Since it is not possible to continue a rational discussion with a delusional person, I am finished talking to Giga and this is just posted to assist others in seeing through his postings' nonsense, in case any others are so easily fooled by junk science (not actually science) and other confusing misinformation:
You still don’t seem to understand our fallen human nature.
Just a silly story. There is no longer any respectable debate whether humans and all species have evolved. Nobody fell from anywhere. While not quite everything about evolution is fully known or understood yet, there is no debate that all the evidence supports evolution, and all that we see is rationally explained by evidence-filled evolution rather than invalid supernatural beliefs from a silly old story.
You seem to think that because there is evil in the world there can be no God.
Just another illogical non-statement. And no, I think there is no god because there is no evidence, and rational explanations have overwhelmed Bronze Age supernatural silliness a long time ago.
Similar illogical non-statements: Do people think that because there are no unicorns in the world that there is a god? Do people think that because there are motorcycles in the world that there can be no unicorns?
The bible explains this situation perfectly, but to accept that means also to accept the personal accountability that goes along with it, a tough ask for most of us.
No it doesn't. The situation is created in the silly story itself, then justifies itself in its own silly story.
Morals are common to all of todays religions because we are all made in God’s image, no matter what you believe, yes even Secular Humanists Iron.
Morals are morals, so religious beliefs are not morals. Morals are not common in all of today's religions. We are not made in anyone's image: See above about there being no more respectable debate regarding evolution of species. Review the definition of religion to see that non-belief in fairy tales does not constitute a religion.
We are descended from that first pair of humans so does it not make sense we would have the same nature?
No. This is just another silly story with no evidence that is contradicted by all the evidence we have. Clearly, the Bronze Age silly writers knew nothing about genetics. Study the evidence for evolution to understand why science is real but silly bible stories are not. Also, no, actual descendents of real people do not always have the same nature as their ancestors.
Even evolutionists acknowledge we are all descended from the same group of people in Africa, although the whole ‘out of Africa’ model was simply devised to avoid the intrinsic racism of the multi regional theory of human origins, despite there being no fossil evidence.
Study the evidence for evolution to understand why the above nonsense is meaningless. Go to any respectable natural history museum (or biology book) to see the fossil evidence of real evolution, and note that fossil evidence is just a miniscule part of the evidence that is barely even needed anymore in consideration of the mountains of evidence that have ended the debate over evolution, particularly the genetic evidence.
And while animals show signs of instinct, that is all it is, instinct, not some moral awareness that will someday evolve into a ‘human’ style moral code.
There is no debate that animals have instinct, thanks to evolution. Why would the instinct of a rabbit or bacteria or eel have anything to do with human morals? It doesn't.
Secular Humanism, like all religions, holds at it’s core unproven and unprovable pre suppositions.
Repeat: Humanism is not a religion. From Oxford dictionary, humanism: a rationalist outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters.
I know what the Oxford dictionary definition is and I acknowledge you don’t worship a god, although in reality you actually put mankind on this pedestal.
The presumption is that there is a god to worship. I do not believe in your silly story or imaginary friend, because there is no evidence of any god and no reason to hang out worshiping one. Silly stories do not constitute evidence even if they are written down. Anyone can write anything down. Real things have real evidence, even intangible things. Gods do not. No, I don't put mankind on the pedestal you put your imaginary friend on. There is no pedestal in reality.
You believe by faith that there is no God...
No, this is an illogical non-statement. I believe in things that have evidence. There is no evidence for god just as there is no evidence that an invisible unicorn is in my kitchen. It does not take faith to dismiss things without evidence. Instead, it takes evidence to support claims that are made. Believers in gods bear the burden of providing evidence for their beliefs, not the other way around. Most people do not believe there is an invisible unicorn in my kitchen, and that's without even looking, but if I claim to have one there, then I have to support that claim with evidence. It does not take faith to dismiss crazy superstitious nonsense.
...and matter and energy spontaneously formed by themselves out of nothing for no reason...
No, I didn't say that. I do not know where matter and energy came from, just as a long time ago, nobody knew where most things came from. Inventing a superstitious silly story does not accomplish anything. Scientific study does.
...where I believe there is a God, He has revealed himself to us in the bible and He created the entire universe ex nihilo specifically to have relationship with us.
Believing in something does not make it true. Reading a silly story does not make it true. Having a relationship with an imaginary friend does not make the imaginary friend real. Evidence proves things true.
Can either of us prove our positions, no but I’m sure we both believe them none the less, this, my friend is faith.
No, faith-based beliefs in silly stories and imaginary friends is faith. Having faith in real things, like a friend or refrigerator light is different, and evidence can be collected to support faith in real things. Evidence-based understanding of the things around us is science. And yes, I can prove my positions, because I believe in things that are supported by evidence, not silly stories and imaginary friends.
So what exactly is your ‘real’ universe Iron? You don’t understand worldview do you? You obviously consider the Secular Humanist explanation for our existence as the ‘default’ fact where I accept the biblical version. There can be little hope of reconciliation when ones worldview clashes.
Evidence-based reality is all around us. I accept evidence-based, rational explanations for reality, not supernatural silly stories like the bible or any of the other thousands of similar books and stories that people are randomly born into.
The New Testament is the most reliable, in terms of knowing what was originally written, set of writings known from the ancient world.
Bogus assumption with no evidence. The NT is so flawed, contradictory and wrong, and has been rewritten, edited, changed, manipulated, translated and varied so many times that there is no point even referring to it. Plus, it is just a collection of silly stories. Writing something down does not make it true.
There is more manuscript evidence from far closer to the events they describe than absolutely anything else.
Written silly stories do not constitute evidence, they simply constitute written silly stories, of which there are countless examples. Perhaps now is a good time to look up the definition of evidence. See above about all the contradictions and errors in the NT, and google them yourself.
The ‘pagan myth’ theory to which you allude is so discredited by real historians, frankly it’s not even worth wasting my time rebutting it.
Bogus distraction. I did not refer to any pagan myth theory.
Logically the whole resurrection story stands up to scrutiny as well, consider the following:
Use of the word "logically" when discussing supernatural silly nonsense like resurrection is simply crazy.
- If Jesus was really dead, why didn’t the Romans or the Jews just produce the body? Both had huge interests in stopping a new religion in it’s tracks which a dead Jesus would have certainly done.
References to silly stories that are contradicted within their own collection of stories doesn't impress intelligent people. Who cares if Jesus was dead or not? It's just a silly story about some guy. The little cult of Christianity didn't really get going until the 4th century anyways, due to Constantine.
The disciples stole the body I hear you scream, well consider the inconvenient fact of the professional Roman guard, placed at the tomb specifically to prevent this occurring. Or are you suggesting that hardened Roman soldiers were unable to stop a bunch of fishermen and tax collectors?
Nope, I am not impressed by silly stories from a long time ago about dead people vanishing from a cave. Roman soldiers, fishermen, tax collectors? Seriously...will people believe anything just cause it is written down?
Many of the NT letters written by the apostle Paul were written within one lifetime of Jesus Himself, so if any falsehoods were preached they would have been corrected by those who were there to see it.
It's better to go spend a few days reading about the real history of the NT. Then, let's just put all the silly old stories to bed and rejoin reality.
I’m sorry to say Iron but the facts of science to which you elude are not on your side either. I know the current paradigm in modern science is completely controlled by the philosophy of naturalism, so it’s understandable that you think they are but just have a think about the following:
Elude? I am not alluding to the facts of science, I am referring to them as evidence in the real world, whereas others prefer to ignore science and stick with silly supernatural stories because they are written down. Repeat: Evidence-based understanding of the things around us is science. Faith-based belief in supernatural silliness, while ignoring the facts of science, is delusional.
Where did matter and energy come from for the ‘big bang’ to occur?
I don't know. But I am not inventing a silly story or imaginary friend to falsely explain it. Just as we now know the sun and moon and earthquakes and fire are not gods, and have all been explained by evidence-based investigations and conclusions, this question will probably be answered one day. In the meantime, please educate yourselves about the most up to date understanding of the big bang theory, which is far removed from what most people think it is.
All our laws of physics show that the universe and time itself had a beginning, so logically if something begins in time, there must be a creator.
Bogus, illogical, distracting conclusion. First, I doubt you know all the laws of physics or the most recent understanding and theories of time and space, matter and energy. Regardless, your assumption about creation is invalid, and flows from faith-based supernatural beliefs rather than evidence. However, if the presumption is that all things require a creator, then who created the creator? And so on...Obviously, this is an infinite non-explanation for which there is no logical conclusion or rational explanation, which is why there is no evidence of a creator.
How did the first life form? Real chemistry shows non living chemicals do not come together to form living ones all by themselves. We as fairly intelligent humans can’t even get this to happen artificially.
We don't know yet for sure. Still, you are misinformed about real chemistry. First, please note that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, only what happens to living things over time, after they began to exist. Evidence-based scientists have shown that ribonucleotides can be formed in a laboratory as well as spontaneously in the environment as we understood it to be a long time ago. This is the basis of self-replicating RNA, which makes up the simplest of living things filling the gap between pre-biotic chemicals and DNA. Lots of stuff to google, but remember to avoid "junk science" sites, which are not peer-reviewed, evidence-based, unbiased real science which is always in search of the truth.
Whilst the new science of information is only just taking off, and we really don’t understand how little we know, where did all the information in DNA come from when mutations and natural selection only ever decrease it?
First, the point is that scientists do not invent silly supernatural stories and imaginary friends to explain things. Scientists use observation and experimentation to draw evidence-based conclusions. The answer to the question is that DNA evolved, mistakes during replication occur (mutation), and natural selection fuels evolution, although other things affect it as well (artificial selection, environmental catastrophes, etc.) This is what is proven by the evidence, without any reliance on silly supernatural stories or imaginary friends.
Could you please explain why zircon crystals have been found to contain helium, which should leach out in only thousands of years but is still present after millions? Or perhaps why original, as indicated by a recently published paper, dinosaur soft tissue is still in fossils supposedly millions of years old when observable science shows it decays in thousands? Or why there are no stage three super nova remnants when if the universe were millions of years old there should be thousands? I could go on but I think you get the point.
No. Invalid creationists' junk science quotes are not relevant in rational, evidence-based discussions about real science.
With respect Iron we are both ‘religious’ in that we hold our beliefs by faith...
No, I am not religious. Refer above if a refresher is needed to understand why non-belief in imaginary friends is not a religion and it does not require supernatural faith to trust in evidence-based science.
...but I would say that to believe in no god at all, based on history and real observable science, is to hold a faith that can only be described as blind.
No. Blind faith is what supernatural silly story believers have. Evidence-based trust in facts, rational thinking, science and reality are not a faith-based way of understanding our world.
Given the angry tone of your posts I suspect deep down you know this to be true.
If my tone comes across as angry, good: I am truly offended that our societies, governments, parents and schools so stupidly continue to propagate silly supernatural stories, crazy religions and imaginary gods instead of embracing the wonders of modern knowledge, science and comprehension of our amazing, natural, awesome Universe with rational, evidence-based thinking.
...what I am saying is that morality is pointless without a higher law maker...
Just because you say it does not make it true, specially since it is not true. Morality has evolved for obviously rational reasons.
It has nothing to do with it being ‘weak’ Sqwak, the point is that it is there at all for without God it stands on absolutely no logical basis.
Repeating nonsense does not make it true. Morals have a logical (and rational) reason to have evolved, with or without faith in supernatural imaginary friends.
You do correctly point out though that this fact is strong evidence for the existence of God.
There is absolutely not one bit of evidence (real evidence, not silly stories and beliefs and preferences) for the existence of any god, only invalid and illogical arguments that ignore reason, rational thinking and evidence-based real science.
Whilst I agree none of the atrocities by Stalin et al were done specifically in the name of atheism, atheism was the ruling philosophy and their actions were completely consistent with it.
Bogus non-statement. The ruling philosophies of Stalin et al was craziness, greed, power, disrespect, stupidity, etc...not atheism. Stalin and Hitler has mustaches, so was all they did in the name of mustaches? Invasion, genocide, murder, etc., are not consistent with atheism, as atheism is simply non-belief in any god, as opposed to theism, the belief in a god or gods.
Non-belief in silly supernatural stories and imaginary friends is consistent with atheism.
Think about it, if we are nothing more than a cosmic accident, evolved pond scum as some would say, then why should there be any value at all for human life?
Who said there is value? It just is. Gravity just is. The speed of light just is. Life just is. Evolution just is. If arrogant self-importance makes someone feel better and special, that does not mean their supernatural stories and imaginary friends are real.
As I have said to Iron Skillet, we are all religious in that we hold some beliefs by faith, weather that is the God of the bible, Allah or random chance.
Yes, that was said. But no, it is not true. Incidentally, "God of the Bible" and "Allah" are the same imaginary friend, just in different silly stories in different books in different languages and cultures. How's that working out lately?
And I agree all religions can’t all be right but it does not logically follow that they must all therefore be wrong.
Yes, it does logically follow that at least all of them must be wrong except possibly one. Except there is no evidence for any of them. How arrogant for someone to believe that whatever religion was installed in their brains by their parents/society/friends/TV show/whatever is correct and all the thousands of others are wrong, particularly foolish considering there is no evidence for any of these crazy beliefs.
God is eternal, only something that has a beginning in time needs a cause and since God created time along with the universe He is outside of it and not governed by it.
Saying invalid nonsense about imaginary friends does not make it true. It is convenient that believers think god can be eternal with no beginning, but matter, energy and time need god to create their beginning? Then again, uneducated, Bronze Age people thought all kinds of crazy things until science proved them wrong, with evidence.
Ultimately science has no hope of discovering how the universe was created as real science requires observation and experimentation in the present.
Invalid non-statement. Just as detectives can find the criminal long after the crime, using rational thinking, observation and collection of evidence, scientists can look back in time....specially when light from billions of years ago is just arriving at our eyes today from all across the Universe, not to mention all the non-visible radiation we can now detect, analyze and interpret using the scientific methods based on peer-reviewed evidence.
All we have in the present is this universe and no matter what we discover, be it quantum mechanics or string theory, they will always be part of this universe and as has already been stated nothing can be involved in the creation of itself.
More invalid non-statements. Common diversion tactic, though.
One last thing...As for Air Profit and his absurd yet very common, silly statement:
You had better hope you're right....
I'm as worried about being wrong about your religion/god/etc. as you are worried about being wrong about Zeus, Apollo, Thor, Aray, Kaskuh, Omoikane, Ikenga and the zillions of other imaginary friends people have invented, as well as Mazdakism, Shinto, Babism, Jainism, Inuit mythology, Islam, Shamanism and the zillions of other collections of silly supernatural stories. In other words, I am not worried at all, because they are all so obviously bogus.
If you still think this mass insanity of religions has nothing to do with the video, think again.
Apologies for any typing errors.
Have a nice day!