And you thought ex-WCG folk could be strident? Check out these comments by ex-Catholic Bill Maher on Larry King Live.
Thursday, February 07, 2008
That's Religulous
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
If a family member was drawn to a COG sect, which one would concern you most
Over on Otagosh
FEEDJIT Live Traffic Feed
What Ron was saying BEFORE it all turned to manure
ex-COG Blogs & Sites
- Ambassador Reports (Stan Gardner)
- Bereans (on Weinland)
- Bill Ferguson's Ekklesia
- Dennis Diehl's articles
- Don't Drink the Flavor Aid
- Felix Taylor's blog
- Flying Free (John Morgan)
- Gary Scott's Critical Edition
- I Survived Armstrongism
- Ironwolf (Robert McNally)
- James' Thoughts & Musings
- John B's "The Painful Truth"
- K-Scribe
- Otagosh blog
- Review of "Showdown at Big Sandy"
- Shadows of WCG blog
- Third Witness
- WCG Hymns deconstructed!
- Weinland Watch
ApoloCOGetics
How Creationism Works
59 comments:
Also worth watching:
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/
Thomas Munson
He's the champion spokesman for the swelling rationalist wave . Looking forward to the movie at Easter - should be another black eye to Joe Tkach and other profiteering religious scum of the world.
A couple of thoughts after watching the video...
1) Suspenders, ala Larry King, never caught on in the WCG. Neither did bow ties. Give credit to the WCG for getting at least ONE thing correct!
2) When I was 17, I had a girlfriend who went to Catholic girls High School. She used to wear those Catholic Uniforms, plaid skirts and oxford shoes. She used to pin up her skirt, after school "mini skirt" style. Im no Catholic fan, but I do wish to this day that my wife would get one of those uniforms! So the Catholics also, indeed have at least one thing right too.
3) Gavin is funny and "off the wall". Yes, he is a kook, but at least he has one thing right too.
4) It took me to the 6th grade to learn how to spell my own last name. But, at least I got one thing (finally) right too.
Bill Lussenheide, Menifee, CA USA
Sixth grade? Fool. I learned how to spell my last name in third grade. Of course, my last name is composed of only three letters.
Paul
A person has to really, really, really want to believe in the Bible to believe it.
I mean, it's reliculous er, ridiculous to believe in talking snakes and angels with swords.
I suppose in bible days, a sword was the ultimate weapon but why would a supernatural spirit being want with one?
The bible can't even be reconciled with 5th grade earth science and if you think it can then it's just because you really, really, really want to believe it.
Bill Maher is your basic run of the mill confused person...it's no big deal.
He was raised Roman Catholic, so he doesn't have any idea of what True Christianity is, but he is able to see the contradictions in Roman Catholic teaching, even though he probably doesn't realize it...therefore he simply tosses out all religion.
I can agree with him on one point though....the idea of Mike Huckaby changing the US Constitution to fit the bible is scarey for sure, because he doesn't know what the bible says.....if he did he wouldn't be a Baptist.
Actually, I'd be wary of any man who tried to make the bible the law of the land, because no man has perfect knowledge and understanding of it.......I guess that's why it doesn't happen until Christ returns. He is the only one that is qualified.
Bill Maher was raised Irish Catholic, but his mother was Jewish -- something he didn't know until he was a teen.
brave anonymous poster said...
Bill Maher is your basic run of the mill confused person...it's no big deal.
He was raised Roman Catholic, so he doesn't have any idea of what True Christianity is...
Darn it! Now, if we only knew of someone who does know what True Christianity is.
Of course I'd be happy just knowing what a spirit being needs with a sword to stop Balaam with. Nevermind about the ventriloquism used to make his ass talk.
Then there is all that worrying about Balaam cursing Israel - as if some man had some kind of supernatural power to do such a thing.
Since all this was happening on the side line, so to speak, and Israel didn't even know it was going on, how is it that someone wrote it down? Were they spying on Balaam and overhear the conversations between Balaam and an angel?
Two and a half million people roam a small desert for 40 years and don't leave a trace even though every last one of that generation died out there. That's got to be an archeological miracle in itself.
*Sigh* If only I knew the answers . . . Oh wait, I do. It's all a load of BS.
Lefty Bill Mayer thinks this about the good old US of A:
"We have been the cowards lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it's not cowardly."
Mayer's "Religulous" is sure to offend everybody. Mayer filmed his laughumentary at the Vatican, Jerusalem's Wailing Wall, and Salt Lake City. He is himself a coward if he didn't include Mohammed at Mecca and Medina.
Corky:-
You seem to have a problem with spirit beings and swords!
If you are God, or an angel, you need to be aware of the times and places and technology of the people you are communicating with.
The example of Balaam – what would be the point of the angel appearing with, for example, an automatic rifle, or perhaps some other weapon that even we at this time would have no idea what it was. It’s not going to convey the message that God wanted to get over to Balaam if Balaam just thought the angel was carrying a metal walking stick!
The angel used something that Balaam would understand, a sword – and also this probably was a specific warning to him of what could happen to him. (He is recorded as dying by the sword).
As to the ass talking – a God that can create a universe, and sort out all the forms of life on this planet, plus offer salvation to human kind – how is it a problem to maybe use ‘ventriloquism’ to get a point across. No problem at all. Personally I like the idea that God is prepared to be inventive in how He deals with people over the ages.
But then of course I forgot - you feel the universe and all life somehow spontaneously generated itself from nothing. Believing that, is a talking donkey such a problem?
"But then of course I forgot - you feel the universe and all life somehow spontaneously generated itself from nothing."
As opposed to a magical being spontaneously generating everything from nothing? Do you realize how foolish it is to ridicule Corky's position when yours seems to be just the same, only with a dash of the supernatural?
Paul
Hello - I actually heard the playback of the Huckabee comment that Maher is referring to. If you listen to the entire context he is talking about not allowing Gay Marriage in US. Now the looney left has construed this comment to make it look like he wants to start a theocracy. Well, that's not true, but it won't stop anyone from twisting words.
Don't knock it Paul. Seems we must all be on a level footing.
Maher's comment about the cowardice of terrorists followed another controversial comment he made on Politically Incorrect earlier that year where he compared dogs to retarded children: "But I've often said that if I had — I have two dogs — if I had two retarded children, I'd be a hero. And yet the dogs, which are pretty much the same thing. What? They're sweet. They're loving. They're kind, but they don't mentally advance at all.... Dogs are like retarded children." This from a man who supports PETA.
On May 3, 2005, while appearing as a guest on Craig Ferguson's Late Late Show (CBS), Maher seemed to excuse Michael Jackson's alleged child molestation behavior. He spoke about the need for perspective when thinking about crimes and criminals. He implied that the alleged behavior wasn't so bad because it was only alleged that Michael Jackson "serviced" the children and not the other way around. After a response from Ferguson, Maher said that getting beaten up by schoolyard bullies was worse than "being gently masturbated by a pop star." Maher brought up the comparison without any prodding or provocation from Ferguson. Immediately after Maher's statement, Ferguson ended the interview.
Is that PC Religulous or what?
"Don't knock it Paul. Seems we must all be on a level footing."
You missed the point, didn't you? How can you knock Corky's position when your position is the same, only with supernatural element involved????
At least evolution can provide tangible evidence- whether or not that evidence proves evolution or if evolution is even true- while Creationism has absolutely no evidence to provide to support its point. None. Nada. All Creationism/ID has ever offered is criticism of evolution. Which is fine. But criticism of evolution is not proof for Creationism! Let me repeat this. Criticism of evolution is not evidence for Creationism! It is just evidence against evolution.
Of course, why should anyone be surprised? This confusing system of presenting "evidence" and using "logic" is rejected by Creationists/ID'ers when it comes to conclusing there there is a creator.
I think it is about time for Creationists to start defending their relgion-derived theory by presenting evidence.
Paul
No Paul, I did not miss the point at all – but maybe you did.
Not believing in a creator means believing in spontaneous generation in some form or another. Spontaneous generation of life, and also spontaneous generation of material itself.
Both these ideas contradict everything that science bases itself on. The whole of medicine relies on the fact that spontaneous generation will not occur. All physical science relies on the fact that matter, material, will not generate itself into existence.
Evolution and ‘big bang’ theory rely on saying that this did actually happen, but a ‘long time’ ago, so we cannot produce any evidence that it happened, but it must have happened because we are here.
Basically it is a religion in itself.
A belief in God, or an ‘outside force’, is actually a completely logical approach, and explains how the impossible became possible.
I in no way reject the finding of science, but science does limit itself by not allowing itself to consider the possibility of a God.
Except of course science is quite happy to use terms such as ‘dark matter’ and ‘dark energy’ to cover areas which they haven’t a clue about – but that’s another story.
Q, we could really get into something constructive, something fundmental, if you would please provide any evidence to support the theory that a diety spontaneously created everything from nothing.
Paul
"If you are God, or an angel, you need to be aware of the times and places and technology of the people you are communicating with.
The example of Balaam – what would be the point of the angel appearing with, for example, an automatic rifle, or perhaps some other weapon that even we at this time would have no idea what it was. It’s not going to convey the message that God wanted to get over to Balaam if Balaam just thought the angel was carrying a metal walking stick!"
From what I can discern, all modern Angelic hosts have since been equipt with tazers. So when they tell you, "sir, you need to move your ass..." You better do it!
:)
or maybe it's "Ass, you better move your sir.." Depends I guess if the Angel is talking to the sir or the ass.
Gavin,
When it comes to matters
orthographical, I observe you have been consulting the Bushopaedia and Thielosaurus,both definitive works.
Seamus
Hi Paul,
I said earlier ‘Seems we must all be on a level footing’. I think that was accurate.
I can provide an equal amount of tangible evidence that a deity created everything from nothing, as you can provide tangible evidence that spontaneous generation of matter occurred, and that spontaneous generation from non-life to life occurred.
Both the generation of matter, and the spontaneous occurrence of life, as I mentioned previously in this thread, goes against the basis of practical science.
A logical factor that can be added to overcome this I suggest, is a ‘dark energy’ factor.
The fact that my ‘dark energy’ factor is a deity is the only point that I depart from ‘scientific thinking’, for the simple reason that scientific thinking is barred from allowing this possibility. It is not permitted to be a true ‘free thinker’, and has to limit itself.
Like Sherlock Holmes was reputed to have said ‘When you have ruled out the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth’.
Of course, I do not rule out God as an impossibility. It seems you do, and there is our difference.
(Incidentally – Yes, I do know Sherlock Holmes was a work of fiction!).
I find it paradoxical that I like Maher so much and agree with him on many issues but am really very far away from his perspective.
I am a main stream Christian and I find his views on evangelicals to align with mine. I too feel that religious writings are a collection of fairy tales. Everything except the Judeo-Christian Bible.
I believe strongly in the separation of church and state. I find it droll when evangelicals talk about the USA being founded as a Christian nation and use that as a pretext for turning this nation into an evangelical nation. The evangelicals are a strange little American subset of Christianity.
Maher has a right to his views. Clearly, he does not believe in God. That is his decision and that is his privilege. Just as I believe in God and that is my privilege.
-- Neo
Questeruk said...
Hi Paul,
I said earlier ‘Seems we must all be on a level footing’. I think that was accurate.
I can provide an equal amount of tangible evidence that a deity created everything from nothing, as you can provide tangible evidence that spontaneous generation of matter occurred, and that spontaneous generation from non-life to life occurred.
Okay . . . lets hear an equal amount of tangible evidence that a diety created everything.
You can provide it, you said, so go ahead - do so at once! The entire scientific world is awaiting this evidence.
Maher comes across with a good one now and again. I prefer Dennis Miller, though. He's got a better demeanor about him.
BB
Neotherm said...
" I too feel that religious writings are a collection of fairy tales. Everything except the Judeo-Christian Bible."
The indigenous holy book of your culture just happens to be the right one ! You're a lucky guy !
Seamus
I'm just plain feeling challenged over you comment on orthography - you're going to have to explain it to me over a beer... though NOT at the Rangariri pub ;-)
Neo,
I totally agree with you on Bill Maher and his view on evangelicals. To be more accurate, Bill Maher said he's an "apatheist"---he doesn't care whether a god exists or not. Sounds like another fancy word for "agnostic" to me.
Corky said:-
“Okay . . . let’s hear an equal amount of tangible evidence that a deity created everything”.
Yes, that’s right – an equal amount of tangible evidence.
But so far Corky, you and Paul have not produced any evidence. To remind you, my extract you quoted said “tangible evidence that spontaneous generation of matter occurred, and that spontaneous generation from non-life to life occurred”.
As at the moment your tangible evidence for these two things amounts to a big zero – pretty easy to equal that – I already have.
I would be genuinely interested to see tangible evidence from either of you of these two factors.
Without this evidence the existence of the universe and life in it without a Creator is not a tangible concept. It becomes just something you and Paul believe because you really, really, really want to!
Bill Maher is just an example of the extreme fringe of the left. His ass shows just as clearly as say, Rush Limbaugh's. I cannot remember having heard anything from either of them that was not drowning in the dead weight of their own extreme philosophical perspective.
Objectivity really seems to be an elusive and rare quality in the human race.
"Of course, I do not rule out God as an impossibility. It seems you do, and there is our difference."
No, I don't. I don't rule out leprechauns, either. I am serious- yes, a diety ~could~ exist, just as a leprechaun ~could~ exist. It's just that we have zero proof for either. The difference between me and a believer is that I have chosen to base my view on the evidence, or lack of it, while the believer chooses to believe despite any evidence. I do find it funny that Christians laugh at the idea of Zeus or a leprechaun yet have no more evidence to support the existence of their particular diety.
Paul
"Without this evidence the existence of the universe and life in it without a Creator is not a tangible concept.'
Hold on a minute. If our theory lacks evidence, then it validates yours, which I might add, has no evidence?? Care to explain this sort of reasoning?
As I said before, science has explained and explained and pointed and diagrammed and talked and talked and talked. Now it is time for Creationists to present their evidence. Once again, criticism of evolution/big bang is not evidence to support Creationism.
Paul
>>>As I said before, science has explained and explained and pointed and diagrammed and talked and talked and talked. Now it is time for Creationists to present their evidence. Once again, criticism of evolution/big bang is not evidence to support Creationism.
Paul<<<
Criticism of any theory is not evidence.
One has only to look around them to see the evidence of an intelligent Creator.
And maybe your posts have just evolved with a big bang.
Anoneemoose
Questeruk said...
But so far Corky, you and Paul have not produced any evidence. To remind you, my extract you quoted said “tangible evidence that spontaneous generation of matter occurred, and that spontaneous generation from non-life to life occurred”.
As at the moment your tangible evidence for these two things amounts to a big zero – pretty easy to equal that – I already have.
Wrong. The "big bang" has already been proved, no matter how it happened or what existed before then. The expanding universe and the red shift are tangible evidences of it. It wasn't "created" (past tense) by a God, it is continuously changing. Stars are born, stars die etc.
Fact #1 is that matter exists and energy exists
Fact #2 is that they can be changed from one to the other.
Fact #3 is that it doesn't require a God to do it.
Life on just this planet at this present time is not the same as it once was. So, we have:
Fact #1 there is life on this planet.
Fact #2 life forms on this planet have changed over time.
Fact #3 life forms on this planet do have mutations.
Fact #4 life forms on this planet do change with the environmental changes.
Fact #5 God did not create cattle, as the Bible says, men created cattle.
Fact #6 God did not create the golden delicious apple, the Bartlett pear, the Stuart pecan, edible almonds, domesticated wheat, oats, rice, barley and corn - these and many other things are totally man made creations.
Fact #7 That man can change these life forms by domestication and selective breeding and grafting proves that life forms can and do evolve.
Fact #8 the building blocks of life, amino acids, are abundant in the universe and as far as we know life may be abundant also.
This is just a miniscule fraction of tangible evidence. However, if you want to see a cat change into a dog - you will have to consult with God or other Wizards.
"One has only to look around them to see the evidence of an intelligent Creator."
I look outside and see plantlife. If I was to be non-objective, I would say that this sight does not produce an immediate thought of evolution, or a creator. It's there, and it's existence does not provide a clue as to how it got there. The very existence of something is not evidence that a supernatural being spontanously created it- it's only evidence that it is there, that it is real and exists. To say that its existence is evidence for a particular theory (which has no evidence to support it, I might add) is simply a result of pre-conditioning. You read in the Bible/Koran or heard in Sunday/Sabbath/Tribal Council that a supernatural diety created everything spontaneously, and that is what leads you to your viewpoint. To say otherwise, as most Christians do, is misleading.
Paul
Anonymous said...
Criticism of any theory is not evidence.
One has only to look around them to see the evidence of an intelligent Creator.
And maybe your posts have just evolved with a big bang.
Yes. Do look around. Before even one word had been invented for any language, men had done most of the creating of the world that you see.
Vast wheat fields forced from the wild pararie grasses. Corn fields now exist where there was not any such thing as corn "in the beginning". Corn is a New World (the Americas) invention of man.
In the produce dept. of your local grocery store is vast amounts of food stuffs totally invented by man. The original "wild" produce was hardly edible until man changed it.
See those pastures full of Hereford cows? Do you think God created Hereford cows? Think again, men did that from wild buffalo and wildebeasts.
See all those different breeds of dogs, some really pretty, some big and some tiny? Would you believe they all came from wild wolves and dingos? They did. Yet another example of what men have done.
Yes, do look around. See those vast pararies full of weeds and inedible wild wheat, oats and barley that are totally useless? Well, give God credit for that.
Intelligent designer? Hardly. The intelligent designer invented useless wisdom teeth, appendix, tail bone etc? What about ticks, fleas, rats, mice, chiggers, venomous spiders, mosquitos, etc?
What about asteroids, cosmic rays, comets, raydon gas etc?
A song says, "god didn't make little green apples" but, yes that was the original. However, man made the golden delicious apple.
Corky, cease and desist. Let them do their own research if they are truly interested in the Big Quesitons. There are hundreds of published books, reams of journal articles, pages of internet resources, and audio and visual media galore explaining evolution and the origin of the universe. Anyone on this forum can get most of this on the internet, and at the local library. Science has spoken time and time again. I say it's high time that the Kreationists provide their evidence. By explaining yourself, the kreationists will do what they have been doing for years- in fact, its the only thing they can do- criticize your evidence while exempting themselves from presenting any themselves. It's simply a delaying tactic.
Paul
'Fact #2 is that they can be changed from one to the other.
Fact #3 is that it doesn't require a God to do it'
All change ever since the (possible) Big Bang is built into the original design spec.
Science has yet to demonstrate how matter (never mind life) came into existence from total nothingness.
"Science has yet to demonstrate how matter (never mind life) came into existence from total nothingness.'
Yet science offers what it considers to be some form of evidence (whether right or wrong). Would you care to provide some evidence to support your particular theory?
Paul
Corky said...
Re my request for “tangible evidence that spontaneous generation of matter occurred, and that spontaneous generation from non-life to life occurred”.
“The "big bang" has already been proved, no matter how it happened or what existed before then. The expanding universe and the red shift are tangible evidences of it”.
This wasn’t one of the things I was disputing. There seems reasonable evidence of a so called ‘big bang’. Theories do come and go, I have read recent scientific misgivings about it, but I wouldn’t argue on this. Why it happened is of course open to debate. My question was where the matter that constitutes the universe came from? Prior to big bang did this matter exist as some highly dense material for an eternity – i.e .was matter eternal, or did it just ‘materialise?’
Fact #1 is that matter exists and energy exists
Yes, so it does. I have no dispute on this. But is matter eternal, or did it come into existence?
Fact #2 is that they can be changed from one to the other.
Yes, agreed, I have no dispute on this
Fact #3 is that it doesn't require a God to do it.
This is a very broad statement, which actually means nothing. It’s equivalent to saying ‘life on this planet exists, and it doesn’t require a God to create it’. It’s a statement – and that is all it is.
Life on just this planet at this present time is not the same as it once was. So, we have:
Fact #1 there is life on this planet.
Yes, this was one of my two questions. Life is here, did it spontaneously generate? That goes against known scientific principles if it does – Aren’t you just saying life must have spontaneously generated, because it is here. Again, that is not a proof; it’s a statement, arguing in a circle.
My contention is that God was needed to actually produce this life.
Fact #2 life forms on this planet have changed over time.
Certainly – geology shows vastly different life forms in the past. I certainly don’t dispute that. God has created lots of different designs, at different periods
Fact #3 life forms on this planet do have mutations.
Yes – that is how you get different varieties of animals. The classic example is the Galapagos finches. Adaptation within the species is how different life forms survive changing conditions.
Fact #4 life forms on this planet do change with the environmental changes.
Yes – Just as well, else a slight change in conditions would wipe out life wholesale. As in #3 God needed to design in an amount of adaptation within the various species, to survive changing conditions.
Fact #5 God did not create cattle, as the Bible says, men created cattle.
Men breed different varieties of cattle from the original animal. This is all part of ‘dressing and keeping’ the planet. Domestic animals in general have been selectively bred over the centuries. This also applies to crops, vegetables and flowers. But they all came from an existing ‘wild’ variety.
Fact #6 God did not create the golden delicious apple, the Bartlett pear, the Stuart pecan, edible almonds, domesticated wheat, oats, rice, barley and corn - these and many other things are totally man made creations.
Certainly – as per #5
Fact #7 That man can change these life forms by domestication and selective breeding and grafting proves that life forms can and do evolve.
No – it proves that they can adapt to a certain amount within their species – an essential design feature for a flexible life system on a planet.
Fact #8 the building blocks of life, amino acids, are abundant in the universe and as far as we know life may be abundant also.
‘As far as we know’ – means a complete guess. We know nothing – zero- about other physical life forms in the universe. Now if you could bring tangible evidence of spontaneous generation…. You may get a different response from me.
This is just a miniscule fraction of tangible evidence. However, if you want to see a cat change into a dog - you will have to consult with God or other Wizards.
We agree – evolution doesn’t change species – just allows for a variation within the species!
Corky, There is very little in the above that I would disagree with. Thanks for the above, but you haven’t covered the only two points I asked about:-
“tangible evidence that spontaneous generation of matter occurred, and that spontaneous generation from non-life to life occurred”.
Here we go again; corky said:
"Fact #1 is that matter exists and energy exists"
--> True, although they are really one and the same (Check out the first law of thermodynamics)
"Fact #2 is that they can be changed from one to the other."
--> True, again the first law of thermodynamics.
"Fact #3 is that it doesn't require a God to do it."
--> Absolutely true, but where did this energy / matter / heat come from?
"Life on just this planet at this present time is not the same as it once was. So, we have:"
"Fact #1 there is life on this planet."
--> Not in dispute
"Fact #2 life forms on this planet have changed over time."
--> Not entirely true / proven. A more correct statement would be different life forms have existed on this planet over time and that have been *variations* and *adaptations* --within-- species (Microevolution).
"Fact #3 life forms on this planet do have mutations."
--> This is also true and almost every single mutation has been to the *detriment* of the organism and there has been *zero* proof that mutations have created new and distinct species.
"Fact #4 life forms on this planet do change with the environmental changes."
--> True, whether selective breeding by man / nature and / or speciation (Microevolution)
"Fact #5 God did not create cattle, as the Bible says, men created cattle."
--> Other than selective breeding and taming for livestock purposes, I do not know where you are going here. (Ever been to Corrolla Island in the Outer Banks, NC? Wild horses look the same as domesticated horses...just without the saddles.)
"Fact #6 God did not create the golden delicious apple, the Bartlett pear, the Stuart pecan, edible almonds, domesticated wheat, oats, rice, barley and corn - these and many other things are totally man made creations."
--> Again, evolutionsists trying to pass off speciation and adaptation (Microevolution) as evidence for Macro Evolution. This is the atheist version of flood geology and just as disingenuous.
"Fact #7 That man can change these life forms by domestication and selective breeding and grafting proves that life forms can and do evolve."
--> Same as response to "Fact #6" which is variation within species. You can cross breed cattle all you want and get lots of different results, but those results are still cattle. Furthermore, artficially manipulating gene sequences in a lab in a way that could never happen in nature is not proof. (You can't get housefly dna to naturally make their way into a frog reproductive cycle)
"Fact #8 the building blocks of life, amino acids, are abundant in the universe and as far as we know life may be abundant also."
--> I know nothing of the sort regarding abundance of life in the universe. Please provide proof of life in places other than earth. I have not read, seen, or heard of any evidence of life building amino acids being found anywhere but earth. If you are referring to the rock found in antarctice back in the 90's, that too has been re-examined and found to be other than a signature of life.
"This is just a miniscule fraction of tangible evidence. However, if you want to see a cat change into a dog - you will have to consult with God or other Wizards."
--> It is not creationists that think one animal can change into another, it is evolutionists that insist this happens *despite* absolutely no proof that it has ever happened. You say there is no proof of God, fine, no proof that you will accept unless someone can point and say "Look, there it is!"
I put the same burden of proof on evolution and abiogenesis...real, actual, contemporary proof. Not theories and speculation passed off as fact.
Hopefully, one day the answers which we are all seeking will be found, with demonstrable proof. Until then, it is useless to push baseless claims on our children. Let's stick to what we actually do know and let scientific method lead us forward unencumbered by trying to stack evidence to prove a conclusion.
Corky,
I told you so.
paul
Hopefully, one day the answers which we are all seeking will be found, with demonstrable proof. Until then, it is useless to push baseless claims on our children.
Yes, like the baseless claim that "God did it".
Anonymous said...
Corky,
I told you so.
paul
Oh I know, but it's just because they are in denial. They really do know but they really, really, want to believe it's as simple as "god did it".
Corky said: "Oh I know, but it's just because they are in denial. They really do know but they really, really, want to believe it's as simple as "god did it"."
Keep telling yourself that Corky. For some reason you and Paul think everyone that points out that evolutionists have not proved the very basics of their case, by default, must believe in a 6 day creation, a 6 thousand year old earth, and a 'let there be light' approach to the beginnings of all things.
Your stance shows your ignorance and proves nothing more than you went from one set of baseless beliefs to another. No objectivity, no growth in knowledge.
Charlie,
I'll bet your theory of the origin of things centers around a supernatural being who created everything via divine fiat....which is no different than a six day approach. At the center is still a supernatural being who created everything via divine fiat.
As far as baseless beliefs, I came to theory of evolution through a study of the available evidence, whether it is true or not. Now, how did you arrive at your theory? I'll bet (again) that you did not come to this conclusion through evaluating any evidence (for there isn't any) . So whether my view is right or wrong, it certainly isn't baseless.
Corky? You see? Still no evidence. Just criticism of the opposing theory.
Paul
Corky? You see? Still no evidence. Just criticism of the opposing theory.
Paul
Yes, I see. At least my theory does have evidence that has been presented in a myriad of ways whereas their "theory" (if it could be called a theory) has none.
That they find anything other than "god did it" to be too incredulous for them to accept is just normal for people in denial.
It's just the result of indoctrination into the magical world of the Bible since their birth.
Bible believers are the same ones who buy into horoscopes, big foot, UFOs, demons, seances, witchcraft, numerology and other weird stuff. They should just stay away from black cats and ladders and just throw a little salt over their shoulder once in a while. Maybe hanging a lucky horse shoe over the door would help them too, I don't know - God won't and that's for sure.
Anyone care to discuss radioisotopes? How about the pump in the one celled "hydra"?
Does anyone doubt, when gazing into their pets' eyes that animals have spirits?
Smile! YHWH loves you!
BB
BB:
http://www.hydra-cell.com/
But seriously, I take it your intent is simply another, "Oh yeah, then how do you explain this?!?" discussion, which is not evidence FOR Kreationism.
Paul
Paul,
Quite frankly, I do not have a theory on the origins of the universe, matter, or life as we know it. I have seen, read, or learned nothing that would convince me that simple words spoken, even on the part of God account for what we have. Similarly, I have not seen, read, or learned anything that proves abiogenesis or evolution. I have seen and read a lot of research that shows me how it could not have happened...Just as I have learned that the earth is a good deal older than 6k years. In fact, if the sun around which earth orbits formed from a collapsing hydrogen cloud, then the universe itself is probably a good deal older than many scientists think today.
I would truly like to find out where, how, how long, and with what before I croak though. I also think we can find out faster if astronomers, biologists, geologists, physicists, and mathmaticians spent more time working on the same problems, together rather than separately. I think the subject areas are all more interrelated than most think.
So he used to be a Catholic until his mother told him he was one of Satan's children?Now I know how he keeps his job.
I'm quite confused how those who don't believe in God are so quick to post responses on a religion-based blog.
Anonymous said...
I'm quite confused how those who don't believe in God are so quick to post responses on a religion-based blog.
It's a mystery.
Last time I checked, it was a WCG related blog. And, since there are numerous solutions individual members have found to the Armstrong problem, atheism being just one of them, is it really unusual for atheists to want to share?
BB
re: the Lussenheide's comment about bow ties not catching on in the WCG:
It would have been a way funner cult if the fellas had worn bow ties that lit up, spun around, and made whirring sounds.
Likewise, it would have been a way funner cult if HWA had a habit of riding to church on a zebra while wearing leather chaps that showed his bare butt cheeks out of holes in the rear.
He could hop off his zebra, run to the lectern with his bow tie in "fun-mode", start a sermon with "Happy Sabbath, ladies and germs", and then tell the congregation about some urgent financial need and invite members to stuff dollar bills into his chaps.
He'd end by swinging his butt toward the congregation and saying, "Look! I've been payed in arrears!"
Just a thought to start the Sabbath right.
Heb 11:3 By faith we understand that the worlds have been framed by the word of God, so that what is seen hath not been made out of things which appear.
Heb 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to be well-pleasing unto him; for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that seek after him.
"I also think we can find out faster if astronomers, biologists, geologists, physicists, and mathmaticians spent more time working on the same problems, together rather than separately."
They do.
Paul
"I'm quite confused how those who don't believe in God are so quick to post responses on a religion-based blog."
If I had a nickel....
This is just another variation of:
"What are you doing here if you don't believe?"
"What do you want?"
"Just who are you?"
"Why are you coming to this forum and starting trouble?"
Paul
anonymous said: "Heb 11:3 By faith we understand that the worlds have been framed by the word of God, so that what is seen hath not been made out of things which appear."
"Heb 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to be well-pleasing unto him; for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that seek after him."
Anon: That isn't an answer, that is just more bible quoting mish-mash to falsely mask blind faith as answer to a legitimate science.
To the other Anon: Why should atheists post on this blog, especially if they have a WCG background? It is the more unreasonable aspects of religion that drive people to atheism to begin with. Perhaps you should read the parable of the prodigal son again and then decide if you want to cut off people that don't agree with you.
What are we doing here? We all survived the cult of the Worldwide Church of God, around roughly the same time-period. This blog examines the fall-out and continuing decay of the various remnants of this cult that are still in existence. This is not a religious blog.
Unfortunately, a lot of the commenters here feel it is their duty to foist their myriad of religions upon people who have already had their fill, and then some, of dogmatic strictures which in some cases have ruined people's lives.
Contrary to Bob's sweeping generalization, there are also agnostics here (I am one of them), not just atheists. I have come to prefer the term non-theist, as that seems to cause the least amount of bristling, at least in the wider world.
As has been stated repeatedly: If you are so dead-set certain in your faith and practices, then why don't you welcome the opportunity to sincerely answer honest questions and thoughtful inquiries about them?
Post a Comment