The existence of God

[DRZ400]

Originally Posted by Russ B

This is my final warning - please stop using common sense and reasonable debate against some of the atheist. It is totally unfair and a form of bullying.

"common sense and reasonable debate"

What could possibly be more damaging to a child than telling him over and over from the time he's an infant that there exists an invisible person who is unwilling to prove he exists watching him every second of every day and reading his thoughts and if he doesn't believe in the invisible person he will be tortured for eternity? Yet we tell that same child that monsters don't exist so it's silly to be scared of monsters.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Russ B

Unless of course you object to your arguments being countered? I guess I can see how that's annoying...

i dont object -are they going to be ?

[lucy7]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

i'm sure your mental faculties are intact keep chipping in

Ok, thanks will do.

Just off to find a really lovely scripture to type for you papa.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

i dont object -are they going to be ?

You may need to re-read (or should that just be 'read'?) the last page or two...

---------- Post added at 17:43 ---------- Previous post was at 17:42 ----------

Originally Posted by DRZ400

"common sense and reasonable debate"

Yes, from someone who takes the time to research his points before posting instead of those who just post things they scan-read from websites without realising they contain glaring errors.

[lucy7]

First Peter Chapter 4, verses 8 and 9.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by lucy7

First Peter Chapter 4, verses 8 and 9.

And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins.

Use hospitality one to another without grudging.

[lucy7]

Erm..........

So who will give me IT lessons then?

[dilli-theclaw]

Well I teach IT on a Monday night, but I suspect Leeds to Bedfordshire would be a bit of a trek

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by lucy7

Erm..........

So who will give me IT lessons then?

I T lessons ?

[lucy7]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

I T lessons ?

I T, IT, what ever, just need lessons on how to snip stuff and the like, wheres a thread for that.

I AM SO OFF TOPIC NOW!!!

[DRZ400]

Originally Posted by Russ B

Yes, from someone who takes the time to research his points before posting instead of those who just post things they scan-read from websites without realising they contain glaring errors.

But you posted ......

Originally Posted by Russ B

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/dinos.shtml

Apart from it all being rubbish, this stood out.

Unfortunately, our public school system and the media have convinced us that dinosaurs were extinct at least 60 million years before man appeared on earth. They have done such a good job in this area that we can not imagine people and dinosaurs living at the same time. The fact is that dinosaurs were created no more than one day before mankind, not many millions of years earlier—and we have evidence to support that statement

I challenge you to find one glaring error in any of the sites I've linked to.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

Be a "free thinker". Read and question what is written. Blind faith is for people who can not think for themselves.



well that's it what do you think is it a mental illness

It's possible in some cases. Mental illness is more prevalent than most people would think. However, does the Mental Illness excuse cover the fact that a lot of countries 90% of the poplulation believe in some sort of God? Also, over half the population of the planet believe in some sort of God. I am fairly certain that we, as a race, would have died out due to natural selection if over half our population were than ill.

I also find it odd that a person who asks people to be be free thinkers and to read, and question what is written, is apparently ready to dismiss those who believe in a God as mentally ill. Despite the fact that they may have read various articles (both pro and anti religon) and decided that religion is for them.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by kingbuxton

Good answer. We are all made of stardust.

Indeed that could be said, however that does not make us immortal nor give us any kind of immortal life so I would question the quality of the answer. The Bible would have us believe that those who believe in God will have eternal life, science suggests that consciousness exists due to the biochemical and bioelectrical processes within the brain, those which cease when our bodies die.

Excuse the morbidity: no real electrical activity within the brain, neurons and other cells losing their form and dying, neural pathways that form memories depolarising breaking down, the cessation of processing. Of course the matter and energy doesn't just disappear, that's impossible, but that's as far as the science goes. The electrical charge and residual heat dissipate into the surroundings, cells break down into biproducts and residual proteins, etc, etc, etc.

To say that science and religion are in any way compatible in this regard is a strong misrepresentation of the science. Science suggests very strongly the opposite:

Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish.
Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism) and chemotaxis.
Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.

I'm unsure how a corpse fulfills all of these though would welcome correction, either way to suggest that science in some way supports the concept of eternal life seems bizarre. We are certainly eternal in one form or another but to describe us as being alive seems a bit of a stretch!

Originally Posted by Russ B

It just made more sense to me - as I understood it science has proven we don't actually 'die', forms of energy just move on to a different form.

Then those forms of energy are no longer configured as required to be sustaining life. Science asserts that we are alive due the configurations of the cells within our bodies and the biochemical and bioelectrical processes that are the results of the configurations and operations of our cells.

If someone is cremated they have certainly moved on to a different form though you could hardly consider the ashes to be alive. To say otherwise is to redefine death. Though then you end up redefining life and the universe and everything in it become alive as that's the only way that it could be said science describes us an undying.

I'll still stick with that the root of most of these religions is the 'human condition' - I like this paragraph:

Humans, to an apparently superlative degree amongst all living things, are aware of the passage of time, can remember the past and imagine the future, and are intimately aware of their own mortality. Only human beings are known to ask themselves questions relating to the purpose of life beyond the base need for survival, or the nature of existence beyond that which is empirically apparent: What is the meaning of existence? Why was I born? Why am I here? Where will I go when I die? The human struggle to find answers to these questions — and the very fact that we can conceive them and ask them — is what defines the human condition in this sense of the term.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by lucy7

First Peter Chapter 4, verses 8 and 9.

Can you pop round and read it to me. if not a link to where I can read it will have to do

---------- Post added at 18:50 ---------- Previous post was at 18:44 ----------

Originally Posted by foreverwar

I don't believe you've thought that concept through fully.

Probably not, but it would be a youtube hit if they did it.

---------- Post added at 18:53 ---------- Previous post was at 18:50 ----------

Originally Posted by papa smurf

after participating in this and other religious debates i find myself drawn to the possibility

Religion is a Mental Illness

Most americans are mental anyway. so you could say that anything is a mental illness where the americans are involved

[kingbuxton]

If someone is cremated they have certainly moved on to a different form though you could hardly consider the ashes to be alive

It's not the physical body that moves to eternal life though (is it?) it is the Soul. The container becomes the Stardust, the essence, who knows.