Evidence for God from Science

Kurieuo wrote:

Neha wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:Neha,

What I offered aren't big claims. They're just simple observations. And my basis for them? Your own comments in this thread demonstrating that you don't understand Scripture, including your poor attempt at contextual analysis of Jesus' attacks on the Pharisees (as if His comments to them were the only ones that serve as biblical examples of my point, regardless).

As for respect, it's rather clear you didn't come here seeking respect. You people seldom do. You come here with an obvious bias against Christianity, with little more than thinly veiled vitriol, and it soon shows itself. You are little more than preachers who are afraid to put your own beliefs on the table, content to toss bombs from the sidelines. So believe you me, I would never accuse you of seeking respect.

And my own effectiveness? I'll simply continue to laugh and recognize that such a comment further proves my points.

The thing is, you see arrogance and a holier-than-though attitude and rudeness and such things. That's fine. I'm not interested in changing your mind or leading you to think otherwise. You won't be here very long. My interest is far more in the community of people who actually have been and will continue posting here. I've been here ten years. Some have been here with me all that time. Some less. But I know them, and they know me. More than that, they know your act. They know the kind of person who feigns a open mindedness and Perci's weak agnosticism but who is really debating from a very firm set of anti-Christian presuppositions that they're either ignorant of (and thus, lack self-awareness) or are too afraid to put themselves out in the open. They also know genuine people when they see them--people who don't believe, but who are really interested in why we believe like we do. Those people are treated with exactly the respect they give us. But those of you who come into our house and don't grant us the courtesy of getting to know us and getting to know our beliefs, well you get exactly what you provide. You don't and won't see that, but people like Rick and FL and K and Byblos and Ryan (and others, I just mention them because they're regulars who recently posted in this thread), they all see it, and that is quite enough for me. Take it however you like, but that's the way we all see you. And we're right about you.

So feel free to continue lecturing me. It's a tired act, one we've all seen ten million times before. I'll simply leave you with that great conclusion from the great American philosopher, Will Hunting, who said: "See, the sad thing about a guy like you is, in 50 years you're gonna start doin' some thinkin' on your own and you're going to come up with the fact that there are two certainties in life: one, don't do that, and two, you dropped 150 grand on a ******* education you could have got for a dollar fifty in late charges at the public library! . . . At least I won't be unoriginal."

Have whatever last word you like.

----------------------------------

So was my post, simple observations - mister Jac, know all etc. You have made this into a piss-off contest. If I had been interested in insulting your faith, I'd have had done it already. But I think you are blinded by your anti-atheist agenda. So have fun. I didn't write this to have a last word, unlike you, I am not laughing. And talking about courtesy of getting to know people, you should take your own advice.

Hey K, I never got your reply on the other thread was I that boring?

Its strange you know. you guys can undertsand atheism, even better than me, but I can't understand theism? Double standard don't you think.

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

B. W. wrote:From one former atheist to another, FL, didn't you find difficult to admit that you did not know what the bible was about?

I understand Neha. She claims to understand the Bible, just as I claimed to understand it when I was an atheist. So many atheists come here and make the same claim...I never know whether to humor them or to call them on it.

The unspiritual self, just as it is by nature, can't receive the gifts of God's spirit. There's no capacity for them. They seem like so much silliness. (The Message, 1 Cor 2:14)

So, to answer your question, when I was saved, on that very day, my eyes were opened and I understood the Bible. I also understood that as an atheist, I knew nothing of God's word. I had read it many times but to me it was on the same level as the foolish texts of other religions. Why would an atheist read religious holy books? I just read a lot. I didn't own a TV and was a bookworm, reading through the Encyclopaedia Britannica just for fun. Back then, I also read Foreign Affairs, Scientific American and Conservative Digest just to name 3 among many. I recently picked up a copy of Foreign Affairs at a newsstand and thought, ''What a load of crap!'' Then, I leafed through Scientific American but couldn't understand anything apart from the advertisements. Both magazines seemed so pointless to me and I was sorry that I had spent so much of my time reading them in the past.

B. W. wrote:So I was wondering FL what was your experience during your own atheist sojourn...and how was it for you, to lose your atheism?

My experience was quite different from yours. I had no Near Death Experience; I never practiced a religion (like Neha) convincing myself that I was a Christian. I was a purebred atheist, the son of atheists and the father of an atheist.

How was it for me to lose my atheism? I've never thought of it because no one has ever asked me. By analogy, losing my atheism was like those foods that are both salty and sweet. I had been a womanizer, a theif and a liar. Sweet & Salty: to lose my atheism was to deprive me of my livelyhood...but I didn't mind. It was good. I felt a great calm. Peace...I felt at peace. I started liking people...not using them for my own purposes as had been my habit, but actually enjoying their company. I saw my wife and my life in a whole new light. I was amazed that God would choose a wretch like me to be in His kingdom.

There is no going back. The Scriptures are clear: God doesn't let go of those whom He has chosen. People who claim to have once been ''Christian'' are self deluded. Neha and those like her are probably tougher nuts to crack than purebred atheists ...but with God all things are possible.

FL

Yes, the same for me, FL, after becoming saved by God’s Grace, something changed in me too. The bible, I once thought I knew more about, though never reading it in its entirety, suddenly changed. No other way to say it other than it came alive. When I was an atheist, religion was all foolishness. I read the Greek philosophers English translations at an early age due to my own quest for knowing. This led to the enlightenment philosophers and then to modern and then onto the sciences and popular notions of evolution of that era taught as fact, which by the way the majority are now discredited.

Political ideology, I learned about by living ten miles south of Washington DC during the late 60’s and 70’s. My sister’s friends would talk political shop and the latest stuff – Saul Alinsky was big back then and the radical methods used to turn Americans against themselves so to lose the Vietnam War. I recall seeing John Kerry, lying to congress and tossing his medals away. Many of these self professed radicals that spoke on campuses and organized protest are now in congress. Amazing.

All that influenced me to become an atheist. I never saw how dumb I was thinking the stupid ways I did. I could never define the human personality self. Back then, I thought I did, but it bothered me because all folks are different. It is far easier to reduce life to mere chemical reactions according to environmental stimuli so as to justify the cheapening of life. Like you, I valued little for life and used people to gain advantages. Atheism lacked any moral compass other than my own and mine dictated me as crown dictator to use others as one uses a rag to clean windows. Atheism and the moral argument does not wash very well.

I lost my atheism in dramatic fashion and discovered that God had been all around me calling to me since I was born. The bible suddenly came alive. You are right and to quote you again…

…There is no going back. The Scriptures are clear: God doesn't let go of those whom He has chosen…

As for the folks who claim atheism, I actually see so much of how I used to be by their arguments and comments posted here that I actually feel sorry for them. The pride is incredible and the open minded closededness is astounding. We once lived that way.

Here you have Christians who are only offering God’s call to atheist, which only presents a choice to them to accept or reject, freely. Then turn around and see the militant atheist types suing Christians and demanding they cease proves one thing to me – God is fair that he offers a choice and atheist, though claiming tolerance are intolerant thieves set hell-bent to rob faith in God from the heart of man, replacing it with faith in their ideas alone.

I discover that people who claim to have once been ''Christian'' and turned atheist are either as Rich Deem mentions in his articles on the subject, that on some future date they’ll return after the wound is healed, or never have been saved to begin with. With that, we don’t know. Some just like to feel important and run with the hair dryer club.

Anyways, FL, good to hear from you on this matter and God bless!

No double standard for us...
-
-
-

I actually see so much of how I used to be by their arguments and comments posted here that I actually feel sorry for them. The pride is incredible and the open minded closededness is astounding. We once lived that way.

What pride are you talking about B.W, or what closed mindedness? Where have I posted something which says so?

Neha wrote:Its strange you know. you guys can undertsand atheism, even better than me, but I can't understand theism? Double standard don't you think.

I agree with you Neha, definitely a double standard. There seems to be a lot of finger pointing going on from both sides, our humanity is on display in all it's ugly glory.

I hope we all chill out a bit and reflect on the love of Christ.

I just finished watching a movie Chocolat, if you get the chance watch it, there are a lot of similarities between it and what is going on here.

We humans are good at making God in our own image and getting bogged down in legalistic thinking, I know I certainly do, guilty as charged.

Peace to you and all the others.

Nice to see you post Dan, without calling me blind, coward or dishonest, proud and closed minded...

Neha wrote:

I actually see so much of how I used to be by their arguments and comments posted here that I actually feel sorry for them. The pride is incredible and the open minded closededness is astounding. We once lived that way.

What pride are you talking about B.W, or what closed mindedness? Where have I posted something which says so?

Sometimes when we point fingers at people, we pick out the flaws we see in ourselves in the hope that we expose theirs too take the focus off of us. Something for us all to think about.

Neha wrote: Nice to see you post Dan, without calling me blind, coward or dishonest, proud and closed minded...

Good to see you too Neha, be patient with us, we are the worst of all sinners.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Neha wrote: Nice to see you post Dan, without calling me blind, coward or dishonest, proud and closed minded...

Good to see you too Neha, be patient with us, we are the worst of all sinners.

Nah! I think you guys have just been very frustrated with some atheists and are probably just painting everyone with the same brush. just my two cents.

Neha wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Neha wrote: Nice to see you post Dan, without calling me blind, coward or dishonest, proud and closed minded...

Good to see you too Neha, be patient with us, we are the worst of all sinners.

Nah! I think you guys have just been very frustrated with some atheists and are probably just painting everyone with the same brush. just my two cents.

Nail meet hammer, thank you for your patience and understanding.

It can be very hard gauging someone's motives on the net, but really that is no excuse, you have to give people a chance first, it seems as though we have forgotten that as we fly into "battle" to save another soul.

But we are all learning, slowly but learning.

Once you get to know us and we you things will be much more smoother.

Neha wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Neha wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:Neha,

What I offered aren't big claims. They're just simple observations. And my basis for them? Your own comments in this thread demonstrating that you don't understand Scripture, including your poor attempt at contextual analysis of Jesus' attacks on the Pharisees (as if His comments to them were the only ones that serve as biblical examples of my point, regardless).

As for respect, it's rather clear you didn't come here seeking respect. You people seldom do. You come here with an obvious bias against Christianity, with little more than thinly veiled vitriol, and it soon shows itself. You are little more than preachers who are afraid to put your own beliefs on the table, content to toss bombs from the sidelines. So believe you me, I would never accuse you of seeking respect.

And my own effectiveness? I'll simply continue to laugh and recognize that such a comment further proves my points.

The thing is, you see arrogance and a holier-than-though attitude and rudeness and such things. That's fine. I'm not interested in changing your mind or leading you to think otherwise. You won't be here very long. My interest is far more in the community of people who actually have been and will continue posting here. I've been here ten years. Some have been here with me all that time. Some less. But I know them, and they know me. More than that, they know your act. They know the kind of person who feigns a open mindedness and Perci's weak agnosticism but who is really debating from a very firm set of anti-Christian presuppositions that they're either ignorant of (and thus, lack self-awareness) or are too afraid to put themselves out in the open. They also know genuine people when they see them--people who don't believe, but who are really interested in why we believe like we do. Those people are treated with exactly the respect they give us. But those of you who come into our house and don't grant us the courtesy of getting to know us and getting to know our beliefs, well you get exactly what you provide. You don't and won't see that, but people like Rick and FL and K and Byblos and Ryan (and others, I just mention them because they're regulars who recently posted in this thread), they all see it, and that is quite enough for me. Take it however you like, but that's the way we all see you. And we're right about you.

So feel free to continue lecturing me. It's a tired act, one we've all seen ten million times before. I'll simply leave you with that great conclusion from the great American philosopher, Will Hunting, who said: "See, the sad thing about a guy like you is, in 50 years you're gonna start doin' some thinkin' on your own and you're going to come up with the fact that there are two certainties in life: one, don't do that, and two, you dropped 150 grand on a ******* education you could have got for a dollar fifty in late charges at the public library! . . . At least I won't be unoriginal."

Have whatever last word you like.

----------------------------------

So was my post, simple observations - mister Jac, know all etc. You have made this into a piss-off contest. If I had been interested in insulting your faith, I'd have had done it already. But I think you are blinded by your anti-atheist agenda. So have fun. I didn't write this to have a last word, unlike you, I am not laughing. And talking about courtesy of getting to know people, you should take your own advice.

Hey K, I never got your reply on the other thread was I that boring?

Well... really, I was waiting to let you have your say.

You were going to follow up to respond to the rest of my post I believe.

After all, I don't really want to have a one-side discussion with myself, but am interested to listen to what others have to say too.

PS. With the utmost respect desired, it seems a lot of decent people here are being rubbed the wrong way by you. Some may not sugar coat their words, but I'd think it wrong to dismiss them out of hand because they appear to you as having some emotional hang up against atheists. I sincerely doubt that is entirely true. Disagreement certainly... but so? If I've learnt something in my own life, when everyone seems against me or to not understand me... then there's really only one thing I left to conclude: I'm surrounding by imbeciles. *jokes*

Being rubbed the wrong way?...K as far as I can honestly say, all I did was to all Jac out on his choice of words. I am more than glad to say sorry if I mistreated someone. although I don't remember doing such please let me know. If it has happened its unintentional and you have my apologies guys, all of you.

Kurieuo wrote:

Neha wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Neha wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:Neha,

What I offered aren't big claims. They're just simple observations. And my basis for them? Your own comments in this thread demonstrating that you don't understand Scripture, including your poor attempt at contextual analysis of Jesus' attacks on the Pharisees (as if His comments to them were the only ones that serve as biblical examples of my point, regardless).

As for respect, it's rather clear you didn't come here seeking respect. You people seldom do. You come here with an obvious bias against Christianity, with little more than thinly veiled vitriol, and it soon shows itself. You are little more than preachers who are afraid to put your own beliefs on the table, content to toss bombs from the sidelines. So believe you me, I would never accuse you of seeking respect.

And my own effectiveness? I'll simply continue to laugh and recognize that such a comment further proves my points.

The thing is, you see arrogance and a holier-than-though attitude and rudeness and such things. That's fine. I'm not interested in changing your mind or leading you to think otherwise. You won't be here very long. My interest is far more in the community of people who actually have been and will continue posting here. I've been here ten years. Some have been here with me all that time. Some less. But I know them, and they know me. More than that, they know your act. They know the kind of person who feigns a open mindedness and Perci's weak agnosticism but who is really debating from a very firm set of anti-Christian presuppositions that they're either ignorant of (and thus, lack self-awareness) or are too afraid to put themselves out in the open. They also know genuine people when they see them--people who don't believe, but who are really interested in why we believe like we do. Those people are treated with exactly the respect they give us. But those of you who come into our house and don't grant us the courtesy of getting to know us and getting to know our beliefs, well you get exactly what you provide. You don't and won't see that, but people like Rick and FL and K and Byblos and Ryan (and others, I just mention them because they're regulars who recently posted in this thread), they all see it, and that is quite enough for me. Take it however you like, but that's the way we all see you. And we're right about you.

So feel free to continue lecturing me. It's a tired act, one we've all seen ten million times before. I'll simply leave you with that great conclusion from the great American philosopher, Will Hunting, who said: "See, the sad thing about a guy like you is, in 50 years you're gonna start doin' some thinkin' on your own and you're going to come up with the fact that there are two certainties in life: one, don't do that, and two, you dropped 150 grand on a ******* education you could have got for a dollar fifty in late charges at the public library! . . . At least I won't be unoriginal."

Have whatever last word you like.

----------------------------------

So was my post, simple observations - mister Jac, know all etc. You have made this into a piss-off contest. If I had been interested in insulting your faith, I'd have had done it already. But I think you are blinded by your anti-atheist agenda. So have fun. I didn't write this to have a last word, unlike you, I am not laughing. And talking about courtesy of getting to know people, you should take your own advice.

Hey K, I never got your reply on the other thread was I that boring?

Well... really, I was waiting to let you have your say.

You were going to follow up to respond to the rest of my post I believe.

After all, I don't really want to have a one-side discussion with myself, but am interested to listen to what others have to say too.

I will write the rest then, though I was hoping you'd respond to my initial post,at least get clear on where each of us are coming from and how do we see it. But if you want me to post then I'll post. No worries.

Kurieuo wrote:A visually blind person if/when they deny the existence of visually seeing things is speaking from a lack of experience. Likewise, the spiritually blind person if/when they deny the existence of something spiritual is speaking from a lack of experience. Only one group of people are speaking from a position with a higher viewpoint and it ain't the blinded person/s.

Consider further. If everyone were born without sight, and someone claimed to have visually seen what you look like, there is no way he/she could prove to you what they saw beyond trying to describe the experience in non-visual terms that convey his/her phenomenal experience of visual qualia. He/she might point out things about reality that support the substance of such experiences. But, there is absolutely nothing he/she could do to convince you or others of their experience.

As I mentioned upthread, there are some relatively easy means by which a blind person could assess whether a seeing person actually possessed the phenomenon of vision. There's possibly no way for a blind person to truly understand what it is like to see - just as a seeing person cannot truly understand what it is like to see x-rays or to hear ultrasound - but someone with vision could demonstrate to a blind person that they can in fact see.

Kurieuo wrote:There are only two options: either the people who spiritually see are deluded or believe an illusion, or those who haven't had such a spiritual experience suffer some spiritual impairment such that they remain blinded both experientially and perceptually.

Finally, I'd like to pose this question. Who should be trusted more -- the group of people who argues from shared similar experience of vision, or the side argues from what they have not experienced?

There are a few more options to add to that, not least because - as you noted earlier - people from mutually incompatible faiths profess spiritual experiences, and because there are a whole range of other, non-religious spiritual phenomena which people claimed to have experienced directly.

It's possible that every type of reported phenomenon is in fact genuine, and that people from invalid faiths are wrongly attributing a genuine experience. It's possible that every type of reported phenomenon is a product of, for want of a better, less culturally loaded word, delusion. It's also possible that some reports are genuine, and others are delusions.

Assuming that some phenomena are genuine, then there is at least the possibility that seers of a particular phenomenon can demonstrate that it exists to non-seers, even though they cannot directly experience the phenomenon for themselves. If a seer is unable to provide that sort of evidence, then it doesn't logically follow that the phenomenon therefore definitely does not exist, only that the seer has been unable to demonstrate it.

All of which leads to the question of who should be trusted more. There is a possible scenario where there is a group, A, who have had definitive, direct personal experiences but who are unable to demonstrate such to outside observers and another group, B, who have not had personal experience. Group A could say "this phenomenon definitely exists", and group B could say "there's no objective evidence for that" - these statements are not incompatible, and are in fact honest positions for each group to take. It's hard to say whether A should be trusted over B, B over A, or whether A and B should be trusted equally, but both A and B should be trusted over C ("that personal experience of yours is definitely not genuine") or group D ("you're definitely just being obtuse in saying that there isn't objective evidence for our collective experiences - you don't really believe that").

Neha wrote:

I actually see so much of how I used to be by their arguments and comments posted here that I actually feel sorry for them. The pride is incredible and the open minded closededness is astounding. We once lived that way.

What pride are you talking about B.W, or what closed mindedness? Where have I posted something which says so?

In almost all you write - its tone is there. Please don't take offense as none is intended. I was once as blind as you on this very matter.

Tell, if all is mere happenstance and human life is reduced to mere chemical reactions invigorated by environmental factors alone - would not that cheapen life?

What would that kind of philosophy seek to justify?
-
-
-