HOME | DD
joycefungx — One Hundred Quotes - Day 80
Published: 2013-04-28 15:31:01 +0000 UTC; Views: 10938; Favourites: 936; Downloads: 2051
Redirect to original
Description
Quote by Neale Donald Walsch.Part of my One Hundred Quotes project - please read my journal [link]
Quick link to the rest of my entries [link]
Maybe slightly provocative, please don't - eh, do anything rash
I hope this puts a smile on your face, thank you for stopping by
Have a nice day
Joyce
- For Italian translations, please check out the wonderful arianna96's gallery [link]
- Admittedly, each quote has its limitations, and quotes tend to be too dogmatic at times. No malicious / nonsensical comments please!
- I read all comments and usually will reply to all, but it may take a little bit of time as I'm having pretty much on my plate now... I'll be freed in around one week
- Keep smiling and enjoy!
Related content
Comments: 122
The bible is as bad evidence as it gets.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Do you like youtube? I love youtube. This video is probably one of the best explanations of the WHY of the biblical faith I've ever found, and shows how if you start apart from God, nothing CAN make sense. Can you spare an hour of your life to truly understand what it is people Christians believe and why? I know it's long, but a topic like this takes at least an hour to explain.
[link]
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
logically consistent with all reality [...] unlike atheism and evolutionI'm sorry. It's one thing to believe in a deity. It's another to believe in one that cares for you. It's yet another to create a religion out of it. And another one altogether to deny science because of it.
Besides, it is very telling that the channel is coined "Slaves4Christ2".
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Why is it hard to believe in a deity that cares for you? How can you be absolutely sure this is not the case? What if the Bible is true? Are you even open to such an idea?
I also believe in science, just not evolutionary theory, this is not experimental science, but historical science, which is open to interpretation. If you go to creation.com, you can type in ANY topic regarding the flaws of uniformitarianism, darwinian evolution, ect.
The Bible says that man hates God because his deeds are evil. I am very humbled to know that God sacrificed His Son for us on the cross so that we can be made right before Him. I'm a sinner, your a sinner, we all are, the point of all this (for me) is to let you know about it, so that you too might believe, by the grace of God.
God initially created a perfect world, yet because we sinned, we are separated from God. Death is the penalty for sin, yes we can escape 2nd death (hell) by being right with Him through Jesus sacrifice... that is why he died in the 1st place, yet He rose again, so that we might believe.
I don't think the channel name has any relevance. If the name bothers you that much, he obtained the video from creation ministries international (creation.com) they have MANY videos to browse. CMI employs many PHD scientists, and has worked to strengthen my faith greatly. I urge you to at least look into it. The last thing I want to do is come off as condescending, and I want you to know I'm truly humbled to even have the opportunity to share this with you.
Like I said, by the grace of God go I.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Are you not open to the idea that Santa exists? Of course there is always this minuscule possibility, but I would regard it as an absurdity for all practical purposes. That is about as open as I am regarding Christianity. Even though this is not what you want to hear, I am sure you feel vindicated that I am as close-minded. It is just that I would think of you as close-minded if I were to spread the gospel of Santa, and yet that does not mean a thing as far as truth is concerned. That is what Occam's Razor is good for.
Not much to say concerning the anti-evolutionary paragraph other than that if you go so far as to claim evolution is historical science there will probably not be many people who can persuade you even with the best evidence.
Similarly for the two biblical paragraphs. Biblical proofs are putting the cart before the horse as they only work when you already are a Christian.
I just found it strange how anyone would want to be a slave of anything other than their own morals. Never would I sell my soul for some stories ancient desert nomads came up with.
I do feel bad for being as condescending when you try your best not to be. Maybe I could tolerate religion if history would not have proven a thousand times how misleading and destructive it is. Oh, and I did watch the video a dozen minutes or so, but it did not seem like they would come up with anything world-shaking.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Interesting you bring up Occam's Razor...
Since talking to you I've been researching a lot, and this is what I came across this AM...
[link]
Regardless, I think no matter how logical my argument could be, you would refuse to believe no matter what I said. I'm just the messenger giving you the warning, the Bible says :
"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse."
The evidence of God's existence is CLEARLY seen, just look around! If the Bible IS true, then there is no problem with cart/horse. The Bible itself claims to be the Word of God, a method of communication. From the article:
"Creation makes one assumption—that God is who He says He is in the Bible—because if this is so, then He must have done all that He said He did. This adequately answers all the problems of origins. Evolution has many assumptions and none of them provides an answer to anything.
According to Occam’s Razor creation wins!" Please read whole article.
Santa = (modern understanding) no evidence he existed/nobody believes he does except 6 and under
Jesus/Bible = mountains of evidence supporting their existence/validity, really comparing the two is grasping at straws.
The video (12minutes in) is just introducing the topics at hand, it gets into my argument/worldviews later on in 2nd half.
People claim to reject God’s existence because it is “not scientific” or “because there is no proof.” The true reason is that once they admit that there is a God, they also must realize that they are responsible to God and in need of forgiveness from Him (Romans 3:23, 6:23). If God exists, then we are accountable to Him for our actions.
If God does not exist, then we can do whatever we want without having to worry about God judging us. That is why many of those who deny the existence of God cling strongly to the theory of naturalistic evolution—it gives them an alternative to believing in a Creator God. God exists and ultimately everyone knows that He exists. The very fact that some attempt so aggressively to disprove His existence is in fact an argument for His existence.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Creation's argument is a demonstration of their poor knowledge of what Occam's Razor is about. Evolution does not assume anything as it is a conclusion of other scientific lessons, not to mention that it is as scientifically proven as can be. So unless they are claiming that science does not answer anything, which I sincerely hope they do not (as they should not be using this Turing complete technical device in such a case), there really is no way around evolution.
I see why theists say that science seemingly does not answer all too well how the universe came into existence, but then assuming a deist god (which is more closely related to atheism than theism anyway) would require less assumptions than a god not only creating the universe but also having had humanity in mind with a specific purpose.
Theism, on the other hand, just adds more assumptions, which Creation even points out. And just as I predicted they are putting the cart before the horse by assuming God exists (or more specifically that there is some proof or evidence for such, namely the bible, which just serves to kill two birds with one stone).
I would argue assuming the existence of a deity does not even solve any problems given the modern understanding of the universe. Religion does not tell us how to protect ourselves from floods and famines, how to construct schools and hospitals (or even churches for that matter), why the sky is blue, how to create and maintain internet platforms which can be used to deliver video content (even of theological nature), whether the earth revolves around the sun or vice versa and what causes apples to fall to the ground or onto physicists' heads. In other words, "science works, bitches", which just goes to show how weak a system is when it regularly opposes itself with science. The only true question, the one of meaning, remains unanswered, adequately at least, with either approach, as science is not a moral system and theism fools itself into believing its subjective moral system is justified by its subjective notion of a god.
The true reason is that once they admit that there is a God, they also must realize that they are responsible to God and in need of forgiveness from Him (Romans 3:23, 6:23).Assuming we are talking about the Christian God, of course.
Jesus/Bible = mountains of evidence supporting their existence/validity, really comparing the two is grasping at straws.What do you mean by evidence for their validity? How would you go about proving statements about a being which we cannot know anything about simply because it is by definition not part of our physical world that we can perceive? Of course, you will tell me that it is obvious, or that the bible itself is evidence, but with all of these approaches we find ourselves confronted with the cart and the horse again.
Santa = (modern understanding) no evidence he existed/nobody believes he does except 6 and underIf Santa does not exist, then we can do whatever we want without having to worry about receiving presents. That is why many of those who deny the existence of Santa cling strongly to the theory of parents making presents - it gives them an alternative to believing in a Santa doing so. Santa exists and ultimately everyone knows that he exists. The very fact that some attempt so aggressively to disprove his existence is in fact an argument for his existence.
What I am saying with this is that the reasoning behind that paragraph is no more valid just because you are talking about the master of the universe.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The articles I have linked you to all attempt to explain that science, our observations EVERYTHING are a result of God. It is a philosophical starting point, which requires faith. We are not denying this. We do feel it is an excellent argument for the explanation of everything, and a good basis for logic. To claim science is "at odds" with scripture is a misunderstanding. We interpret the findings of science through "Biblical glasses". Evolutionists interpret the same evidence through "uniformitarian glasses". Both are looking at the same evidence, just interpreting the data VERY differently.
If you would take scripture as authority, you would have no difficulty in believing what I am saying. You don't, why?? Secular or materialistic science is your authority. You accept its claims first as the primary axiom. Materialistic evolution has no place for a creator so no wonder it is at odds with the Bible. Both evolution and creation are belief systems about the past that you and I were not there to witness.
The website creation.com is a massive online database defending scripture, brings to light the massive flaws in evolution, and strengthens the faith of Christians. Browsing through the site, you will quickly find that evolution is NOT as "proven as can be".
I love science, as do most creationists. Interesting again that you brought up apples falling on physicists heads. Guess who discovered gravity. Isaac Newton... guess who believed in creation emphatically believed a creator. Isaac Newton. See, to study science does not require a belief in evolutionary theory. Just straightening that out. Here is an impressive list of current, and past creation scientists.[link]
Actually a belief in science hinders the progress of science in many cases, and has contributed virtually NOTHING to science in a way that helps human beings survive, again just saying.
Why not let God tell us what happened, instead of fallible opinions of man trying to tell God what He means. This is the position I take, and if I believe the Bible to be true, the inspired word of God, then it is logical to reach the conclusions I do. You however have no idea what really is true, because you have no framework in which you can be absolutely sure of anything.
""I would argue assuming the existence of a deity does not even solve any problems given the modern understanding of the universe. Religion does not tell us how to protect ourselves from floods and famines, how to construct schools and hospitals (or even churches for that matter)""
-- Christianity serves as an explanation as to WHY these bad things happen in the first place. We live in a fallen world, separated from God. I'm not understanding why your even bringing this up, I think it is because you think REASONING brings about schools/hospitals/churches. Yes thats true, the Bible explains that reason comes from God, the ability to think, to debate, to create, to explore, to gather knowledge and understanding... all of these things are human characteristics, and humans are made in the image of God, which is why we have these drives to do such things.
""What do you mean by evidence for their validity? How would you go about proving statements about a being which we cannot know anything about simply because it is by definition not part of our physical world that we can perceive?""
- science cannot PROVE God exists, and if I said that before I apologize and take it back, but what we can do is falsify evolution (quite easily actually). Then what are you left with...
About santa claus... just whatever, he's not real dude.
""science works bitches""
- agreed, but obviously you can explore science AND have a religious worldview. We actually have faith in untestable propositions every day of our lives. Rather than being based on lack of knowledge, our faith is usually based on very real experience. For instance, as you read this response, it is likely you will be sitting in a room which will be part of a larger building. Can you see the architect and the builder? Have you met them? How do you know they exist? You know the building had a designer and a builder because in your experience you observe that buildings do not make themselves. They all have a designer and builder. So, you believe by faith that the designer and builder exist, or have existed, because the building exists and your faith is based on knowledge. But the existence of the designer and builder is not scientifically testable! It would be irrational to assume there was no designer or builder just because you can’t observe them right now.
I don't know how much longer I can keep this going, it's been fun, I hope its been fun for you too, I know this sounds crazy to you, but I honestly hope to see you in the next life man, it's why I wrote all this stuff.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Secular or materialistic science is your authority. You accept its claims first as the primary axiom.I assume the world I see is real, which you do as well. And with that I get science. Religion is just the fifth wheel.
Both evolution and creation are belief systems about the past that you and I were not there to witness.You were not there to witness the holocaust either. There is evidence. This also applies to evolution.
Why not let God tell us what happened, instead of fallible opinions of man trying to tell God what He means.My point is that God is a fallible opinion of man. If you assume the opposite, Occam's Razor. And you cannot prove without cart and horse.
But the existence of the designer and builder is not scientifically testable!Yes, it is. Buildings do not pop out of the ground on their own. There is also evidence written on paper. All of which indicates a human designer and builder.
Whether the universe popped out of nothing on its own is up to you to decide, but definitely did humanity from puddles of mud and billions of years.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
OK well then our worldviews differ on whether or not evolution is real. Like I said, evolution is easily falsifiable, as is abiogenesis, and if you disagree, then go to the site and browse around topics like abiogenesis, natural selection, the geologic column, T-rex soft tissue/blood cells, radiometric dating, ect ect... all the common "evidence" for evolution. Many people do not get to see the censored information debunking the "science" behind evolutionary theory. Sadly, this info does not make discovery channel specials...
You say "definitely" happened, I strongly disagree with that.
Upon browsing your profile, it says you are an "anti-theist". Well if that's your starting assumption while examining evidence, then it's like talking to a brick wall.
Again, according to Occam’s Razor, the simplest explanation or the one with the fewest assumptions that explains the facts is to be preferred. Creation makes one assumption—that God is who He says He is in the Bible—because if this is so, then He must have done all that He said He did. This adequately answers all the problems of origins.
Contrast this with modern evolutionary theory, which relies on COUNTLESS assumptions that exist outside of science, and is more of a "faith" position than anything. Yes, I would say you have great faith in the story that humanity came from puddles of mud. This is simply faith masquerading as "science", in a vain attempt to remove God from the equation.
[link]
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You already linked to that article. But let's drop this; I doubt this is leading us anywhere given that both of us assume different things. Thank you for the discussion.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Well I'm very happy that you think thoroughly on philosophical subjects, that's how I started out as well. Even from my earliest days I had always been thinking. And I have also thought for a very long time that we live in a sterile world of mere action and reaction.
It's true that religion is as false as any other belief, however spirituality, seperated from religion, can lead to all answers you seek.
If you're truelly open I would suggest reading a book like for example: Neale Donald Walsch - Conversations with God: An Uncommon Dialogue
Now I know the word "God" itself might have a corrupted meaning to you. You might have associations that anyone who uses the word "God" is by default a delusional nutcase, but the word is used because there isn't really any other word that sums it up better.
I won't give you a whole wall of text about why things are the way they are, but once you have fully understood and experienced how things truelly are, you will find it is indeed the incontrovertible truth.
Some people call it enlightenment. So why is this reality not indeed more widespread, if there is one truth, why isn't there a global agreement about it? Because it is always a personal journey you have to take. Because we have absolute freedom about what we believe. If you thoroughly believe in something, than naturally it becomes your reality. People believe in the monetary, hierarchy system, so that is their reality.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
My god is thought then. I am not sure adding any spiritual entity in this matter helps to justify one's position.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You're absolutely right there. "God" - again merely because of lack of any better word for it - is thought. Or better: Awareness. The ability to perceive. And it doesn't have any shape, it isn't some kind of ghost we have that inhibits our bodies. All we have is this awareness. The reason why spirituality has such a negative feel to it is because there are so many stigmas about it. Whether you like it or not, from the moment you can think, you are spiritual, you will have philosophies, what they are revolved around is a different story, but we all have the same emotions and feelings.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
That's because I have a different association with the word to it. The reason why atheism and phanteism relate is because both are about filtering illusions until nothing is left.
I don't think awareness is good, right, or whatever. It's neutral. It doesn't have a moral system. If you truelly remove every illusion, and I mean every single one, than finally you see what is left. That's what people call enlightenment. It's not called enlightenment because you see light, it's because it's weightlessness, it's losing all burdens and fears. What's left is nothing except you. The real you, which is nothing, not the ego that you have come to associate yourself with. Not your morals.
When all this is gone, you don't judge anything.
Anyway, I could continue on this, but you've shown quite thoroughly you have a certain view on things to which you prefer to view. I don't want to impose anything, I can only tell my experiences, to which you can think anything you want.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
In which case calling it "God" is unpractical, to say the least. Doing so merely creates misunderstanding and is pointless given that it does not result in any implications the actual definition has. Just call it your moral system, because that is what it is. You think awareness is good/right/virtuous. Attaching God to that makes it look like instead of believing in awareness you actually believe in some deity that endorses awareness. Then again people cannot even decide whether pantheism is closely related to atheism or is its polar opposite.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
you get to decide what you do once you exist, but you don't get to decide that you will exist. nobody on this earth ever remembers saying 'oh yeah let's exist! let's be born!'. that's what MinZki meant when he/she said existence is random. you didn't choose to be born. you just were.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well here we get to a dilemma, to me the very fact you exist is a choice. What you do is what you are which in turn decides what you do. If you did not want to be born and be what you are, than there would be no means of existing. If we did not decide to be born, than we would also not decide what we do each day.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
i'm really not in the mood for the philosophical bullshit, i'm not going to get all deep into this - the fact is you don't choose to be born. you don't choose to pop out of your mother's vagina. your parents choose to have a kid and your mother chooses to give birth to you.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Better than the alternative, but the quote still stands.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
<= Prev |