earth. That life started here. No assumptions at all.

And the entire solar system is around 4.3 Billion years old. There is ample objective supported evidence for that. But of course you may BELIEVE otherwise !



LIkewise, you do not have an iota of objective evidence to support your claim that there is no life after death.
The burden of proof is on the (positive) claim that there is an afterlife. It is not on me to prove that your religiously based claim is incorrect. Do some classes in logical thinking.



It seems your "golden rule conflicts with your beliefs on abortion. That small life growing in the womb of a mother who has been raped. If she terminates the pregnancy and ends the life of that baby, is she doing unto others what she wants done unto her?
That is a philosophical point of view. It has little to do with the general meaning of the golden rule. You are nittpicking out of pure frustration.



Niether can you or anyone prove he does NOT exist.
The burden of proof is on the (positive) claim. Not on me. Do some classes in logical thinking.



... there can only be one truth. At the end of the day one of us is right, and i think just based on rationality and common sence, that theist are right.
Theism based on rationality and common sense?
You REALLY need that course in logical thinking...

Ciao!

I am hoping that this thread does end up being closed!

I am hoping that this thread does end up being closed!
Are you always so negative ? WHY do you hope that ?

;)

Are you always so negative ? WHY do you hope that ?

;)

I hope it doesn't close because I rather like having a thread I opened and keep it going for sometime so that I can post some more posts regarding believers in general.:)

I don't think I am always negative.

[QUOTE=Credendovidis]Yes they do. Life began on earth. At least the life we know. There may be billions of other life forms. But that is irrelevant. We live on earth. Life exists on earth. That life started here. No assumptions at all.

And the entire solar system is around 4.3 Billion years old. There is ample objective supported evidence for that. But of course you may BELIEVE otherwise !

Credo, I am have a bachelors degree in Biology and Chemistry and am currenty working on my masters in Biology so I am guessing I am probably more scientifically educated that you. Do you know what carbon dating is? If so do you know that the assuptions used in carbon dating? Do you know that the assumptions are unvarifiable?
Therefore there is no certainty that the earth is 4.3 billion years old. This is only true, ONLY if you ASSUME that the assumptions used in dating the earth are accurate and there is no way to prove those assumptions are factual. So if you believe the earth is 4.3 billion years old, it is by Faith not because it is a fact.




The burden of proof is on the (positive) claim that there is an afterlife. It is not on me to prove that your religiously based claim is incorrect. Do some classes in logical thinking.

How convenient for you. You have a possitive belief that there is no life after death therefore the burden of proof is also on you.




That is a philosophical point of view. It has little to do with the general meaning of the golden rule. You are nittpicking out of pure frustration.

No, actually it just points out the flaws and inconsitancies in your beliefs. You said "it is just that simple" and I am pointing out to you that it is NOT that simple. Your "golden rule" philosophy only applies to a very few of circumstances and situations.




Theism based on rationality and common sense?
You REALLY need that course in logical thinking...

Yes, and I will explain why theism is more logical. An Athiests sees everything around them trees, flowers, animals, complex biological systems like the digesive system, reproductive system, immune system etc and an atheist comes to the smart conclusion that it just apeared from "no where" by "accident". If one uses common sense, a reasonable person would conclude that the complexity of design seen in our universe warrants an intelligent designer.
Let me give you an analogy... It would be like if I landed on Jupitor and found a complex functional machine that resembles a car and I come to the conclusion that ithe machine just a apeared on jupitor from no where by accident and evolved over time.
A reasonable sensible person would conclude after seeing the machine, its complexity of design and functionality, that there must be intelligent life on Jupitor capable of creating a designing the machine. However using this analogy an atheist would conclude that the machine has no intelligent creator or originator but rather appeared by accident from "no where". Logical? No

SASSSSSY ;)

My PERSONAL Secular Humanist position is :

- on abortion : in general I am against abortion (except in cases of abuse and special situation in which the mother's life is at stake when the pregnancy is continued. But I leave it to every individual to come to his/her own conclusion. It's a moral question, not a religious one.

- on origins of life : all we know is that life started on earth. We do not know how, we do not know why. Seems that the conditions for first primitive life to form were some 4 billion years ago.

- on eternal life : We are born, we live, we die. That is it. Eternal life is a religious claim for which there is not one single iota of objective supporting evidence.

- on good and evil : there are good, and there are evil people. There is no supporting evidence that the percentages of good and evil are in general different in theist against non-theists.

- what is right, what is wrong : use the golden rule : do not do to others what you do not like to be done to yourself. Simple and clear. No need for any religious guidance there.

- I have no "bible". I do not need a "bible". The Christian Bible is just a book on the cultural and historical data - and religious views - of the jews (OT) and later of the early christians (NT).

- Nobody can provide objective supporting evience for the existence of a God or Gods.
To question and/or reject god/gods is not disrespectful to religious people.

Once more my standard point of view in all these matters : believe whatever you like to believe : no problemo! But do not claim that what you believe the "one and only truth".

Anything else?

;)


Thank you for your reply.



I see this "golden rule" bandied about all the time.

Why do you adhere to this versus another philosophy,.


For example.


I should do whatever I dang well please, that is all that matters.

Or perhaps A Darwinian philosophy of,. by whatever means I'm am going to survive and make sure my genes are passed on, even if means eliminating "inferior" competittion.

How, in a world of no absolutes, is that any worse or better than the "golden rule"


As to origins of life, what proof do you have that "the conditions were right, " is there a lab somewhere that actually knows the exact conditions at the very beginning? Miller's experiments have been debunked. If you do not know for sure, no proof as your Creed goes, how do you know this is reality and not some figment of something's imagination?

[QUOTE]

credo, i am have a bachelors degree in Biology and Chemistry and am currenty working on my masters in Biology so i am guessing i am probably more scientifically educated that you. Do you know what carbon dating is? If so do you know that the assuptions used in carbon dating? Do you know that the assumptions are unvarifiable?
Therefore there is no certainty that the earth is 4.3 billion years old. This is only true, ONLY if you ASSUME that the assumptions used in dating the earth are accurate and there is no way to prove those assumptions are factual. So if you believe the earth is 4.3 billion years old, it is by Faith not because it is a fact.





How convenient for you. You have a possitive belief that there is no life after death therefore the burden of proof is also on you.





No, actually it just points out the flaws and inconsitancies in your beliefs. You said "it is just that simple" and i am pointing out to you that it is NOT that simple. Your "golden rule" philosophy only applies to a very few of circumstances and situations.





Yes, and i will explain why theism is more logical. An Athiests sees everything around them trees, flowers, animals, complex biological systems like the digesive system, reproductive system, immune system etc and an atheist comes to the smart conclusion that it just apeared from "no where" by "accident". If one uses common sense, a reasonable person would conclude that the complexity of design seen in our universe warrants an intelligent designer.
Let me give you an analogy... It would be like if i landed on Jupitor and found a complex functional machine that resembles a car and i come to the conclusion that ithe machine just a apeared on jupitor from no where by accident and evolved over time.
A reasonable sensible person would conclude after seeing the machine, its complexity of design and functionality, that there must be intelligent life on Jupitor capable of creating a designing the machine. However using this analogy an atheist would conclude that the machine has no intelligent creator or originator but rather appeared by accident from "no where". Logical? No

SASSSSSY ;)


Agree, science, that is the evidence at hand and not unprovable assumptions or theories, point away from random chance as to why and how things are here.

08:51 PM : I am hoping that this thread does end up being closed!


09:01 PM : Are you always so negative ? WHY do you hope that ?


09:01 PM : I hope it doesnt close because I rather like having a thread I opened and keep it going for sometime so that I can post some more posts regarding believers in general.:)
I dont think I am always negative.

Well... may be not always... yes - no - yes - no : just make up your mind what you wish...

;)

Credo, i am have a bachelors degree in Biology and Chemistry and am currenty working on my masters in Biology so i am guessing i am probably more scientifically educated that you.
I have degrees in Electronic Engineering and in Business Management. However , neither your degrees nor mine are any assetts in a discussion that at your side seems completely biased by your religious beliefs.


Do you know what carbon dating is?
Talk about a condescending attitude... ;)


if so do you know that the assuptions used in carbon dating? Do you know that the assumptions are unvarifiable? Therefore there is no certainty that the earth is 4.3 billion years old.I assume you are one of these young earthers, or follow other creationists or ID views.
It is rather irrelevant if the solar system is 4.3 Billion years or 4.2 Billion years old.
What is important that it is NOT some odd 6000 years old, just because some selected dates in the Bible add up to that amount of time.
Science has clearly proven beyond any doubt that the solar system is some 4.x years old.
If you have other ideas, than PROVE that. Don't babble here non-scientific creationist' claims.


You have a possitive belief that there is no life after death therefore the burden of proof is also on you.
Total nonsense ! I have never stated that. I stated (or if I once slipped up : I should have stated) that there is no objective supporting evidence for life after death.
You and your theist mates claim that there is LAD. I ask you where the objective supporting evidence for the LAD is. So far that evidence is still missing.
The claim is your, not mine. If you can't prove your claim, it is all based on belief only, and surely no support for LAD.


Your "golden rule" philosophy only applies to a very few of circumstances and situations.
The golden rule applies almost everywhere and in almost every position and view. There are very few exceptions. Even your own Christian mentor used the golden rule. Read your book of instructions !


Yes, and i will explain why theism is more logical. An Athiests sees everything around them trees, flowers, animals, complex biological systems like the digesive system, reproductive system, immune system etc and an athiest comes to the smart conclusion that it just apeared from "no where" by "accident". If one uses common sense, a reasonable person would conclude that the complexity of design seen in our universe warrants an intelligent designer.
What intelligent designer? Why him/her/it? Why not the Pink Unicorn or the Spaghetti Monster? Because you BELIEVE in the ID. You BELIEVE the ID exists. But you have no objective supporting evidence for that religious claim.
So who is making up here his/her arguments? Not I!! By the way : please get a course in logical argumentation : you really need one !

;)

I see this "golden rule" bandied about all the time. Why do you adhere to this versus another philosophy,....
for example. I should do whatever I dang well please, that is all that matters.
And if you think that way, everyone should be allowed to think that way. How long do you think would you last under these conditions in some back street in one of the US metropoles ?


Or perhaps A Darwinian philosophy of,..... by whatever means I'm am going to survive and make sure my genes are passed on, even if means eliminating "inferior" competittion.
The golden rule tells you that if you like to pass your genes, everyone else should be allowed to do the same. A good and fair rule that serves all. But who is going to decide what "inferior" is in this philosophical context?


As to origins of life, what proof do you have that "the conditions were right, " is there a lab somewhere that actually knows the exact conditions at the very begining?
Life exists. And science tells us that life exists on earth already about 3.5 Billion year.
A logical conclusion is that the conditons were right, that long ago. Or was it 3.4 or 3.6 Billions years ?
The ID "Jack out of the box" is NOT a logical conclusion. For the ID there is no logical reason to exist at all. The universe does not need an ID, life does not need an ID. The only ones that require an ID are semi-creationist' believers in an ID.

;)

And if you think that way, everyone should be allowed to think that way. How long do you think would you last under these conditions in some back street in one of the US metropoles ?


The golden rule tells you that if you like to pass your genes, everyone else should be allowed to do the same. A good and fair rule that serves all. But who is going to decide what "inferior" is in this philosophical context?

How about rape? That is a means of passing on your genes?
Look up eugenics and Hitler, this is a historical example of Darwinism.



Life exists. And science tells us that life exists on earth already about 3.5 Billion year.
A logical conclusion is that the conditons were right, that long ago. Or was it 3.4 or 3.6 Billions years ?
The ID "Jack out of the box" is NOT a logical conclusion. For the ID there is no logical reason to exist at all. The universe does not need an ID, life does not need an ID. The only ones that require an ID are semi-creationist' believers in an ID.

;)


What is the logical conclusion YOU can draw fom the fact that scientists can not prove or show evidence of life from non-life. Link me to a peer reviewed science journal that can 1] know the exact conditions at the start of life from non life 2] reproduce this 3] and demonstrate that this "life" can propagate and give rise to other divergent life forms.

This cannot be done, and so your belief, and that is what it is, is based on the faith. Faith / belief that you disparage if it is religious faith / belief.


Here is science






The Photonic Beetle: Nature Builds Diamond-Like Crystals For Future Optical Computers (http://www.physorg.com/news130481875.html)


“NATURE has simple ways of MAKING structures and materials that are still unobtainable with our million-dollar instruments and ENGINEERING strategies.”

“NATURE uses very simple strategies to DESIGN structures to manipulate light – structures that are beyond the reach of our current abilities,” Galusha says.





Notice all the amount of human research it takes to discover what is DESIGNED [ in nature. if you cannot accept God] by God. :D

[QUOTE=Credendovidis]I have degrees in Electronic Engineering and in Business Management

that explains your ignorance in the field of radiometrics.


However , neither your degrees nor mine are any assetts in a discussion that at your side seems completely biased by your religious beliefs.

Your side is biased by your religious beliefs in a religion I like to call secular humanisms.



I assume you are one of these young earthers, or follow other creationists or ID views.
It is rather irrelevant if the solar system is 4.3 Billion years or 4.2 Billion years old.
What is important that it is NOT some odd 6000 years old, just because some selected dates in the Bible add up to that amount of time.
Science has clearly proven beyond any doubt that the solar system is some 4.x years old.
If you have other ideas, than PROVE that. Don't babble here non-scientific creationist' claims.

I Don't believe the earth is young or old. I believe the FACT that the age of the earth is unknowable and unprovable beyond a doubt. That is the FACT of the matter. If you believe it is 4.3 billion years old, it is by FAITH.
The Bible does not tells us the age of the earth. It just says "in the begining God created the Heavens and the earth..." It does not specify the time frame from when God created the earth to when He created man. That time frame could have been anywhere from 1day to a Trillion years. No one knows.




Total nonsense ! I have never stated that. I stated (or if I once slipped up : I should have stated) that there is no objective supporting evidence for life after death.
You and your theist mates claim that there is LAD. I ask you where the objective supporting evidence for the LAD is. So far that evidence is still missing.
The claim is your, not mine. If you can't prove your claim, it is all based on belief only, and surely no support for LAD.

There is objective evidence for life after death. There are many people who have died for a few minutes or had near death experiences and have come back to tell what they saw on the other side. Read these..
BBC News | HEALTH | Evidence of 'life after death' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/986177.stm)
Scientific evidence for survival of consciousness after death (http://www.near-death.com/evidence.html)
The evidence is there but it is just a matter of do you accept it or not. Whether you do or not, your choise is purely subjective.




[QUOTE]What intelligent designer? Why him/her/it? Why not the Pink Unicorn or the Spaghetti Monster?

It could very well have been the spaghetti monster who created the Universe. Someone did. Relying on Logic alone, logic tells us that things that apear to have an obvious design and functionality, must have an intelligent originator.
For example... It is illogical to see a Computer and conclude it appeared accidentally and has no intelligent creator behind it. The human brain far more advanced than a computer in its design and functionality, so it is just as illogical to conclude the brain appeared accidentally and has no intelligent creator.

INTHEBOX: What is the logical conclusion YOU can draw fom the fact that scientists can not prove or show evidence of life from non-life. Link me to a peer reviewed science journal that can 1] know the exact conditions at the start of life from non life 2] reproduce this 3] and demonstrate that this "life" can propagate and give rise to other divergent life forms.

This cannot be done, and so your belief, and that is what it is, is based on the faith. Faith / belief that you disparage if it is religious faith / belief.

Lol.. I agree with you.. It looks like Credo is not following his/her own motto "I believe it as soon as I see it " She/he obviously has not witnessed most of what she believes in niether is there any factual evidence for the things she has Faith in.
I think its time she change her credo.. :D

... that explains your ignorance in the field of radiometrics.
You have now lowered yourself to a deliberate insulting and aggressive attitude. Let's see how board management react on that...

You can not and have not even supported that "ignorance in the field of radiometrics".
But even if you can, it has little to do with the question lead.
Are you always reacting that way when you run out of real arguments?

;)

The theory of relativity tells us that a day is the time it takes Earth to revolve once on it's axis, a year is the time it takes to go once around the sun. So if the Earth is for some reason moving more slowly a year could take a really long time. If for some reason it starts to spin in the opposite direction time travels backward. So an Earth 6000 years or billions of years old is not mutually exclusive.

[QUOTE=Credendovidis]You have now lowered yourself to a deliberate insulting and aggressive attitude. Let's see how board management react on that...


There is nothing insulting about saying someone is ignorant in a certain subject. I am ignorant too in the subject of sky diving, mining, flying kites etc.. Big deal... that is not an insult. :rolleyes:




You can not and have not even supported that "ignorance in the field of radiometrics".
But even if you can, it has little to do with the question lead.
Are you always reacting that way when you run out of real arguments?

You have clearly displayed an ignorance in the fact that carbon dating uses assumptions that can not be proven true to determine, with certainty, the age of the earth. Therefore saying the earth is 4.3 billion years old is NOT a fact. It is a generally accepted scientific theory. If you were educated on the subject of methods used to date the earth you would know this.

The theory of relativity tells us that a day is the time it takes Earth to revolve once on it's axis, a year is the time it takes to go once around the sun. So if the Earth is for some reason moving more slowly a year could take a really long time. If for some reason it starts to spin in the opposite direction time travels backward. So an Earth 6000 years or billions of years old is not mutually exclusive.
You REALLY need some tutoring regarding the theory of relativity.
No, that theory is not about what a day is, how the earth revolves around it axis, and surely not on 6000 earth years being capable of - based on what you stated - billions of years.

It is not very wise to use arguments which you clearly do not understand as basis of your own religious argument.

:rolleyes:

You have clearly displayed an ignorance in the fact that carbon dating uses assumptions that can not be proven true to determine, with certainty, the age of the earth. Therefore saying the earth is 4.3 billion years old is NOT a fact. It is a generally accepted scientific theory. If you were educated on the subject of methods used to date the earth you would know this.
You call that ignorance ? Let's discuss YOUR IGNORANCE!!
Carbon dating has never been used for dating the age of the solar system. Where did I state that?
It it YOU who brought up carbon dating. Not I.

Periods of billions of years can never be calculated from carbon dating. One of the many available dating processes that can go that far back is uranium dating.

Besides that all : it is irrelevant if it is 4.5 Billion years, or 3.5 or 5.5 Billlion years.
Note that I have no problem if you follow Ken Ham and his creationist friends. Believe whatever you prefer to believe.
But whatever Ken Ham tells you, science makes sure that certainly the earth is much much older than some odd 6000 years, a claim that is based on biblical data only, and not on facts.

;)

Firmy... just had to say, kudos to you for effectively stating your beliefs, your belief system, and your core foundations. It takes courage to do so, even on an anonymous, public forum such as AMHD.

Debating never has, nor ever will be, one of my forte's... I'm not a proponent of debating simply to debate. Therefore, this thread has become (in my own opinion), virtually useless because it has veered off topic - that of stating an individual forum member's core belief.

Maybe it should have been posted in The Lounge as opposed to Religious Discussions... Or maybe Religious Discussions should be renamed Religious Debates. :)

Bottom line: I'm proud of you, Firmy, for stating your beliefs. For being willing to take the "heat" for what you believe. For enduring the line-by-line shredding of your belief system and not wavering. You go, girl.

One thing that Credendovidis said on one of his posts that caught my eye and made me go "Hmm, I like that" was that it is the prerogative for each individual to state "I believe that..." before stating their beliefs because that is true in its very essence. We all believe what we believe. That's it. So, kudos to credendovidis for that statement.

:) HC out. :)

(Yup, I show up, make a comment, encourage a poster, and leave. Random acts of encouragement. Yeah... I'm OK with that! :))

Awww... thank you for the encouraging words HC!

Your side is biased by your religious beliefs in a religion i like to call secular humanisms.

I note that you can not even spell that properly. The more angered you get, the more of these mistakes you seem to make... I wonder why...

Besides that : Secular Humanism has nothing to do with religion or religious beliefs.
It is just a worldview. (Secular = wordly and Humanism = interest in or corcern for human beings)

It really helps in a "discussion" to know what you are talking about...

;)

[QUOTE=Credendovidis]You call that ignorance ? Let's discuss YOUR IGNORANCE!!
Carbon dating has never been used for dating the age of the solar system. Where did I state that?
It it YOU who brought up carbon dating. Not I.

Where did the solar system come from? We are talking about the earth being 4.5 billion years old. Don't abandon ship..


Periods of billions of years can never be calculated from carbon dating. One of the many available dating processes that can go that far back is uranium dating.

Which is a form of radiometric dating that uses at least 5 assumptions as a premise.


Besides that all : it is irrelevant if it is 4.5 Billion years, or 3.5 or 5.5 Billlion years.
Note that I have no problem if you follow Ken Ham and his creationist friends. Believe whatever you prefer to believe.
But whatever Ken Ham tells you, science makes sure that certainly the earth is much much older than some odd 6000 years, a claim that is based on biblical data only, and not on facts.

Like I said before, the Bible does not say or even imply the earth is 6000years old.
So who ever this Ken Ham guy is, that is his guess and his guess is as good as yours, 4.5 billion. My guess is 500 trillion :D
The bottom line is the methods used to date the earth apply assumptions that can not be proven. Just to give a reminder let me define the word "assumption" for you

as·sump·tion (ə-sŭmp'shən)
n.
The act of taking for granted: assumption of a false theory.
Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof; a supposition.
A minor premise.

So like I said, you can only have FAITH that the assuptions in radio dating are accurate. There is NO way of KNOWING, that the assuptions are accurate therefore making 4.5 billion nothing more than a good guess. :)

[QUOTE=inthebox]How about rape? That is a means of passing on your genes?
Look up eugenics and Hitler, this is a historical example of Darwinism.

The passing of genes is "Darwinism" - at least part of it, but references to eugenics are examples of a bastardization of evolutionary theory called "social Darwinism" and has no real connection to evolutionary science.

As to the posts about a so-called "intelligent designer," and an atheist seeing "accidents"... your designer wasn't so intelligent in mechanical engineering, chemical engineering, DNA replication... etc. And I see none of the things you mentioned as "accidents" except in that they were not planned. From geological structures to every living thing, they are the result of entirely natural processes - which include the occasional "mistakes" which result in either the detriment of offspring, or their betterment.

[QUOTE=Credendovidis]I note that you can not even spell that properly.

okey I can't spell and you have terrible grammar.. so we are even lol




Besides that : Secular Humanism has nothing to do with religion or religious beliefs.
It is just a worldview. (Secular = wordly and Humanism = interest in or corcern for human beings)

It really helps in a "discussion" to know what you are talking about...


Hey... I'm saying what other Humanists say about it... John Dewey described Humanism as our "common faith." Julian Huxley called it "Religion without Revelation." The first Humanist Manifesto spoke openly of Humanism as a religion.
Many other Humanists could be cited who have acknowledged that Humanism is a religion.
In the 1950's, Humanists sought and obtained tax-exempt status as religious organizations. Even the Supreme Court of the United States spoke of Secular Humanism as a religion. The Doctrine a beliefs of secular humanism are based on faith, not facts.
So it looks like you need to do more research on your own religion.

[QUOTE=WVHiflyer]

As to the posts about a so-called "intelligent designer," and an atheist seeing "accidents"... your designer wasn't so intelligent in mechanical engineering, chemical engineering, DNA replication... etc.

How did you come to that conclusion? If we say hypothetically, for your sake, that there is an intelligent designer who created the entire universe and beyond, what makes you say he was not intelligent in the above components you listed? Please clarify



And I see none of the things you mentioned as "accidents" except in that they were not planned.

Isn't that in essence the saying the same thing?


From geological structures to every living thing, they are the result of entirely natural processes - which include the occasional "mistakes" which result in either the detriment of offspring, or their betterment.

This is true assuming the evolutionary theory is accurate in its premise. However although it is generally accepted by scientists, it is not however a fact and its validity is highly questionable.

Not so 'intelligent': humans' bad backs, appendix; panda's reappearing thumb; that there are errors in DNA replication; hormonal imbalances...

Accidents are not the same as not planned. Many things occur that aren't planned that are not considered 'accidents' and could be even "good news" (serendipity, spontaneity).

There is no credible, evidence against the theory of evolution. It is as accepted a "fact" as the one that states the Earth revolves around the Sun or that gravity is what makes you fall down. The only debate among scientists (credible ones, anyway) are the mechanisms by which it occurs. So your belief that it is "highly questionable" couldn't be more wrong.

[QUOTE=WVHiflyer]Not so 'intelligent': humans' bad backs, appendix; panda's reappearing thumb; that there are errors in DNA replication; hormonal imbalances...

This is not a "unintelligent" I think the word you are looking for is imperfections.
And FYI in case you do not keep up with modern science... science has now discovered the appendix does have a function.
Read this Scientists discover true function of appendix organ - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/10/2055374.htm)




There is no credible, evidence against the theory of evolution. It is as accepted a "fact" as the one that states the Earth revolves around the Sun or that gravity is what makes you fall down.

The THOERY of evolution is not a fact. It is a theory that is "generally accepted" however, just because it is generally accepted does not mean it is a fact. It was generally accepted at one point that the earth was flat.. so big deal.
There is an insurmountable amount of evidence against evolution, problems, inconsitancies and an embarrassing lack of fossil record.
So if you believe Macro evolution is a fact, it is by FAITH that you believe it.

[QUOTE]
The THOERY of evolution is not a fact. It is a theory that is "generally accepted" however, just because it is generally accepted does not mean it is a fact. It was generally accepted at one point that the earth was flat.. so big deal.
There is an insurmountable amount of evidence against evolution, problems, inconsitancies and an embarrassing lack of fossil record.
So if you believe Macro evolution is a fact, it is by FAITH that you believe it.

So you don't think the Earth revolving around the Sun is a "fact"? (The idea that the Earth was flat was conjecture due to ignorance and not based on any scientific investigation. Using that as part of you argument is a bit self-defeating.)

There is absolutely no insurmountable evidence against evolution. And while the fossil record is no where as complete as scientists would like, there is hardly "an embarrassing lack." A full evolutionary progression is available for many species and their forebears. I have no "Faith" in science. I don't need it. It would be counterproductive. You have apparently proven that to be a fact...

[Q
UOTE=WVHiflyer][QUOTE=sassyT]

So you don't think the Earth revolving around the Sun is a "fact"? (The idea that the Earth was flat was conjecture due to ignorance and not based on any scientific investigation. Using that as part of you argument is a bit self-defeating.)

I think you are don't know fundamental difference between a scientific fact and a theory. The earth revolving around the sun is a proven scientific fact and is also an observable fact. The theory that all biological life forms came from a one cell creature that crawled out of mythical soup and morphed into plants, trees, fish, humans, bears fruit flies etc, I'm afraid is NOT a proven scientific fact.


There is absolutely no insurmountable evidence against evolution. And while the fossil record is no where as complete as scientists would like, there is hardly "an embarrassing lack." A full evolutionary progression is available for many species and their forebears. I have no "Faith" in science. I don't need it. It would be counterproductive. You have apparently proven that to be a fact...

That is the problem, there is NO progressive fossil record to prove evolution is true. Evolutionist themselves admit to the fact that when fossils are found they are all fully developed species and there are no transitional forms of life in fossil record.
Where are all those half man/half ape fossils which should be abundant in the earth's soil layers? They don't exist. This is what is known as the "missing link" by evolutionists.

This is what evolutionists themselves have said about the fossil record...

Dr. David Kitts, professor of geology at the University of Oklahoma said, "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them...."

Even Stephen J. Gould of Harvard admitted, "The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change."

So I'm afraid the bottom line is your belief in evolution does require FAITH because there is no fossil evidence to prove it true.

[Q[QUOTE]UOTE=WVHiflyer]

I think you are don't know fundamental difference between a scientific fact and a theory. The earth revolving around the sun is a proven scientific fact and is also an observable fact. The theory that all biological life forms came from a one cell creature that crawled out of mythical soup and morphed into plants, trees, fish, humans, bears fruit flies etc, I'm afraid is NOT a proven scientific fact.



That is the problem, there is NO progressive fossil record to prove evolution is true. Evolutionist themselves admit to the fact that when fossils are found they are all fully developed species and there are no transitional forms of life in fossil record.
Where are all those half man/half ape fossils which should be abundant in the earth's soil layers? They don't exist. This is what is known as the "missing link" by evolutionists.

This is what evolutionists themselves have said about the fossil record...

Dr. David Kitts, professor of geology at the University of Oklahoma said, "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them...."

Even Stephen J. Gould of Harvard admitted, "The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change."

So I'm afraid the bottom line is your belief in evolution does require FAITH because there is no fossil evidence to prove it true.


It was the same Stephen Gould you quote who said that evolution was as much a fact as the Earth going around the Sun. And your use of that quote of his is disingenuous - he was talking about the difference between gradual evo and his ideas on punctuated evo (some changes occur rapidly).

I'm unfamiliar with Dr Kitts, but I suspect if I search the Discovery Institute site I'll find mention of him.

While I do not have the references readily availably, there are a large number of species for which a progression between "then" and "now" exist. I admit a number are for extinct species, but that doesn't detract from validity. If you are willing to test this, see if there is a paleontologist in their topic who can refer you. Checking these transitional forms for marine species should result in quite a number of hits. You apparently make the common mistake of expecting a fish in one geo layer and a sort of fish with fully formed limbs and toes in the next. This implies to me that you have not really studied evolution at all, but merely searched for the non-existent evidence against it.

If you want to reasonably argue evolution, argue the mechanisms (as S Gould did) and not that it didn't occur - and, by the way, still is...

[QUOTE=WVHiflyer][QUOTE=sassyT][Q


It was the same Stephen Gould you quote who said that evolution was as much a fact as the Earth going around the Sun. And your use of that quote of his is disingenuous - he was talking about the difference between gradual evo and his ideas on punctuated evo (some changes occur rapidly).

Gould had to come up with theory of punctuated equilibrium because the fossil record to prove evolution is non-existant. So convieniently he had to come up with something to save the dying theory.


I'm unfamiliar with Dr Kitts, but I suspect if I search the Discovery Institute site I'll find mention of him.

More eminant scientists have admitted the same fact.

Lord Zuckerman admitted there are no "fossil traces" of transformation from an ape-like creature to man.
Famous fossil expert, Niles Eldredge confessed, "...geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them." Dr. Eldredge further said, "...no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures."
Biologist, Dr. Pierre Grasse, considered the greatest living scientist in France, wrote a book to "launch a frontal assault on all forms of Darwinism." Grasse is not a religious fanatic, yet he called evolution a "pseudo-science."

World famous scientist, G. G. Simpson stated, "It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not about anything...or at the very best, they are not science."
We have not observed such claims made by evolution in the fossil record so in my opinion evolution is not even science.

Bottom line there is no solid evidence to prove the outragous claims of evolution. But that where your faith comes in.

I would just like to say that as a believer my belief in science has not diminished. I believe in the universe having a beginning and an end in the future.

Big bang theory makes sense to me,but my thoughts include the Almighty as the Creator,the process could be as scientific research shows or it could be a little different.Either way I believe in my beliefs and believe in scientific research too.

Although I believe in my beliefs to be truth I understand that some do not see it that way.Some need the exact data of the whole process written in black and white to believe in things.
I believe in some things without the exact data,with fuzzy details and maybe something's unexplainable or incomprehensible to human minds.

Science explains to me the how's of the living natural world.I find answers in my beliefs regarding all that I need to live a good balanced life.

Some feel that humans do not need guidance or moral outlines for them to live righteous lives,I see it differently.I believe not all humans have moral character believer or unbeliever and my belief shows me where I could go wrong so I avoid them.And it also shows me where I can be the best in everyway and I follow them as much as I can.

I am not perfect and I don't claim to know it all,but all that I do know makes me who I am and all that I know makes me follow what I believe.