|
United States1381 Posts
On January 13 2010 08:02 T-P-S wrote:
So far you've been reasonable, but if you're going to ignore scientific evidence directly contradicting your position, let me know now so that I don't have to waste time trying to make any logical arguments. Specific psychological processes don't need to be completely understood to see that certain chemical neural stimuli produce expected psychological changes.
YOU are "just" the sum total of various subatomic particles arranged in chemical form. Does that mean you don't exist? Does that mean you don't act? Does that mean you're really just an automaton?
The fact that thoughts are chemical processes does absolutely nothing to affect God's presence one way or the other. The only thing it proves is that thoughts are natural phenomena just as everything else in this universe, which of course, they are, and not a mysteriously separate category of existence.
On top of that, imagine this:
"Rain falling from the sky is God's tears."
"No, rain is just hydrogen and oxygen atoms arranged in certain chemical bonds, evaporated into water vapor, which forms clouds, which upon saturation..." etc.
The latter does not falsify the former, unless God is understood as being a physical person subject to physical laws, which is not the conception of God.
|
On January 13 2010 09:47 skypig wrote:
Nice quoting out of context. This is the old testament, and these commandments were for the Jews hundreds of years ago. In the new testament Christ specifically told us that we were "free from the law" and no longer servants to sin, as in the old times.
What the Lord, our God who became man and died for our sins, specifically told us in Matthew 5:17 was that he did not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets.
If you eat pork, you're probable headed to Sheol unless יהוה takes mercy on your soul.
|
It's always amusing how Christians so often say that they are not bound to the Old Testament, but they just as often cherry-pick bits and pieces of the Old Testament that are favourable to themselves and set it forth to rationalize and support their views.
|
I always find it amusing how Islam several hundred years ago was probably more civilized than Islam today. =/
|
On January 09 2010 11:07 cz wrote:
This story is a fabrication; I know this because Islam is the religion of peace, and thus what you stated cannot have happened.
Religion of peace my ass.
|
Islam is as much a religion of peace as Christianity is a religion of love.
|
On January 13 2010 10:22 Mindcrime wrote:
What the Lord, our God who became man and died for our sins, specifically told us in Matthew 5:17 was that he did not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets.
If you eat pork, you're probable headed to Sheol unless יהוה takes mercy on your soul.
I never said Christ came to abolish the law or scripture; by contrast, the same chapter you referenced says, "I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." Jesus was referencing the fact that his coming was FULFILLING the prophecies of all the old prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc.) - that's why he said "fulfill."
That being said, Jesus still provided examples of how we are to go above and beyond what the law teaches. Matthew 5:21-22 has Jesus saying, "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment:."
So no, Christ did not come to abolish the law or the prophets. However, he did call us to rise to a new level, so to speak, as the example above shows. The phrase "them of old time" refers to those Jews that followed the law - and yet Christ says "But I say unto you", indicating that now there will be a change, and a difference from what was said before. He's not abolishing, true, but he is asking us to go above and beyond. As it says in Matthew 20, "For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." That's as point-blank as you can get; you have to go above and beyond the law to be saved. Jesus' entire purpose was to free people from the burden of the law and to offer to ALL the path that leads to salvation from God; with Christ's help, you CAN go above and beyond the law and will not be "burdened" by it any longer.
|
On January 13 2010 10:15 FieryBalrog wrote:
YOU are "just" the sum total of various subatomic particles arranged in chemical form. Does that mean you don't exist? Does that mean you don't act? Does that mean you're really just an automaton?
The fact that thoughts are chemical processes does absolutely nothing to affect God's presence one way or the other. The only thing it proves is that thoughts are natural phenomena just as everything else in this universe, which of course, they are, and not a mysteriously separate category of existence.
On top of that, imagine this:
"Rain falling from the sky is God's tears."
"No, rain is just hydrogen and oxygen atoms arranged in certain chemical bonds, evaporated into water vapor, which forms clouds, which upon saturation..." etc.
The latter does not falsify the former, unless God is understood as being a physical person subject to physical laws, which is not the conception of God.
Shoot that's an interesting point - I gotta admit I'll have to remember this one.
|
On January 13 2010 10:15 FieryBalrog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 08:02 T-P-S wrote:
So far you've been reasonable, but if you're going to ignore scientific evidence directly contradicting your position, let me know now so that I don't have to waste time trying to make any logical arguments. Specific psychological processes don't need to be completely understood to see that certain chemical neural stimuli produce expected psychological changes.
YOU are "just" the sum total of various subatomic particles arranged in chemical form. Does that mean you don't exist? Does that mean you don't act? Does that mean you're really just an automaton? The fact that thoughts are chemical processes does absolutely nothing to affect God's presence one way or the other. The only thing it proves is that thoughts are natural phenomena just as everything else in this universe, which of course, they are, and not a mysteriously separate category of existence. On top of that, imagine this: "Rain falling from the sky is God's tears." "No, rain is just hydrogen and oxygen atoms arranged in certain chemical bonds, evaporated into water vapor, which forms clouds, which upon saturation..." etc. The latter does not falsify the former, unless God is understood as being a physical person subject to physical laws, which is not the conception of God.
Naturally, you can do this with any explanation. Behold:
Gravitational attraction causes an apple to accelerate at 9.8 m/s^2 in free fall ---> Gravitational attraction AND GOD causes an apple to accelerate at 9.8 m/s^2 in free fall ---> Gravitational attraction AND GOD AND the fact that I'm wearing a pink and blue polka dotted hat causes an apple to accelerate at 9.8 m/s^2 in free fall ---> etc.
You can just pile in extraneous garbage. It's rather unnecessary, no?
(edit: It's 9.8; my bad.)
|
I decided to take this one time to not be a lurker and actually post something in one of these controversial but ultimately pointless threads.
Have fun:religion is...
|
On January 13 2010 14:18 Draconizard wrote:
Naturally, you can do this with any explanation. Behold:
Gravitational attraction causes an apple to accelerate at 9.98 m/s^2 in free fall ---> Gravitational attraction AND GOD causes an apple to accelerate at 9.98 m/s^2 in free fall ---> Gravitational attraction AND GOD AND the fact that I'm wearing a pink and blue polka dotted hat causes an apple to accelerate at 9.98 m/s^2 in free fall ---> etc.
You can just pile in extraneous garbage. It's rather unnecessary, no?
That went straight over your head, no doubt. I don't know what you mean by adding the "AND GOD" phrase; all FieryBalrog was trying to explain was that saying something like "chemicals make your brain work, not God" is stupid because you can say that chemicals make EVERYTHING "work" because, from a microscopic standpoint, they do. However, that doesn't immediately strip everything down to "just chemicals" and remove the identity of whatever you're talking about; then you wouldn't be "you" anymore, you'd just be chemicals.
Plus you're not allowing for the fact that maybe God CREATED every individual atom to do exactly what He wanted it to and that's why chemicals work the way they work. You're also not allowing for the fact that, even if we DO know the effects of certain chemical processes, we do NOT know everything about everything; i.e. we don't know everything about the world (why gravity works, the origin of the universe, etc.), much less do we know everything about how the human brain and mind work. Saying "it works because of chemicals" or saying "such and such happens because of chemicals" is redundant and pointless; yes, of course chemicals play a role, but that doesn't lend any meaning whatsoever to what the real identity or nature of the human brain is, any more than saying that a human being is made out of chemicals lends any meaning to who that human is. Hopefully you understand now.
|
United States44205 Posts
What Draconizard was trying to say is that there is no need for God in the explanation. The explanation makes perfect sense without God and attempting to tack God onto the end of it without any causal link is as valid as tacking any other theory on. The explanation makes sense without God. There's no gap for him to fill.
|
Knew this thread would go terribly, terribly off-track after I left page 3 a week ago.
|
On January 13 2010 15:10 skypig wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 14:18 Draconizard wrote:
Naturally, you can do this with any explanation. Behold:
Gravitational attraction causes an apple to accelerate at 9.98 m/s^2 in free fall ---> Gravitational attraction AND GOD causes an apple to accelerate at 9.98 m/s^2 in free fall ---> Gravitational attraction AND GOD AND the fact that I'm wearing a pink and blue polka dotted hat causes an apple to accelerate at 9.98 m/s^2 in free fall ---> etc.
You can just pile in extraneous garbage. It's rather unnecessary, no? That went straight over your head, no doubt. I don't know what you mean by adding the "AND GOD" phrase; all FieryBalrog was trying to explain was that saying something like "chemicals make your brain work, not God" is stupid because you can say that chemicals make EVERYTHING "work" because, from a microscopic standpoint, they do. However, that doesn't immediately strip everything down to "just chemicals" and remove the identity of whatever you're talking about; then you wouldn't be "you" anymore, you'd just be chemicals. Plus you're not allowing for the fact that maybe God CREATED every individual atom to do exactly what He wanted it to and that's why chemicals work the way they work. You're also not allowing for the fact that, even if we DO know the effects of certain chemical processes, we do NOT know everything about everything; i.e. we don't know everything about the world (why gravity works, the origin of the universe, etc.), much less do we know everything about how the human brain and mind work. Saying "it works because of chemicals" or saying "such and such happens because of chemicals" is redundant and pointless; yes, of course chemicals play a role, but that doesn't lend any meaning whatsoever to what the real identity or nature of the human brain is, any more than saying that a human being is made out of chemicals lends any meaning to who that human is. Hopefully you understand now.
to see this thought process in writing is just pure gold
|
On January 11 2010 23:58 Shizuru~ wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2010 18:53 JieXian wrote:
People people people . . .
This has nothing to do with religion.
This is just a political move by the Government in an attempt to gain favor from the majority. Imagine that, the Prime Minister claims that he is "powerless" to stop the protests, in the national news. The opposition would be sprayed with tear gas after 1 minute.
I know. I'm Malaysian.
Yes it is a stupid move to gain votes -- You know what conclusion can be drawn from that premise. Yes, this is really messed up, though i'm not christian.
(didn't read the 9 pages but i assume no one came with the truth since people are still arguing at the last few pages) are u suggesting that the malaysian government intentionally let the muslims in malaysia to do as they please to gain their favor/vote??
If the Prime Minister claims that he is powerless to stop this, in the news broadcasted to everyone, what else can you imply? They have proven themselves to be able to stop this kind of things almost immediately, arresting people involved -- if it is the opposition.
I don't know what you mean by "do as they like" but it gets boring after so many, though less serious, political moves disguised as religion or "Prince of the land rights"
|
On January 13 2010 15:10 skypig wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 14:18 Draconizard wrote:
Naturally, you can do this with any explanation. Behold:
Gravitational attraction causes an apple to accelerate at 9.98 m/s^2 in free fall ---> Gravitational attraction AND GOD causes an apple to accelerate at 9.98 m/s^2 in free fall ---> Gravitational attraction AND GOD AND the fact that I'm wearing a pink and blue polka dotted hat causes an apple to accelerate at 9.98 m/s^2 in free fall ---> etc.
You can just pile in extraneous garbage. It's rather unnecessary, no? That went straight over your head, no doubt. I don't know what you mean by adding the "AND GOD" phrase; all FieryBalrog was trying to explain was that saying something like "chemicals make your brain work, not God" is stupid because you can say that chemicals make EVERYTHING "work" because, from a microscopic standpoint, they do. However, that doesn't immediately strip everything down to "just chemicals" and remove the identity of whatever you're talking about; then you wouldn't be "you" anymore, you'd just be chemicals.
The only thing that went over my head is your farcical employment of logic. His post, and mine after it, were discussions on the nature of explanation. The fact that you somehow managed to pull existentialism from that is very amusing. I'm just going to avoid touching your ramblings on that (very different) topic.
Plus you're not allowing for the fact that maybe God CREATED every individual atom to do exactly what He wanted it to and that's why chemicals work the way they work. You're also not allowing for the fact that, even if we DO know the effects of certain chemical processes, we do NOT know everything about everything; i.e. we don't know everything about the world (why gravity works, the origin of the universe, etc.), much less do we know everything about how the human brain and mind work. Saying "it works because of chemicals" or saying "such and such happens because of chemicals" is redundant and pointless; yes, of course chemicals play a role, but that doesn't lend any meaning whatsoever to what the real identity or nature of the human brain is, any more than saying that a human being is made out of chemicals lends any meaning to who that human is. Hopefully you understand now.
Of course, one can simply stick deities at the beginning of any explanation. Again, it is extraneous and completely unnecessary. Anyway, I hope you realize that your above arguments are for theism in general and in no way justify your very, very specific brand of it?
|
Russian Federation1381 Posts
How many of those who criticize Islam actually met a muslim? Every each one that i met were such a beautiful people, with zero negativity, with pure mind, strong morals, confidence and character. I can't just be lucky all the time like that. Yet i always have to read about them being bad and aggressive, and even when their homelands get assaulted and destroyed they happen to be portrayed as aggressors or barbarians. That's just sad.
|
On January 13 2010 09:47 skypig wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 06:30 ghostWriter wrote:
Uh yes they can, and they do. Chemical imbalances can lead to all kinds of mental problems. The only reason why your brain works at all is because it has a bunch of chemicals moving around at all times, which are how neurons signal one another and this is how your brain works. This kind of ignorance is exactly why everyone should be forced to take basic science classes.
I'm currently a junior-year biochemistry major at UCSD; I know what chemicals can and can't do. Unfortunately I also know how very limited we are in terms of understanding exactly WHAT chemicals "translate" into once their functions are completed. Any college-level text will tell you where the gaps lie in our understanding of not just the brain, but of evolutionary genetics, gene expression, cellular function, and all sorts of chemical mechanisms. In other words, NO, we don't know what it all does, and for every new thing we discover in science, we discover ten more things that we don't quite yet know how to explain. It's the natural order of things, sorry. Again, if we knew how the brain worked like you said, we'd be able to fix all those brain disorders that our supposedly "chemicals going wrong." Yeah, right, buddy. Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 06:30 ghostWriter wrote:
Deuteronomy 20
16 However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the LORD your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God.
Maybe they're not fake, but it seems like worshipping other gods is somehow wrong.
skypig, how many adulterers have you stoned? The Lord your God commands you to do so.
Nice quoting out of context. This is the old testament, and these commandments were for the Jews hundreds of years ago. In the new testament Christ specifically told us that we were "free from the law" and no longer servants to sin, as in the old times. Oh, the irony: Since you like looking up Bible passages so much to attack yourself, see if you can find the passage where Jesus protects the adulterous woman by telling the people who want to stone her, "Him that is without sin, let him cast the first stone" and then all the people walked away and Jesus told the woman "Go in peace." Again, don't quote out of context. Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 06:30 ghostWriter wrote:
LOL set free. There is nothing more constricting than religion. And you know that God exists, yet you can't even provide a modicum of evidence. The bible explicitly states to hate gays and seems to allow for incest, although buttsex is disallowed.
The miracles make the stories even more outlandish. If you are looking towards any of the miracles as a basis for the foundation of your belief, you are a very gullible person. Do you actually believe that Jesus put mud on some guy's eyes and they could actually see? Perhaps the stories are all metaphors. I could understand and accept that. But most believers think that these are literal truths. None of the miracles were even remotely possible back then and even now, they can barely be reproduced by scientific advances. I can't provide evidence that you will believe because for you to believe something, it has to be experimentally replicated a hundred times, printed out on a piece of paper, graphed, and explicitly shown by an equation and then slapped into your face. I like how you limit truth to being anything that science tangibly produces. I guess by your warped logic, everything that we haven't discovered yet through science is "untrue" and "outlandish" because we haven't proven it yet by science; then when we DO discover it, it suddenly "becomes truth." I find it hard to believe that you are this ignorant of your ignorance as to what defines truth.
I never said we knew everything. But at least scientists are in laboratories working hard to find out the answers to all these questions. You saying that God did it explains nothing and drinking some wine and eating some bread in some ridiculous pseudo-cannibalistic tradition helps solve nothing. The only reason why you have thought processes now is because you have chemicals moving around in your head. God is irrelevant.
Why even have the old testament at all then? Why not just have the new testament? Christians love to cherry-pick the passages that they agree with and discard the ones they don't like.
Luke 14:33 (King James Version)
33 So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.
Looking at how you still have a computer and an internet connection, it seems that you are disobeying Jesus' commands from THE NEW TESTAMENT! It's pretty straightforward, I wonder how you will explain this one.
Everything we don't know yet isn't untrue, it is merely unknown. But the miracles are impossible in the literal sense, so they are necessarily untrue. There's a huge difference. It's impossible to call out to a dead person that's been rotting and have them walk out of a cave alive. It's impossible to cure the blind with some mud. It's impossible to rise into heaven. I am under the impression that these are metaphors and can be useful as such. But people like you believe in them to be literal truths, which is ridiculous. And just because you believe in some writings that were written hundreds of years ago doesn't mean that your warped sense of truth IS truth. There may have been a man named Jesus alive two thousands years ago. But dying on the cross is nothing special, it happened to many people. Even Peter was crucified upside down. The only thing that makes Jesus remarkable in any way is his supposed miracles, which would only be believable to a person if it was ingrained in them since they were young and one a week for their entire lives.
|
On January 13 2010 06:30 ghostWriter wrote:
I never said we knew everything. But at least scientists are in laboratories working hard to find out the answers to all these questions. You saying that God did it explains nothing and drinking some wine and eating some bread in some ridiculous pseudo-cannibalistic tradition helps solve nothing. The only reason why you have thought processes now is because you have chemicals moving around in your head. God is irrelevant.
Good - if you admit that we don't know everything (which is absolutely true), then I'm not sure why you have such a problem accepting that there could be other explanations for things than those that we have right now. You seem stuck on needing tangible experimental results to explain every single phenomenon; otherwise it "isn't true." Again, "chemicals moving around in your head" is redundant and irrelevant - I could say the same thing about YOU, that you're just a "bunch of chemicals" (because you are at the microscopic level) and therefore YOU are irrelevant and lack any special identity other than just a bunch of atoms and molecule interacting with their electron clouds. Thus you can't say that your thoughts and thought processes are "just a bunch of chemicals" because they really COULD be thoughts send by God or Satan or demons or whatever - so what if they're a bunch of chemicals; they could still be ordered and orchestrated by forces that we have not yet discovered, nor comprehend. You just said we don't know everything, so you can EVER refute that possibility. Sorry.
On January 13 2010 06:30 ghostWriter wrote:
Why even have the old testament at all then? Why not just have the new testament? Christians love to cherry-pick the passages that they agree with and discard the ones they don't like.
Luke 14:33 (King James Version)
33 So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.
Looking at how you still have a computer and an internet connection, it seems that you are disobeying Jesus' commands from THE NEW TESTAMENT! It's pretty straightforward, I wonder how you will explain this one.
It's easy to explain things to people who quote out of context; don't worry. I'm not sure why you question "why even have the old testament then"; I never said we should discard it or ignore it, I just mentioned that the New Testament provides a "new" set of mindsets for followers of Christ to follow. The Old Testament is EXTREMELY important because it provides a detailed history of the children of Israel and how God led them out of Egypt and through the deserts to their eventual destination. It also shows how merciful and long-suffering God was (and is), and how eventually he even had to punish the Israelites for their stubborn unbelief and transgression. Finally the Old Testament provides the PROPHECIES that PREDICTED that Christ would come IN THE EXACT way that he did come. Thus the Old and New Testaments were put together for a REASON; they fit together perfectly.
The logic you use with Luke 14:33 is completely arbitrary and based on your own arbitrary standards; you assume that Jesus meant "all" in a literal, physical sense. If this was true, then Jesus and his disciples would have been walking around with literally NOTHING: no clothes, no food, no hair, no money, no shoes, etc. etc. etc. Yet, they weren't. They still ate food, carried money, wore clothes, caught fish, bought bread, and many other similar things. You're taking the phrase "all" out of context because Jesus was not using your physical, literal sense of the word "all" when he said this. By "forsaking all", Jesus meant leaving behind ALL those things in your life that hold you back from God: mainly, things that cause you to sin and to fall further from God's grace. "All" in this sense means ALL of those things that would hinder you in such a fashion. Another way of looking at it is you have to make following Christ your top priority; i.e. nothing should stand between you and your relationship with Christ, meaning you "forsake all" in favor of Jesus' teachings and following them.
Come on, man, just looking at the context and situation of that passage should have told you right away that what you were thinking was wrong. Don't just blindly read something and then spew it back out without thinking about the context first.
On January 13 2010 06:30 ghostWriter wrote:
Everything we don't know yet isn't untrue, it is merely unknown. But the miracles are impossible in the literal sense, so they are necessarily untrue. There's a huge difference. It's impossible to call out to a dead person that's been rotting and have them walk out of a cave alive. It's impossible to cure the blind with some mud. It's impossible to rise into heaven. I am under the impression that these are metaphors and can be useful as such. But people like you believe in them to be literal truths, which is ridiculous. And just because you believe in some writings that were written hundreds of years ago doesn't mean that your warped sense of truth IS truth. There may have been a man named Jesus alive two thousands years ago. But dying on the cross is nothing special, it happened to many people. Even Peter was crucified upside down. The only thing that makes Jesus remarkable in any way is his supposed miracles, which would only be believable to a person if it was ingrained in them since they were young and one a week for their entire lives.
There you go again, using "the literal sense." You're so stuck on that it's funny. So, because we've NEVER SEEN someone get raised from the dead, because we've NEVER SEEN someone get cured of blindness, because we've NEVER SEEN someone rise to heaven, means it can't or didn't happen? I guess you think all the witnesses of the Bible were liars. I wonder if you think the witnesses of the Holocaust were liars too. Where do you get your logic? This is logic that even science would contradict - how many things in science have remained "undiscovered" or "impossible" for hundreds of years, and then BOOM, they're discovered, and all of a sudden they're "possible"? People used to think that the world was totally flat; people who thought it was round were looked at like crazies. Yet, the world turned out to be wrong, and "impossible" became "possible." What makes you so sure that the same thing won't happen with your "impossible miracles"? I find this particularly ironic because I know and have talked to people who have witnessed insane miracles during their lives that you would probably not believe if I told you because "they're impossible", right?
Please don't get so stuck on "literal" anymore - science contradicts you and my own experience tells me otherwise, as do the experiences of people I've talked to. You're too eager to bash on religion and it's making you say some things that, again, even science doesn't allow you to say.
|
Just because there could be other explanations doesn't mean that yours has any validity. I AM a bunch of chemicals and I AM irrelevant and I AM nothing but the interaction between atoms. What's so wrong with that? To say that you are something beyond is nothing but misplaced hubris. Newsflash: humans are a blip in the history of the Earth. We have been here for maybe a few million years and we will probably be gone soon. We're actually not that important.
And isn't it strange that with our modern technology, we can barely predict whether it will rain or not tomorrow and yet these random old men somehow got every prediction for the Messiah correct? The Messiah that the original believers, the Jews, completely reject as the son of God? The fact that Jesus' birth conforms so exactly to their predictions is an indication that the stories were fabricated. The premise behind them have been so ingrained in you that they don't even seem ridiculous anymore. Even in our modern times, we treat our pregnant women like they were fragile and try not to let them anywhere. It's not even moderately conceivable that someone would take their wife all the way to Bethlehem, just to give birth. And the reasoning behind the journey, that they had to go to the original town of their far, far ancestor, to take part in the census, makes absolutely no sense. Also the fact that three kings apparently followed a Star that happened to be right above Jesus' manger. Stars don't magically appear out of nowhere and they are hundreds, if not thousands and millions, of light years away, the thought that it could shine on his manger is laughably ridiculous (not to mention that the star would have had to been formed hundreds or thousands of years ago to shine for one night, since it takes that long for the light to get to earth). But oh yeah, everything is possible with God (sarcasm).
Nice interpretation. You're doing a good job of molding the scriptures to the way you think it ought to be, rather than the way it actually is. I don't give a shit what your supposed holy book says. I'm just pointing out the discrepancies that make it ludicrous for anyone to read it without a huge grain of salt. There's a difference between raising someone from the dead and experiencing the Holocaust. Raising someone from the dead by calling out to them is IMPOSSIBLE. There's a difference between scientific discoveries that haven't been found yet and scientific impossibilities. Where does "science contradict me?" Science is not an entity. It's a branch of knowledge. If you can name something that was shown to be impossible and then discovered to be possible, I'll admit that I was wrong, but all you do is post absolute statements and give no background whatsoever.
The people who believed that the world was flat thought so because it was ingrained in them, by the church, which persecuted galileo for saying that the earth was not at the center of the universe. This example only shows the danger and the threat posed by blind believe and feckless faith. The human mind is easily fooled and overawed. If so many people have seen insane miracles, you will surely be able to show me one example of a miracle that you could back up with evidence?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
