friends help: Atheist searching for God… - Help.com

So I am just BD to you :D I am trying to craft a response, but I am getting busy. I will come back to answer this later. Promise.

Ok, I think I may have an answer.

By attributing your life to God, other people can appreciate and understand what you mean. When someone is able to relate to the way you live, they can begin to emulate it. Emulation of a good way to live leads to more emulation. It brings the capacity to spread peace and joy in a more efficient manner.

Many of the morals given started in the old testament. Harsh punishments were handed out to make the populace fear god so they would follow. Basically scaring them into respect. In the New Testament, a lot of these procedures are brought to a stop because the aspect of God is more of one of Love than jealousy and hate.

Personally, I think you live a beautiful life from what I can tell and as long as you don’t speak against God I can see no reason you wouldnt go to heaven even if you never truly believe.

Hope this helps.

I just thought of something, most people ask for a lighter burden, I think it is better to ask for the strength to bear it. I am not entirely sure of the relevance, but it seems to be akin to my thoughts of personal hardship and prayer.

I think God may be speaking through the hearts of mere men, helping them question the path they take. Ofcourse, this only makes sense if you already believe, or at least want to.

I can’t turn your invite down, chunky. >_ But I am not really the kind of “Christian” you see in churches, etc. >_ As a matter of fact, I RARELY, RARELY, RARELY go to church. I still call myself Christian, though, because I believe that without “Christ, I Am Nothing”.

Bogdan is right; you seem to be a beautiful life. For me, it’s not whether you’re in some religion or not, but what matters the kindness you show to the world.

It’s just that for me, the thought of having a God keeps me sane. And because of His existence and the teachings He shared, I manage to control my actions.

At times that I find myself alone, the thought of having a God who loves me and “has plans intended for me” gives me relief. It’s not such a bad thing. =) Because if I put logic in everything that is happening in life, I’d go nuts. =)

i think you should find your own medium. in my opinion it is arrogant to put a name to the unknown aspect of ourselves and our world, and to give it human qualities is ridiculous. nobody alive knows what it is, but you have obviously felt it and so has just about everyone else, whether they know it or not. god is a term used to define something that cannot be defined, but it helps many people make order out of their lives. call it what you want, but like you said its a label and nothing more.

I have yet to find a religion that I can follow and take seriously in every regard. Many religions have beautiful aspects to them, and valuable lessons to teach; but so do many have their dark sides, things that I can’t in good conscience agree with, or things that are just… well, weird.
I don’t know if there’s a deity/deities/higher power of some kind watching over us. But for many people, such an idea is a comforting one: whether it’s because they feel safe in that their creator is looking after them, or because they can blame things on them. Oh, and the whole promised afterlife thing soothes the terror and grief of inevitable death.

Rain37, do you disbelieve in a higher power because the existence of one is too illogical?

Actually, more importantly, do you disbelieve in a higher power?

Sorry, let me rephrase, for my first question to be of any relevance, it relies on the assumption that you do not believe in a higher power, hence the second question being more important. You dont have to answer either if you would prefer it.

Bogdan, I haven’t quite decided whether I believe in one or not. I was raised in a Catholic family, so I spent most of my childhood believing in the Catholic concept of God. But that concept doesn’t really sit right with me anymore - which is why I’m trying to decide what I do believe in.

Rain37 wrote:
Bogdan, I haven’t quite decided whether I believe in one or not. I was raised in a Catholic family, so I spent most of my childhood believing in the Catholic concept of God. But that concept doesn’t really sit right with me anymore - which is why I’m trying to decide what I do believe in.

Interesting. Thankyou for sharing.

Chunkymove, not sure why you’d invite an inveterate implicit atheist like myself, unless you’re looking for someone to drag you back to the fold… something I’m not inclined to do any more than I’d try to turn a religionist into an atheist. I only enjoy pointing out when their nonthink threatens to blot out the light of Reason.

It’s really each man/woman for him/herself, though a mind is a terrible thing to waste on mythical entities. Life tests one’s mettle, one’s ability to think clearly and logically. As we are still a rather primitive species, it’s hardly surprising that most find it easier to call “shotgun” (i.e., sit in the passenger’s seat) and let “someone” or something (the mythical entity) else will take over the steering wheel in the emotional department, especially when depressed, exhausted or confused. Most likely, you’re not really an atheist but a vulnerable agnostic who hasn’t found a niche. Religionists regard you as prey.

Personally, I was never a big fan of Clive (c.s. lewis), likely due more to his allegories than his affectation for lower case letters.

What theists have to remember is it is hard for a skeptic to fully open their heart, just as we could never open our heart to the idea of no God. Someone who cannot believe for one reason or another needs to take baby steps to get there, if they want to get there. Belief starts with wanting to believe or proof. Sometimes a logical argument is proof, but it can be hard when you dont have definite answers. “God did it”, “He works in mysterious ways” and “It is part of a greater plan” are often empty comfort for someone who has lost a loved one, lost their job for no good reason or been attacked by a gang.

Everyone is different and as such needs to view God in a different way. While we cling to the traditions and age old ideals, more and more people are going to turn away. There is not one surefire answer anymore, it is all the same solution (at least in my mind) as The Holy Trinity and His Word, the Bible.

Absolutely. Same with my faith. It is unconditional and requires no reason.

Chunkymove, if you feel comfortable with the kind of vacuous spirituality evidenced in some of these posts, then you’ll probably fit right in. Religiosity is mental morphine. You get to feel great and all your questions are answered simply and easily, no thinking required. Another benefit… no needle tracks.

I am an atheist and the best answer I can give is simple. Alot of people assume that if you are an atheist that you lack faith in anything; I always resented that, because I believe that everyone does have that “faith gap” that needs to be filled with something. A person may fill that gap with Christ, or logic, or some other measure of reason and faith. When people say I do not believe in anything, I know that cannot be true… cause even if you do not realize it, you have faith in something… even if it is more of an ideal, rather than a religious belief.

I think all faiths have their good morals and lessons, so I like you, chunkymove, have the same reservations when it comes to devoting myself to any one particular belief..I think there is something to be gained from all of them.

As melis said it is a matter of the heart…I do not think it can be taught, it is a natural need to have faith in something…in something that helps you find purpose in your life, gives you hope for the future, and comforts you in times of need. Like I said I am an athiest… also raised as a catholic, but I found that a more humanistic way of thinking coupled with the lessons from other beliefs and faiths, works for me. But I in know way think it is for everyone.. I would always recommend.. researching all faiths and religions.. and find what fills that gap in you.

Well I was brought up as Christian, but I am in a limbo where I don’t know if I believe or not. I need proof that God/Jesus/the whole bible is either real or not real so I am undecided either way and completly unable to help. I do however wish I believed, life would start to make much more sense I am sure

I’m a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, I’d like to share with you what we believe…

1 We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.
2 We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.
3 We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.
4 We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.
5 We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.
6 We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.
7 We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.
8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.
9 We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.
10 We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.
11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
12 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.
13 We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.
-Joseph Smith

I firmly believe in my church and have a testimony that Christ is the Son of God and did indeed serve an earthly ministry, and would like to invite you to learn more about our beliefs at www.mormon.org .

i use to be a chritian but not any longer… now i have my own faith , yet i really like the teaching of Jesus , check thomas gospel to see the spiritual teaching that arent recorded in the bible such as ” the kingdom of god is inside you and all around you , split a piece of wood and you will find me , lift a stone and am there ” …
this is what i believe in right now , i may change , but i doubt it but this is in what i believe right now :

- i believe that god exists
- heaven nor hell exist but we are rejoined with god when we die
- go gave you everything you need , body , brain , spirit etc… so basically he is saying sorry man i wont help you in the road you have to help urself…so i dont believe in miracles
- i dont believe in fate , life is a bunch of lucks and random coincidences
- satan doesnt exsit, evil came from human not from god
- i dont believe in prayers as well
- nor in the sex thingy or the tattoo and all that so called taboo stuff , to me god gave me a brain so i can think and see in a situation is that good for me or not…
so how come i dont believe in all of these things and believe in god simple god created me and gave me everything and i love him , and i thank him for all this by living well and enjoying life …

hmm i think that is all i can think of right now ^_^

btw you cant steal my faith :P it is copyrighted i spent years pursuing it :D

i was an atheist for a short amount of time coming out of catholicism, most likely because i wanted to distance myself from everything that had to do with religion, but as i developed the time to think, i became aware of the existence of god anyway, despite my negative experience.

probably the foremost reason why i beleive in the existence of god is the undeniable logic of the first cause, that one entity must have set the world in motion and that it sustains existence (because i think it would be ridiculous to claim that i sustain my own existence), and whatever that force is, i call it God.

beyond that, we cannot claim to know more about the nature of God, that is where faith kicks in.

despite my scientific approach to the existence of god, i consider my spirituality to be very emotionally based as well. this actually stemmed from my christian upbringing. my first real faith in god began when i was in fourth grade and read bram stoker’s dracula. i would lay wide awake at night, utterly terrified that the vampire would come and get me while i slept. then one day a teacher told me that if i made the sign of the cross and believed in it, god would protect me from the devil. at the time, you cuoldn’t get any more devilish than dracula, so when i went to bed at night and if i couldn’t go to sleep, i made the sign of the cross, told myself that i would be protected, and only then could i fall asleep peacefully.

now, after i had rejected catholicism and claimed to be an atheist altogether, i no longer followed the christian customs with any meaning, only going through the actions if i was expected to by family members and such. but eventually the time came where, being a young teenager, i encountered issues in life that seem entirely overwhelming. that point where you think this is way too difficult for you to be dealing with and you want nothing more than to throw in the towel and give up. during my time of distress and desperation, i reverted to a last resort, a childish habit i had when i felt faced with forces more powerful than myself that threatened to overwhelm me. i prayed.

and my prayers were answered. there wasn’t much pristine about the whole thing. my praying was more like the desperate pleas for fate to not squash me like a bug and the response didn’t involved dancing suns or bleeding statues, but the issue did resolve itself. and it worked every time. so it regained the habit, relucatnly at first, but now i embrace it wholeheartedly. whenever i prayed witht he entirety of my being, my problem, no matter how large or insginificant, would be solved. sometimes i would suddenly recall a back-up plan, i would randomly discover a way to fix it, a friend or family would offer to help, a total stranger would lend a hand. sometimes it would be as simple as me aquiring the patience and level-headedness to think through the situation and deal with it accordingly. either way, it came to me after i prayed.

now because there is no scientific evidence proving prayer works, i will not claim that it is a tried and true thing, but there is much to be said for the human psyche in the face of prayer and faith.

perhaps the only things that happens when i pray is that i am able to force the stress adn desperation from my mind, and, in while under the belief that my issue is now in good hands, i now have the calmness and the ability to resolve the issue on my own and accept all good furtune that coincidentally happens as a miracle from god, but either way the method works. perhaps it IS only coincidental, but i won’t argue with the results. if my faith helps me get through my problems in life, why should i complain?

in my view, faith should serve the people, not god. since the idea of god is as an external being, it seems irrational that it would HAVE any needs. the people are the ones that need guidance and support, so that is where i’d say faith works the most. faith is an incredible and powerful state of mind that allows an individual to believe an idea as truth without being presented with concrete evidence. this is a powerful weapon for the individual to battle against the daily assault of the negatives a person comes into contact with everyday. faith is supposed to help you. and it can. even for the poor man, sufficient faith can grant him the strength to keep fighting for life.

so, chunkymove, if you wish to have faith, there is nothing stopping you. i only urge you to understand what you are beleiving before you claim to beleive it. don’t try to force yourself to believe a faith you cannot morally or intellectually accept. faith is a powerful and liberating thing, just make sure you make the most of it. :)

Bogdan wrote:
Personally, I think you live a beautiful life from what I can tell and as long as you don’t speak against God I can see no reason you wouldnt go to heaven even if you never truly believe.

Sorry, Bogdan, but I must disagree with you here. (I do appreciate the rest of your response.) Jesus clearly said,”No one comes to God but through me.” We are all sinners and the only remedy for that is Jesus Christ!

I’m not looking for any argument. I just felt I needed to point out what the Bible says about this.

Mas 1st wrote:
See it is going off-topic again - I keep reading the original question - maybe we all should just take that little bit of time and do that. And yes I’m as guilty as the next one. This is about a search - I suppose in the tradition of things it is bound to be littered with obstacles. - Mas1st

If you are referring to my reply, then what you said is not true. The post is about searching for God. I simply stated what the Bible (which I believe) says about finding God.

Sorry if I misjudged you Mas! :)

Thanks Mas!

hey chunkymove send me a shout I’d like to help you with this.

When an atheist is looking for God, isn’t that similar to when you look under a lamp post for your key instead of looking for it where you dropped it?

First off, no Christian believes in the stoning anymore. That was before Jesus. But Jesus died for our sins, so we don’t need to kill anyone anymore.

Not all of the Bible is literal. All of Jesus’s stories, well, most of them at least, are metaphorical.

Trying seeing God as a friend that you can’t see. Try talking to him. Try confiding in him. You’ll feel better afterwards. That’s my sun. Maybe it’s yours.

Xeno Dragon wrote:

amhp wrote:
First off, no Christian believes in the stoning anymore. That was before Jesus. But Jesus died for our sins, so we don’t need to kill anyone anymore.

So what’s Jesus think of gays?

He didn’t approve of them, but he didn’t stone them either. Nor was he mean to them. If a homosexual was sorry for being gay, then Jesus forgave him/her, but if a homosexual was not, then Jesus didn’t, but he didn’t harm them either.

Xeno Dragon wrote:
Funny, why would Jesus disapprove of someone his father created? They’re just being who they are. You’d think Jesus, of all people, would know it’s genetic, and thus, God’s will. So why would he go against god, who is really him, but isn’t?

Because homosexuality is not God’s creation. It is Satan’s creation.

Xeno Dragon wrote:

amhp wrote:

Xeno Dragon wrote:
Funny, why would Jesus disapprove of someone his father created? They’re just being who they are. You’d think Jesus, of all people, would know it’s genetic, and thus, God’s will. So why would he go against god, who is really him, but isn’t?

Because homosexuality is not God’s creation. It is Satan’s creation.

Lol! So, Satan sneaks up and changes people’s genes when God’s not looking? Haha, you should be a comedian.

It is not proven that homosexuality is in the genes. I do not believe it is.

Mas 1st wrote:
See it is going off-topic again - I keep reading the original question - maybe we all should just take that little bit of time and do that. And yes I’m as guilty as the next one. This is about a search - I suppose in the tradition of things it is bound to be littered with obstacles. - Mas1st

Mas you’ve never disobeyed the rules, nor forgiven anyone for doing so. You are an inspiration.

Well, searching for God may also be searching for a God concept.
In doing that, we are blinded by our biases. One of those may be to search only for a God who can control things.

I think we are very biased by our holy books, e.g. by the Bible or by the Choran.

Xeno Dragon wrote:

amhp wrote:

Xeno Dragon wrote:

amhp wrote:

Xeno Dragon wrote:
Funny, why would Jesus disapprove of someone his father created? They’re just being who they are. You’d think Jesus, of all people, would know it’s genetic, and thus, God’s will. So why would he go against god, who is really him, but isn’t?

Because homosexuality is not God’s creation. It is Satan’s creation.

Lol! So, Satan sneaks up and changes people’s genes when God’s not looking? Haha, you should be a comedian.

It is not proven that homosexuality is in the genes. I do not believe it is.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/d…
Think again.

Homosexuality is not genetic its a choice and a byproduct of the fall which is when sin was introduced into the world. Here is a clear example of outside perception. The outsider observes and believes that Christians hate homosexuals or are homophobic. In some cases there are folks that have given off that perception by their outward actions. Its not the case we hate the sin not the person. Not approving of gay marraige and gay adoption is not hatred its preserving the marraige and the family period. Once family and marraige as we know it is taken away then you loose it all.

This homo thing…………Just because someone is inclined that way does not mean it is in their genes or that it is okay. Different people have different weaknesses. Some find it harder to avoid lying, some stealing, some doing drugs, some loving their spouse, etc…………… That does not make any of it right. Its all sin that must be overcome by God’s help. I base my concept of right and wrong on God’s Word which some of you don’t believe so its no wonder you have a far different perception of right and wrong than I do. We all have sinful tendancies in ourselves to deal with. None is better or worse than the other.

…and some lunatics sacrifice their own kids to fulfill their own perverse lusts…

Who committed such an awful sin?
I think it is told somewhere, in the Bible…

Xeno Dragon wrote:

amhp wrote:

Xeno Dragon wrote:

amhp wrote:

Xeno Dragon wrote:
Funny, why would Jesus disapprove of someone his father created? They’re just being who they are. You’d think Jesus, of all people, would know it’s genetic, and thus, God’s will. So why would he go against god, who is really him, but isn’t?

Because homosexuality is not God’s creation. It is Satan’s creation.

Lol! So, Satan sneaks up and changes people’s genes when God’s not looking? Haha, you should be a comedian.

It is not proven that homosexuality is in the genes. I do not believe it is.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/d…
Think again.

Actually, as much as scientists try to stick with the facts, they are biased as well, because, you know, they’re human beings. You could find a thousand scientists that say one thing and I could find a thousand scientists that say the opposite, and both groups of scientists could have “evidence” for their argument.

Xeno Dragon wrote:
I’ll be happy to smack the dust off your brain.

Just because we are Christian, it does not mean we are dumb and ignorant. In fact, there are many atheists who are more dumb and ignorant than Christians.

Xeno Dragon wrote:
I’m saying you have no reason other than Christian mythology to excuse your irrational hatred.

I do NOT hate homosexuals! How DARE you say that! My best friend is gay and happily in love with a guy. I do not approve of their relationship, but I would NEVER show hate towards them and their relationship. Why? Because I do not hate them. I just disagree with their life-style choices. My best friend knows that and he does not hold it against me.

Xeno Dragon wrote:
Then why not allow equal rights?

Because it goes against my religion. Mikey, my best friend, is one of the most important people in my life and I would jump in front of a bullet for him, but God is still more important.

Chunkymove, don’t take anybody else’s “fixed ‘n ready” beliefs or LOGICS as your own, rather do a little more thinking by yourself. But also put a whoe LOT of HUMBLENESS into it.

I also look for logics, and I don’t believe in some stories just because they are put in a book and said to be holy. But that does not mean that I don’t believe in God.

It makes me sad to read the semantics of prisca_sapientia, because that is what it is. Semantics, in the disguise of logics.
She writes “As we are still a rather primitive specie”…, and that is true. We do not understand everything.
But throughout history, some of us have dismissed everything that we were to stupid to understand, as being untrue and “illogical”.
We have said that “it is because we are thinking”, when it in reality has been because we have STOPPED thinking!
We have ESTABLISHED the truth and dismissed everything else as being illogical, ridiculing “faith”.

That is how the world remained flat for so long, because it was unthinkable and illogical to say it was anything else. But some people still had their faith in something else, looked for logics in that faith and managed to prove their point.
Gravity and other invisible forces were “unthinkable for the logic mind”, but Newton and some other guys fortunately had their faith and found out otherwise. They would never do that if they sat down and relied on the “established logics”.

As I have said in other posts here, there was not a single Nobel Prize winner in Physics, who did not become religious if he wasn’t already before. Not neccessary Bible believers, but in the sense of saying that The Creation could have been intentional. Don’t say that those guys don’t have logical minds! But above all, they were great philosophers. A bit simplified, one could say that no known scientific “randomness calculation” comes even close to produce the odds for making Creation having happened at random.

Now, you can compare this with our belief in modern scientists. Take the existence of the Higgs Boson as an example. The scientists don’t know, but they have theories. Some theories are contradicting eachother. Most of us wouldn’t understand the topic without many years of studies, but we still take sides. We believe in the one scientist and not in the other, because we trust that person. Maybe we are right, maybe we are wrong. But the one theory is as valid as the other, until the truth is eventually found!

We look for logics also in religion. Believers tie stuff together in some kind of semantic logics and try to “proove” things and convince others, but take it for what it is worth. Some say that they KNOW things because they feel it, but likewise a scientist may “know” his thing until proven to having been wrong.

Believe me, exactly EVERYTHING has a logical explanation! Maybe that explanation includes a God of a sort, and maybe not.
But we have to stop saying that everything that we don’t see the logics in, is illogical.
Because chances are that we are simply too stupid yo understand it!

Xeno Dragon wrote:
How is it against your religion for them to marry? The bible only prohibits sex.

It goes against marriage, because you could only lie with the one you married. When the Bible talks about lying with the one of same-sex, it’s referring to marriage as well.

Xeno Dragon wrote:
Besides, the Bible promotes slavery, and we changed that. So what if it demands you must treat homosexuals as sub-citizens?

Slavery in the Bible is a lot different than the slavery we had in the south. The Bible mentions special Sabbaths for slaves. You had to treat the slaves well and with respect as well as them you. And there’s something in the Book about setting them free. Basically, the Bible says, be nice to your slaves. But we don’t need slaves anymore because now we have servants.

I did not understand that logic. And it does NOT depend on the spelling.
What prevents gays from “boinking”?
The Bible does not give a step-by-step “boinking manual”.

Xeno Dragon wrote:
I think you’re confused. The bible requires you to be married before you can boink, but it doesn’t say you HAVE TO boink if you’re married.

Look… Basically, the Bible disapproves of people of the same gender in a romantic relationship of any type. That includes marriage. It doesn’t have to mention marriage for the message to be clear.

I know what you are doing. You are breaking it down into little words and trying to confuse and stump us. Don’t bother. I’ve tried doing the same thing when I was atheist.

Xeno Dragon wrote:

amhp wrote:

Xeno Dragon wrote:
Besides, the Bible promotes slavery, and we changed that. So what if it demands you must treat homosexuals as sub-citizens?

Slavery in the Bible is a lot different than the slavery we had in the south. The Bible mentions special Sabbaths for slaves. You had to treat the slaves well and with respect as well as them you. And there’s something in the Book about setting them free. Basically, the Bible says, be nice to your slaves. But we don’t need slaves anymore because now we have servants.

Are you mental? It’s still forced slave labor!

No. If the slaves wanted to go, God said, let them go. Is that forced? No. Many people became slaves in the past because they could get food and a roof over their heads in return. Now, if someone was a slave of the Romans, that’s different.

“It doesn’t have to mention marriage for the message to be clear”.

Well, we all have our interpretations.
For instance, I don’t remember Jesus having any girlfriend.
But a lot of male “friends”…

Xeno Dragon wrote:

amhp wrote:
Look… Basically, the Bible disapproves of people of the same gender in a romantic relationship of any type.

Show me where God or Jesus says they dislike gays for being gay.

I can’t. He never disliked anyone for being gay. He disliked the homosexuals’ choices, but He never disliked the people themselves.

…hehe, falling down, wildly kickin’

Xeno Dragon wrote:

amhp wrote:

Xeno Dragon wrote:

amhp wrote:

Xeno Dragon wrote:
Besides, the Bible promotes slavery, and we changed that. So what if it demands you must treat homosexuals as sub-citizens?

Slavery in the Bible is a lot different than the slavery we had in the south. The Bible mentions special Sabbaths for slaves. You had to treat the slaves well and with respect as well as them you. And there’s something in the Book about setting them free. Basically, the Bible says, be nice to your slaves. But we don’t need slaves anymore because now we have servants.

Are you mental? It’s still forced slave labor!

No. If the slaves wanted to go, God said, let them go. Is that forced? No. Many people became slaves in the past because they could get food and a roof over their heads in return. Now, if someone was a slave of the Romans, that’s different.

Only the Jewish slaves, and only after generations of slavery. Wow, what a god. He’s sure on top of things.

Slavery was freed when Jesus came to earth. After that, only non-Christians had slaves. Mainly Romans.

Xeno Dragon wrote:

amhp wrote:

Xeno Dragon wrote:

amhp wrote:
Look… Basically, the Bible disapproves of people of the same gender in a romantic relationship of any type.

Show me where God or Jesus says they dislike gays for being gay.

I can’t. He never disliked anyone for being gay. He disliked the homosexuals’ choices, but He never disliked the people themselves.

Fine. Show me where it says that.

No. I shouldn’t have to spend time flipping through the pages of a thick thousand-pages Bible just to try to prove my beliefs. If you’re so interested in finding where it says that, go look yourself.

Uh, hello?? Ever heard of ‘different interpretations’? You’d never fit in with UUs…

No. What made you think that?

What’s brain dead elitism? Makes sure you know what I even said before you try to argue with it.

You think I’m saying that I’m better than you?

Xeno Dragon wrote:

amhp wrote:
You’d never fit in with UUs…

That’s part of it. Keep going.

What? I’m confused.

Xeno Dragon wrote:
Obviously.

Just explain it, dang it…

I know all the words that you said and I know what they mean. I just can’t put them together in a way that makes sense. It wouldn’t work to look of the exact phrases. I already tried that. I’m sorry, but my brain just doesn’t work that way. And I don’t like YouTube. They don’t have captions on their little poor-quality videos, so I can’t understand a word they say.

Xeno Dragon wrote:
Wow, your computer must suck.

Where did that come from??

Xeno Dragon wrote:

htf wrote:

Xeno Dragon wrote:

amhp wrote:

Xeno Dragon wrote:

amhp wrote:

Xeno Dragon wrote:
Funny, why would Jesus disapprove of someone his father created? They’re just being who they are. You’d think Jesus, of all people, would know it’s genetic, and thus, God’s will. So why would he go against god, who is really him, but isn’t?

Because homosexuality is not God’s creation. It is Satan’s creation.

Lol! So, Satan sneaks up and changes people’s genes when God’s not looking? Haha, you should be a comedian.

It is not proven that homosexuality is in the genes. I do not believe it is.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/d…
Think again.

Homosexuality is not genetic its a choice and a byproduct of the fall which is when sin was introduced into the world. Here is a clear example of outside perception. The outsider observes and believes that Christians hate homosexuals or are homophobic. In some cases there are folks that have given off that perception by their outward actions. Its not the case we hate the sin not the person. Not approving of gay marraige and gay adoption is not hatred its preserving the marraige and the family period. Once family and marraige as we know it is taken away then you loose it all.

So… you, what? Didn’t even read the article, or you’re just that deep in your denial?

I’m sorry but do I know you?

I can see YouTube videos just fine. But they are poor quality. The pixels are large. My computer is brand new.

good thats what I thought

Xeno Dragon wrote:

amhp wrote:
I can see YouTube videos just fine. But they are poor quality. The pixels are large. My computer is brand new.

That’s odd you must only be watching really crappy videos, then.

No. And it doesn’t matter about the quality. They could be the sharpest quality ever and I still wouldn’t know what they were saying.

Xeno Dragon wrote:
You likely need speakers, then.

It could be as loud as absolute possible and I still wouldn’t know what they’re saying.

I’m DEAF!

Look, Xeno Dragon, explain all you want, but I’m going to bed. I’m tired and I have to wake up early. I’ll respond tomorrow.

Xeno Dragon wrote:
Lol, show me ONE reason for any Non-Christian to believe that homosexuality is wrong. Just one, I dare you. Go ahead. Come on. Come on. I’m waiting. Give me anything, I’ll be happy to smack the dust off your brain.

From a biological perspective
Semen has a chemical in it that suppresses the immune system. The anus/rectum (the end of the intestines before leaving the body) absorbs liquids exceptionally well, this is part of its job so that less water leaves the body with feces (I’m not sure of the spelling). This means that semen is absorbed very easily into the anus/rectum and causes a diminishment of the immune system.

Sorry I cant remember the spelling or names correctly, but I think you get the gist of it.

It doesn’t kill the white cells, it suppresses them. If it didn’t, all sperm would be killed before it even got a chance to fertilise an egg.

I know where you are coming from with the pullout method and the condoms, but overall this is a difference of opinions where neither side will give in. A pointless argument.

I actually meant between us. As a collective ideal, it is very important. I am against homosexuality, but those who practice it can do what they want. I’m not going to stop them. I have met homosexuals, and I didn’t go up to them and tell them they are wrong or throw the bible at them.

I am not even against homosexual marriage per se. It is more about the connotations of marriage, traditionalism and so on. I guess I would have no problem with homosexual marriage if they didn’t call it marriage. Probably sounds completely outlandish and ridiculous, but that is how I feel on the matter.

Everyone has the right to make their decisions and as long as it doesn’t cause others pain or hardship, I don’t really see the problem. I’ll believe in God and do my best not to Sin, you do what you would prefer.

I know about Christians not owning the word marriage. As with many things, it will be something I have to get used to.

dogoneit wrote:
I can’t turn your invite down, chunky. >_ But I am not really the kind of “Christian” you see in churches, etc. >_ As a matter of fact, I RARELY, RARELY, RARELY go to church. I still call myself Christian, though, because I believe that without “Christ, I Am Nothing”.

Bogdan is right; you seem to be a beautiful life. For me, it’s not whether you’re in some religion or not, but what matters the kindness you show to the world.

It’s just that for me, the thought of having a God keeps me sane. And because of His existence and the teachings He shared, I manage to control my actions.

At times that I find myself alone, the thought of having a God who loves me and “has plans intended for me” gives me relief. It’s not such a bad thing. =) Because if I put logic in everything that is happening in life, I’d go nuts. =)

ITS TRUE WAT U SAID WITH OUT CHRIST U ARE NOTHING BUT WHY IS IT THAT U DONT GO TO CHURCH

I thought I was guilty of hijacking threads. :-) I see this went from one person’s quest to resolve inner bafflement to a roundrobin argument pitting self-righteous religionists who know next to nothing against a liberal-minded and equally misguided individual who seeks “equal rights” (a disgusting term used when someone wants govt goons to decide what’s “fair” and steal from and criminalize anyone who isn’t playing “fair” - not much difference between religion-based and govt oppression.

Xeno, “believers” don’t know anything except what they’re told to “believe” and regurgitate (despite a growing body of legitimate evidence to the contrary about genetics and brains) so they seek to condemn an entire group of deviants. (deviants is not an aspersion here, but a technical term for those not sitting close to the zenith of the bell curve norm… we’re pretty much all deviants to one degree or another) That’s what religionists have always done. Pick on and attempt to marginalize any group that doesn’t comport to their predefined set of “ideal” beliefs. When that doesn’t work, they’ll burn ‘em, shoot ‘em or do an end run around the Constitution. It’s amusing that their defense to a challenge of facts is to claim they’re smarter than some atheists. If so, then why do they always act and sound so ignorant and close-minded, or twist facts into pretzels?

OTOH, championing “equal rights” for gays, co-opting and destroying the meanings of various words is something liberals have always excelled at - i.e., fair, gay, marriage.

IMHO, if gays want their unions recognized, fine; but it isn’t accurate to call it “marriage”. Govt should and could easily address certain logistical hurdles (e.g., making allowance for the rare adoption and probate); but let’s call a spade a spade. The underlying purpose is to glom onto liberal/socialist-inspired benefits from such govt imprimatur. In the vast number of “gay unions” the end result won’t be to create a multi-generational nuclear family that strengthens a society. (one of the basic tenets of the US before liberals started rending social fabrics, pushing envelopes and redefining the lexicon) The result will be enormous added costs, burdens and litigation for businesses forced to “comply” with all the $#%!& rules and regs that liberals have already dumped on them. I find it abhorrent that liberals have managed to criminalize landlords simply for wanting to choose who they wish to rent to! I’m against “legalizing” such unions if it means morphing the word marriage into an umbrella term that can be wielded like a club. The way things are going, I’m surprised PETA hasn’t pushed for legalizing “marriage” to farm animals just to confer “human rights” to them.

I’m all for deviants eliminating themselves from the gene pool if they do so quietly (earning a Darwin Award in the process); but conferring acceptability onto certain deviancies (e.g., popularization of this particular deviancy by hollywood and liberals to eliminate a natural social stigma /bias/ by criminalizing another natural trait called prejudice or preference) has come at an extremely high cost to taxpayers… the pretty much indiscriminate spread of STDs… because of the cavalier nature of the participants. (conservatives aren’t blameless, especially those who attempt to stifle sex education) It’s the same with unwed pregnancies or the spread of TB. Remove the stigma, raise the cost to everyone else. It’s societal suicide. When someone’s identified as contagious, leave it to liberals to lobby for letting them wander amongst the populace infecting others. Very destructive, typical liberal nonthink. To quote the religionists, you all are reaping what you sowed.

“Just as guilty”???
Be interested in your idea of some atheistic transgressions. Perhaps you’re incorrectly tarring atheists for the acts of communists? I’m no longer certain which is worse- a religious zealot, a political zealot or a liberal zealot.

Well, I won’t defend any explicit atheists who spout their absolutist belief as a fact, and I think them amusingly buffoonish for wasting time nitpicking over a religious icon on government property when there are so many bigger fish to fry; but, that is trivial compared to the monumental damage to this world by the religious and political zealots who seek draconian rule at the expense of free will. I don’t believe Help.com would allow me to tell you exactly what I think of anyone who “likes” communism, especially since I’m already excised over thoughts of liberals and religionists.

Nah, there’s not much point in discussing flawed/failed political systems, and the three most prevalent (socialism, communism and capitalism) are most definitely flawed failures, due in large part to man’s inherent urge to game, thwart and morph the system to gain an advantage over others.

Discussing politics is akin to discussing religion. I lose more acquaintances that way. Problems arise when one or both parties are strongly opinionated based on objective and subjective interpretations of experience and facts (as opposed to religionists who are strongly opinionated based on belief and emotion).

As for you being Centrist, so am I… clearly, that term doesn’t obviate stark philosophical differences on critical issues and concepts.

IMHO, one of the most repugnant sayings ever:
‘From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.’
Spewing from the naiveté of utopian socialism, I believe it spawned both communism and today’s liberal socialism, two alluring Venus Fly-traps that ensnare, dissolve and drain everything they can from those who have something, to distribute it to those who have less or nothing… after skimming off a nice fat slice of pork for the fat cats. Capitalism just expands the field of those who have a shot at suckling the public teat.

Ouch, on review, I see I was guilty of stereotyping, Xeno. (Not that there’s anything wrong with that) In this increasingly polarized world, even I tend to forget that an expressed sentiment on one issue doesn’t necessarily mean the person’s a card-carrying label. I’m often accused by the Left of being Right, and the Right of being Left. Only I know for sure that I’m ambidextrous. :-) (btw, I did finally get around to shouting you)

chunkymove wrote:

Rain37 wrote:
…whether it’s because they feel safe in that their creator is looking after them, or because they can blame things on them. Oh, and the whole promised afterlife thing soothes the terror and grief of inevitable death.

Understood. Some people find this a comfort.

I should have added (though it’s probably been said already) that along with the promise of afterlife being a comfort, the promise of eternal damnation in those religions that have it helps to keep followers in line and gives them rules to follow, which I guess makes things simpler?

dang it… it seems i missed a lot here, and i love examining things like this.

but, according to the post, the only question i see asked is “what are the benefits”.

as long as thats all your searching for, you wont find any good answers… is that all your looking for? or did i miss something?
(i didnt take the time to read all these replies)

- Fire

now let me tell you some more things.

if you say that your a christian, people that have intelligent minds that simply dont agree with you will stereotype you and be an *** to you.

you cannot do things with people, like party, smoke, drink, or anything else, and still try to be a christian, it wont work in the end. this cuts out a lot of friends.

your called to tell people about your beleifs, but should you try, people can get mad, so you probably wont, and you will fail in what your supposed to do.(this applies to a lot of people, but not all. you might be a good one.)

you would need to go to church, no more sleeping in on sunday if your a christian. you learn far more around people that deal with the bible everyday.

beating yourself up, because your going to sin, and your going to face consequences for it. your going to hurt the god that loves you most.

the world will hate you for it. its not of the world. its against your human natures too.

the reason im saying these things is that you cannot become a christian for the benefits, because its not always easy. its not a thing you do for yourself.

there are definite better benefits however.
like going to heaven. getting closer to the truth. bettering yourself, because the bible teaches a lot of “good” things, and christianity helps a lot of people here.

you dont become a christian because you think it will make you feel better. you dont become a christian because it will do something for you. you become a christian if your serious about searching for the truth, and finding out about your creator, being saved, and understanding why so many other people tell you TO DO IT.

even with all these things, i still suggest it. theres something you get that cant be measured in benifits. something that cannot be measured even.

so what do you think about what ive said?

- Fire

Fire wrote:
now let me tell you some more things.

if you say that your a christian, people that have intelligent minds that simply dont agree with you will stereotype you and be an *** to you.

you cannot do things with people, like party, smoke, drink, or anything else, and still try to be a christian, it wont work in the end. this cuts out a lot of friends.

your called to tell people about your beleifs, but should you try, people can get mad, so you probably wont, and you will fail in what your supposed to do.(this applies to a lot of people, but not all. you might be a good one.)

you would need to go to church, no more sleeping in on sunday if your a christian. you learn far more around people that deal with the bible everyday.

beating yourself up, because your going to sin, and your going to face consequences for it. your going to hurt the god that loves you most.

the world will hate you for it. its not of the world. its against your human natures too.

the reason im saying these things is that you cannot become a christian for the benefits, because its not always easy. its not a thing you do for yourself.

there are definite better benefits however.
like going to heaven. getting closer to the truth. bettering yourself, because the bible teaches a lot of “good” things, and christianity helps a lot of people here.

you dont become a christian because you think it will make you feel better. you dont become a christian because it will do something for you. you become a christian if your serious about searching for the truth, and finding out about your creator, being saved, and understanding why so many other people tell you TO DO IT.

even with all these things, i still suggest it. theres something you get that cant be measured in benifits. something that cannot be measured even.

so what do you think about what ive said?

- Fire

awsome stuff. I like the no more sleeping in on Sundays part too and how you said that we learn more by being around other like minded folks thats great. The other thing that was also good was you don’t become a Christian to “feel” better. Your on it and I encourage you in your quest to get the truth out there.

chunkymove wrote:
I understood what you wrote and the first half makes perfect sense to me, seems like a list of negatives.

Then you wrote “you cannot become a christian for the benefits”, then you list some things I would consider benefits
“getting closer to the truth,
teaching good things,
helping people,
searching for truth,
find out about your creator,
being saved,
understanding why others tell you too”

Then you refer to the unknowable good.

what do I think?

I like it. Two reasons.

One, i gives me an idea of how the sun is shining, if I feel ” wow, my heart yearns for that ” for any of the things you list.

Two, it confirms for me that “christian” to the majority of people here doesn’t carry the negitives it does for me based my experiences and litteral reading of the bible.

My purpose of this post was simply to see the sun as refered to in the quote.

And to find a commonality and understanding of what the many beautiful users of help.com meant when they use the word christian. For many years I had to deal with some unsavory types who took that label, but I aim to see each person for what they are, and not the preconceived notion I get from labels. I generalise when I need to, but hope I never stereotype.

I have my own belief system, but I still like to interact with others with as much trust, love, and commonality as possible, and for and overintellectualiser like me, that involves actually asking someone what they believe.

No one has mentioned that they like surrendering themselves to the point that if they heard a voice in their head telling them to kill their child, they would act on it. Yay, in my head that makes someone enough of an atheist to be comfortable with them.

Its awsome that you reached out I hope your finding some answers if I can help in any way please let me know.

chunkymove wrote:

htf wrote:
…you don’t become a Christian to “feel” better. Your on it and I encourage you in your quest to get the truth out there.

Why do they then? To “be” better?What’s the truth you are refering to?

Besides the bible there is a really good book out there that may be of encouragement to you and help with some answers as well its called Purpose Driven Life Rick Warren. Its a very compelling read that will definitly get you engaged.

the truth of what is.

he calls himself I AM. at first this made no sense to me.

but then, i looked at it diffrently. gods the truth, its the way, the light.

its all thats good, all that isnt going to leave you. it embodies love. its everything you could dream of.

its far beyond a simple explanation. there are no benefits for a person.

its not ‘feel’ or ‘be’ better. its more than that. i dont even know how to tell you.

- Fire

chunkymove wrote:
yes, lots of answers. I’m not looking to become christian, but to see what difference other than view point and semantics between my world view and the one actually held by christians. Its a HUGE mental effort but I believe there is a lot less difference than people think.

There is a lot less differences I agree. We are all here dealing with life and its ups a downs reaching out to each other.

chunkymove wrote:

htf wrote:
Purpose Driven Life Rick Warren. Its a very compelling read that will definitly get you engaged.

Thanks for the suggestion. I saw him on ted. Seems a decent fellow, but he uses too many overloaded words, straining my translation circuits. Can you sum it up in few sentences?

I agree. That we are here for greater purpose then ourselves and that God reveals this to us in many ways including nature and our interactions with others. That if in fact we seek Him we will know that purpose. Its a broad stroke I know.

The greatest benefits to me in being a Chistian is that I have an assurance of a life after this and that I have opportunities to impact other folks lives.

chunkymove wrote:

htf wrote:
There is a lot less differences I agree. We are all here dealing with life and its ups a downs reaching out to each other.

Beautiful. Touchingly so. When atheist can frustrated with Christians, I can see them getting caught up in silliness. Other times it actually the facts of the situation, like “can I get a tattoo” ( if you want to discuss, open new post ). I like to make sure the disagreement really is a disagreement, and not just a wording framework.I’m atheist, but I believe in speaking in tongues, casting out demons, prayer etc. I don’t see it as supernatural and I don’t use those words, as I find that model hurts my reasoning. But I can relate to people who do. My family. yep that the motivation for ALL of this :-)

I’ve seen this a lot here to argue for arguments sake is really getting nowhere. Actions speak louder then words and we need to remember this always. Love is the driving force when Jesus walked this earth He did not try to force His will He reached out in love and people followed Him and believed.

Have a good night and talk with you soon glad I could help in some way.

Xeno Dragon wrote:

amhp wrote:

Xeno Dragon wrote:
You likely need speakers, then.

It could be as loud as absolute possible and I still wouldn’t know what they’re saying.

I’m DEAF!

Forgive me for not having an impairment crystal ball over here. You’re right, I should have just guessed that.

I never expected you to guess it, Ignorant Sarcastic Person.

prisca_sapientia wrote:
“believers” don’t know anything except what they’re told to “believe” and regurgitate (despite a growing body of legitimate evidence to the contrary about genetics and brains)

I OBJECT! I am a Christian and I happen to know a lot outside of my religion and Bible! Don’t bunch us all together like that. I don’t like it.

Xeno Dragon wrote:

amhp wrote:

Xeno Dragon wrote:

amhp wrote:

Xeno Dragon wrote:
You likely need speakers, then.

It could be as loud as absolute possible and I still wouldn’t know what they’re saying.

I’m DEAF!

Forgive me for not having an impairment crystal ball over here. You’re right, I should have just guessed that.

I never expected you to guess it, Ignorant Sarcastic Person.

Ignorant is one thing you do not want to call me, thank you.

But you are! I don’t like you very much because you don’t listen, nor do you even try to understand where I’m coming from.

Xeno Dragon wrote:
You’re just nit-picking now. You’ve decided that I must be evil because I disagree with you, so you pick something out of the conversation where I was actually trying to help you with what you make sound like a computer problem, and then you yell at me for getting something wrong I couldn’t possibly have guessed.

amhp wrote:
I don’t like you very much because you don’t listen, nor do you even try to understand where I’m coming from.

I have no problem listening, and I would bet money that I know more about your religion than you do, so while I may not know the specific version you subscribe to, I have a very good idea of where you’re coming from.

Chill, out. It’s the internet. It doesn’t matter.

No, YOU need to chill. And I wasn’t yelling. I don’t know how to do underlines or italics on this website, so I used CAPS instead. And it was my fancy, dramatic way of presenting it to you.

I didn’t have a computer problem. I watch movies on my computer all the time. The low pixels are YouTube’s fault. And you weren’t helping. I was extremely confused and lost in what you were even talking about and when I, nicely, asked you to explain, you did not.

Xeno Dragon wrote:

amhp wrote:
I didn’t have a computer problem. I watch movies on my computer all the time. The low pixels are YouTube’s fault. And you weren’t helping.

God forbid I try.

All you had to do was just explain! By the way, I’m still confused. And, honestly, I’d like to be un-confused.

What you were originally trying to explain to me.

Xeno Dragon wrote:
Originally, I was trying to explain that homosexuals are still human beings, and should be treated as such. And I backed it up with ample evidence. But that ended when I posted the link.After that, you told me about why you don’t like youtube, which the symptoms of reminded me of a problem that I happen to know how to fix. Call it a reflex from being on this site and helping for a year and a half, but I immediately tried to tell you how to fix such a problem. Little did I know, I’m supposed to have a list off all the people on the planet with a hearing problem. Because somehow, my inability to predict this is now being used by you as your reasoning behind why you don’t like me. Personally, I have my own theories, but I can’t sit here all night explaining them as well, so I’ll just bite my tongue.

How many times to I have to freaking explain?? I never ONCE expected you to know about my hearing loss! That’s impossible, in case you haven’t noticed! Oh, wait, you did, and now you want to moan about it! It was a freaking dramatic appearance! You know, like Dun-da-DAAAHH!!! Growl! Sigh, huff, growl! Why do you have to be such a smart-allecky boy?

Xeno Dragon wrote:

amhp wrote:
Uh, hello?? Ever heard of ‘different interpretations’? You’d never fit in with UUs…

What? Did you just turn into a valley girl for a second?

amhp wrote:
No. What made you think that?

Xeno Dragon wrote:
Something about brain-dead elitism with an 80s flair.

amhp wrote:
What’s brain dead elitism? Makes sure you know what I even said before you try to argue with it.

Xeno Dragon wrote:
Lol. Just lol. Look it up, I’ll wait.

amhp wrote:
You think I’m saying that I’m better than you?

Xeno Dragon wrote:

amhp wrote:
You’d never fit in with UUs…

That’s part of it. Keep going.

amhp wrote:

Xeno Dragon wrote:

amhp wrote:
You’d never fit in with UUs…

That’s part of it. Keep going.

What? I’m confused.

^^^You were going to explain THAT, by the way.^^^

amhp wrote:

prisca_sapientia wrote:
“believers” don’t know anything except what they’re told to “believe” and regurgitate (despite a growing body of legitimate evidence to the contrary about genetics and brains)

I OBJECT! I am a Christian and I happen to know a lot outside of my religion and Bible! Don’t bunch us all together like that. I don’t like it.

Amanda, I definitely hope you are better informed, and more well-read and grounded in practical knowledge about the world around you. While IQ is one popular measure (btw, 120 is certainly adequate to separate you from fence posts), it doesn’t necessarily ensure one effectively employs all (120) points in daily life. As I recall, Mensa makes it clear that people from all walks of life and all vocations can qualify for membership. Back in the day, many members didn’t demonstrate much more common sense, logic or book smarts than a bag of rocks. At meetings, many were more interested in drinking and acting like bags of rocks rolling downhill. Alcohol clearly beat IQ’s brains out.

You objected to my comment about “not knowing anything” because you mistook it for a broad brush stroke. The tar was only meant to be dabbed on that portion of the brain so numbed and befogged by blind belief in mystical entities that it refuses to expand its horizons beyond dogma. I closed that para with a question, not an accusation - “If so, then why do they (religionists) always act and sound so ignorant and close-minded, or twist facts into pretzels?” All the farcical circular arguments religionists engage in boil down to an unresolvable issue - belief vs fact. I tend to stereotype based on what one does with their belief AND the facts.

I sense you feel it unfair of atheists to mock religionists, but you’re looking at this from your POV. I don’t mock my religious friends, but then they aren’t proselytizing in my face, i.e., acting self-righteous or promoting their particular “belief” as a “fact” or “truth” when belief is predicated on the antithesis of fact and logic. Some posters on help.com proselytize, some are almost knee-jerk in their habit, some of the more amusing even try to usurp the word logic. Religious leaders’ bunker-mentality has always miscast science as the aggressor, as a competitor actively bent on stealing market share; and, more’s the pity, they’ve convinced many followers. Science isn’t an “enemy” but deists need to paint it thus or risk losing some of their flock’s tithes. Religion has always been a wolf in sheep’s clothing, howling at the progress science makes.

IMHO, if religionists would keep their notions to themselves (i.e., preach to the choir), they wouldn’t be mocked, and mocking’s hardly on par with what the religious have done to atheists and scientists over the centuries. However, since they’re urged to go out and spread the archaic “word”, nobody should blame atheists for having a little fun while pointing out gaping flaws in illogical and subjective posts. Instead of complaining to moderators, blame religious leaders for urging them to spread tripe disguised as “help”. It’s fine and noble to offer solace, compassion and empathy, but it’s just plain wrong and unethical to take advantage of the vulnerable for the purpose of converting them. Political ads follow a similar unsavory methodology.

Chunkymove posed the two questions. They deserved simple and straightforward answers, not vacuous feel good rhetoric or an ad for mormonism. It would seem Chunkymove got a bit of both and hopefully was able to piece the bits together.

Molotok referred to me as a “she” when taking me to task by suggesting my writing is just “semantics” (under the guise of logic) that makes him sad. Am I upset? Nah. Why? Because he turned around and tried to “prove” a pro-faith point by alluding to the flat earth proponents’ faith, and then apparently crediting Newton’s “faith” as the reason behind his discoveries. IMHO, Molotok’s analogy is flawed. Perhaps he’s confusing Newton’s unorthodox religious faith with intuition, excellent insight and powers of observation, and high confidence in an idea fueled by passionate curiosity. He and other scientists, religious or not, often doggedly pursue a course of investigation, but not because of religious beliefs. I can’t recall any scientists who repressed, tortured, murdered, censured and excommunicated deists. However, when the shoe’s on the other foot and scientists try to put earth and the universe in proper perspective (i.e., correcting flawed conclusions by earlier researchers), what happens? Molotok, please reread history - what brought about Newtonian Law and Galilleo’s heliocentrism (certainly not a belief in the opposite); how did deists co-opt Newton’s work (deists never conduct research to find their god); and what did sanctimoniously religionists do to suppress the advance of science. You might be a little less eager to demand that atheists act more humble.

I feel Molotok went further off track by concluding that nontheists have stopped thinking. In reality, it’s a religionist’s thinking that often comes unhinged when confronting science. They slip off the balance beam of logic and fall onto the soft, fluffy gym mat of belief and circular argument. Scientists who hold religious beliefs but still conduct serious research are just more adept than zealots on the parallel bars of science and religion, perhaps because a well-chalked mind isn’t as prone to sticking or slipping. The brain’s a complex organ. Psycho/physiological responses to feel good neurotransmitters disrupt logic pathways. The emotional biofeedback from “surrendering” oneself to religion is obviously very powerful and convincing, just as are vivid dreams, hallucinations, mass hysteria and other self-delusions… they seem very real, but IMHO are just in one’s head. To believe is to feel warm and comfy with simple answers. To embrace logic and science is to enjoy high confidence and exercise boundless curiosity. Having doubts is a reflection of being uncomfortable with some facet of one’s own life, a decidedly human condition.

Religionists have been thumping holy tomes for thousands of years without doing one bit of honest research to verify anything. OTOH, serious science (not to discount the due diligence of ancient stargazers, pyramid builders and ancient explorers) has really only been active for about 500 hundred years, and yet look what science has accomplished despite the hurdles and resistance from religious luddites. Today, one should give thanks to scientists and explorers, not imaginary gods. I don’t deny that many scientists, inventors and discoverers are religious and I wouldn’t try to change their beliefs. I will, however, spoof anyone who:
1- allows adherence to blind religious belief distract them from fact and logic;
2- abuses and misuses their education, or usurps/twists other’s serious research to suit their agenda of misleading those with poorer educations or high levels of gullibility, i.e., Behe, DeYoung, et. al.;
3- tries to thrust the warped square religious peg (ID and creationism) into the round holes (kids’ minds) inside science classrooms.

By using this zany comment - “But the one theory is as valid as the other, until the truth is eventually found!” Molotok showed who needs to brush up on their semantics… and on the principles behind Scientific Method. Simply claiming a god was responsible is not in any way, shape or form a theory, in the scientific sense of the word.

Well, you illustrated quite well what I meant. I think you are too stiff.

To start with, your small avatar looks as a “she” until enlarged (and the Latin gender of the alias is fem.)

You should have noted that I used “faith” in a more wide context, not necessarily meaning religious faith. I am not trying to prove the existence of a God, but I want to stress that a strong belief in something is what have fuelled the great scientists throughout history.

But most great scientists have also been humble, open for new stuff beyong their horizon.

I note that you used the term “Scientific Method”, which in no way equals science. Well, there is a technical part of science, the Methodology. That has fuelled nothing, but is needed in order to get a research structure and in order to communicate (prove) the results. You don’t have to be a scientist to work with that, a trained monkey would be enough in some cases.
But the ability to see around the corner, to have visions, to use all those “soft” abilities, is what made those scientists great. I.e, they were great philosophers.

Some of the previous guys were at least as intelligent, and contributed at least as much to our development as the modern scientists. I think it is a mistake to say that “serious science” has been active for only 500 years. I would recommend a visit at the Imothep museum in Sakkara. I promise you that even you will be convinced that Imothep would easily fill his chair beside Newton, Einstein and the other big guys. And there were so many other, too.

What I advocate is humbleness and an open mind. I direct that to theists as well as to atheists.
But it seems to me like you already have “all set up, case closed”.

That IS to stop thinking.

Molotok, I’m often accused of arrogance, but that’s due more to a reader’s interpretation of the rather intense and candid way I write rather than from any self-delusion of superiority. Perhaps something’s lost in translation, but if you want to use “stiff” or even “closeminded” (when it comes to religion), that’s fine by me. I am comfortable with my intrinsic atheist position and have no need whatsoever to cloud the thought process with philosophical musings about mystical beings. I dabbled in pedagogics & Socratic Method decades ago. My thinking is quite clear. It’s the religionists who seek to obfuscate. I would never equate (religious) philosophy with hard scientific research. My analogy of parallel bars seemed apropos but I’m open to others.

Can’t do anything about the avatar size. It’s a classic shot of Johnny as Karnac. As for Latin genderization, in this case the devil’s in the details… while the suffix itself is fem, in 45 years I’ve never seen the male suffix (sapientum) used colloquially with this phrase. Googling finds 4130 hits for the fem, only 2 for male. BTW, did you know your reference to Newton and mine to prisca sapientia intersect in a most curious way… Newton felt strongly that ancient wisdom was lurking in myths. Fortunately, none of his distractions into religious prophecy deterred him from his work with math and scientific observation.

I speculated that you might be using an expansive context for “faith” but had to delete a few rambling paragraphs and I guess that was axed. In the context of religious “faith” such expansiveness is akin to coloring outside the lines. IMHO, religious faith has and will be a deterrent to research and progress except with those “great” scientists who can balance both and not be hobbled. One of your expansive examples was flat earthers (their faith was a drag), the other Newton (unfettered by his religious faith). RELIGIOUS faith has not fueled science but seeks to quash questions and answers that may rattle its foundation.

No quarrels with your observation that great scientists are in some ways excellent philosophers. Being humble, level-headed and open to new discoveries definitely helps many great scientists, but I doubt many were propelled/compelled/inspired BY religious faith to conduct serious research into the natural sciences. Please let me know who falls into that category. OTOH, “philosophers” spend a great deal of time speculating about religion, existence, ethics and other metaphysical concepts that fall outside the purview of true scientific research. Ideally, a scientist’s temperament is philosophical, but he can’t be wasting much time philosophizing or the grant money will run out. I sense you’ve a desire to laud philosophy, but has philosophy in and of itself ever resulted in a scientific breakthrough? “Thinking out of the box” is a crucial tool of the good research scientist, while philosophizing is more or less anaerobic mental gymnastics.

I was indeed referring to the technical concept of Scientific Method. Didn’t say Scientific Method equals science, it provides a FRAMEWORK for uniformity, in process and in judging results. Without it as a basis for testing protocols and for results comparison, you risk chaos and impaired communication between (geographically or in time) disparate research groups. Did you mean to impugn Scientific Method with the “trained monkey” comment? A pigeon can be taught to pluck atypical/defective units from a conveyor belt and a broken clock is right twice a day, but the clock isn’t a reliable timepiece and neither monkeys nor pigeons are germane to SM.

Since I specifically gave honorable mention to “pyramid builders” and other ancients, not sure why you’d bring Imhotep up. Wasn’t he a commoner who only later was elevated to deity status, not a scientist/inventor driven by religious faith? While he gets credit for some forward-looking inventions and decidedly NONmystical research, I believe much of his and other early discoverers results were untranslated, lost or unavailable to later scientists, physicians and engineers who have reinvented various wheels, so to speak. I picked a relatively arbitrary date for the beginning of the rapid “modern-day” ramp up in scientific discoveries building on one another. Off the top of my head, 500 years should coincide with increased oceanic/land traffic and improved communication/info exchange between disparate enclaves of wisdom and research. (spice routes, printing press, shipping/commerce)

I probably won’t be available to pursue this for a day or three, but bottom line, there seems a more pressing need for you to brush up on semantics than there is a need for me to practice philosophy… til I’m retired and in a rocking chair. I have certainly not “stopped thinking” and indeed still enjoy flashes of insight from those “soft abilities” in the right hemisphere. In other words, my Corpus Callosum is open for business.

I don’t debate Latin suffixes, I just told how I cound associate with female.

I brought up the ancient scientists to point to the fact that they had very primitive toolboxes for their Methodologies. They had to create their own frameworks, and their own practical experiments, without having very much “free of charge” as compared with modern scientists. And indeed, the communications were slow or nonexistent, leaving them very alone. Often they were not even able to prove their theories, but had to live with their beliefs only.
But I don’t want to call them less of scientists, than modern jacks of that trade.

And no, I did not want to impugn (so I learned another word - English isn’t my first language) SM, I even stated that it is needed. But I said that SM could be adhered to by personnel who are called scientists even if they are protocol secretaries only, but you are well aware of what I meant with scientists, i.e. visionaries and path-finders.

Einsteins greatness had nothing to do with his ability to exercise mathematical or physical formulas. He wasn’t even good at it, other people often did that for him. His greatness was in his being a great philosopher.

I also don’t want to say that any of the known religions’ version of the creation is true, and I don’t believe so either. But that is far from being able to say that it happened by random.The one who says it did, has to prove that before I believe it.
And the one who says it did not, has to prove his point.

Until that is done, my bottom line is that I remain humble.

Prisca, you described nothing of me. You need to learn to not stereotype. It’s not nice.

I am a very smart girl. Period. I have much knowledge in many different things, I put my brain to work everyday, and I learn new things.

The Bible says to share your knowledge. So, that is what I do when I speak of God and the Bible, but that is also what I do when I speak of science, history, and language.

When I was reading little Lillian’s science book, I noticed that the answer for every single science question started with, “Scientists believe…” Never, “The fact is”, or “The truth is,” or anything like that. Science is a belief that is filled with theories and educated guesses. Guess what? Christian science is just the very same thing.

actually xeno, im glad you said that. because thats exactly what many people have tried to do.

but i would like to pose a question to you.

if it doesnt follow the scientific method exactly, but we can still arrive at the conclusion using logic, in such a way that it makes sense,

could we not consider it true? if we can test it with logical questions, and find that it passes, even though we did not use “the scientific method”,

would that not be enough?

- Fire

Xeno Dragon wrote:

amhp wrote:
Science is a belief that is filled with theories and educated guesses. Guess what? Christian science is just the very same thing.

Okay, then show me this, in regards to religion. Use the Scientific method. Here, I’ll show you an example.

Ask a question. Is the Loch Ness Monster real?

Do background research. (Most likely by studying the loch, learning about possible life forms and their evolution, and exploring the loch itself.)

Construct a hypothesis. In this case, Yes, Nessie exists.

Test with an experiment. Which they have done, and it involved a full sonar sweep of the loch, along with many other tests and scans with the best technology available.

Analyze results, and draw a conclusion. In this case, they found nothing, and their research showed that it was impossible for any kind of large animal to survive in Loch Ness.

Thus, in the next step, the Hypothesis is declared False. Thus, they had to re-evaluate their findings, and construct a new hypothesis. Nessie does not exist. All of the evidence and research pointed to the creature being imaginary. Once the findings show an undeniable conclusion, they move on to the next and final step, which is…

Report the results. They showed their documentary at Loch Ness, at several paranormal societies, and to the Discovery Channel, which is how I found it.

Now, if you can do that with God, then yes, Christian science is ‘just the very same thing’ as actual science. If you can’t, then it’s not.

Thank you for explaining how to do the steps, but it wasn’t necessary. I already know how to test a theory.

Chunky, no wonder you’re very confused about things if you’re reading such religionist tripe as - “all those non christan’s who can’t see gods glory are lunatics” and your definition of science is “Science is about giving any old thing a go and coming up with an explanation later that fits with other empirical knowledge.”

C’mon, cavemen likely tasted pretty much everything to see if it was edible (often relying on the shaman to pass along that knowledge to younger gens), and alchemists wasted a lot of time mixing together every element they could get their hands on to see (and sometimes record for posterity) the reactions since they had little historical knowledge of how elements reacted; and even modern-day pharmaceutical companies are combining various compounds and natural extracts to see if any will result in effective new products (because it’s tough to impossible to glean even rudimentary reliable info from primitive cultures who also learned by trial error; but SCIENTIFIC pursuit itself relies on and builds upon previous knowledge to generate hypotheses that are then tested and either discarded or added to accumulated wisdom. Every pendulum swings too much and this age of science is no different. It’s made mistakes, from harming the environment to inadvertently breeding powerful new antibiotic-resistant microbes, and even turning its back on certain ancient remedies that actually worked. Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater by denigrating or trivializing scientific achievement. Science is resilient, flexible, almost always advancing.

OTOH, religion is a primitive, rigid, lazy, escapist/nonthinker’s way out of personal darkness and discontent. Dogmatic faith cracks if it dares to question the words in which religionist brain pans have been steeped and marinated. That’s why phrases such as “surrender yourself” are used by religionists. You have to turn your brain off to “believe” the rhetoric.

Your words suggest you are very vulnerable and open to what the snakeoil salesmen are selling. But hey, if religion floats your boat, it’s better THAN heroin. Just be very aware of what you’re injecting into your brain. That you “want more” (of that warm fuzzy feeling) just shows how beguiling it is. People with addictive predispositions will suck it up like a monkey pounding on the button that dispenses heroin. Religion is truly the siren song of peace and contentment. Fortunately, most religionists don’t crash on any rocks (separates most religions from cults), but it seems very clear that for most “users” spiritual “growth” stunts intellectual growth.

amhp wrote:
Prisca, you described nothing of me. You need to learn to not stereotype. It’s not nice. I am a very smart girl. Period. I have much knowledge in many different things, I put my brain to work everyday, and I learn new things.

The Bible says to share your knowledge. So, that is what I do when I speak of God and the Bible, but that is also what I do when I speak of science, history, and language. When I was reading little Lillian’s science book, I noticed that the answer for every single science question started with, “Scientists believe…” Never, “The fact is”, or “The truth is,” or anything like that. Science is a belief that is filled with theories and educated guesses. Guess what? Christian science is just the very same thing.

Mandy, you’ve still a lot of growing up to do before you earn the right to chastise me for stereotyping. I’ve been doing that my entire life and it’s served me well. (I support profiling, too) Deducing the contents of a book by its cover is easy if the cover has a cross and hands clasped in prayer. I really don’t care if you don’t like my diametrically opposed notions. If you blindly follow a religious sect’s exhortations to spread BS, you gotta expect some of it to splash back on you.

As for science books that repeatedly use the qualifier “scientists believe” (i.e., not declare it as fact), I’ve no problem with that… unless the politically correct censorship pendulum’s swung so far in the direction of CYA that publishers and writers append every sentence with an equivocation so as not to ruffle litigious feathers. Where would it end? - “The flat earth society is still contesting the rigidity of math constants, but mathematicians BELIEVE 1 + 1 = 2.” Pendulums tend to swing way too far to the right or left. Alas, that particular use of “believe” you find in that book is not at all equivalent to its use in a religious context. The former “belief” typically has the support of increasing cumulative, often repetitive evidence from bona fide testing, experimentation, observation, etc. OTOH, religious belief has nothing but faith in myths in its corner, a true circular fallacy.

You called yourself smart, right? Then, why abuse semantics more than Molotok by posting such a terribly terribly flawed** and overreaching comment - “Science is a belief that is filled with theories and educated guesses. Guess what? Christian science is just the very same thing.”
** (flawed by its deliberate omission of the FACT that all scientific theories and “EDUCATED guesses” are buttressed by and build upon previously well-documented facts, repeatable experiments and logical hypothesis… that’s why something’s called an educated guess)
Let’s look at the definition for “christian science” According to its ditzy founder, M.B. Eddy, it is - “The law of God, the law of good, interpreting and demonstrating the divine Principle and rule of universal harmony.”
That ain’t science, young lady, certainly not a valid science. That’s alchemy’s pabulum. Might feel good if you squoosh your painted toes in it, but such doctrines appear to be nothing more than literalist religious philosophy mixed with medical quackery. The practice falls woefully short of resembling or qualifying as scientific. It’s another wolf in sheep’s clothing. [btw, how’s that whole “avoid doctors, immunizations and medicine” thing working out for ‘em?]

Amanda, you are welcome to believe that faith is sufficient and so-called christian “science” is a science. IMHO, that’s not very smart or wise, but it’s your brain. OTOH, I can’t, I won’t, I never align myself with something that vacuous. Period. (Molo may call that “stiff” but then, what’s he know? :-) If you’re indeed the “smart girl” you claim to be, try to accept that folks like me find proselytizing very inappropriate on help forums, in restaurants and movie theaters and the middle of a Sunday football game. If proselytizers can’t resist littering help forums with that tripe, eventually someone’s going to come along and push back, perhaps by linking to a contender for young minds - http://www.churchofreality.org/wisdom…
or touting a video that tries to pull the rug out from under christianity by raising questions that trigger apoplexy in blind faith proseltyzers- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0455507/
http://www.thegodmovie.com/trailer/te…

Now, me, I wouldn’t do that since the film lacks the scholarly due diligence and supportive empirical evidence requisite of viable hypotheses. I generally limit my links to a legitimate, respected site that debunks creationism garbage - www.talkorigins.org - hoping one or two will take the time to LEARN something. You see, I’m not trying to turn back the herds of lemmings stampeding blindly into death hoping for a second chance on the other side of a pearly gate. I just don’t want them to spread their nonsense in public classrooms.

Okay, C, then I’ll bug out from this thread with some final comments - anecdotal evidence for certain alternative therapies impresses even me. Not surprising since the placebo effect is proving to be quite real. So, I’m not opposed to acupuncture, yoga or quiet/introspective meditation. Plus, they’re certainly cheaper than MRI’s! Also, I’ll be the first to admit that followers of certain religions are incredibly calm and easy-going. I’ve noticed it with born agains of my acquaintance. As long as they keep their notions to themselves (i.e., controlling that urge to proselytize over coffee) then we get along just fine.

Best to you.

No no no, “bug out” was meant in the military sense of moving on. As usual, I’ve voiced my opinions, ruffled a few feathers, hopefully provided some balance. Any more would be overkill, likely with collateral damage. (hah, more militaryspeak)

Xeno Dragon wrote:

Xeno Dragon wrote:

amhp wrote:

Xeno Dragon wrote:

amhp wrote:
Science is a belief that is filled with theories and educated guesses. Guess what? Christian science is just the very same thing.

Okay, then show me this, in regards to religion. Use the Scientific method. Here, I’ll show you an example.

Ask a question. Is the Loch Ness Monster real?

Do background research. (Most likely by studying the loch, learning about possible life forms and their evolution, and exploring the loch itself.)

Construct a hypothesis. In this case, Yes, Nessie exists.

Test with an experiment. Which they have done, and it involved a full sonar sweep of the loch, along with many other tests and scans with the best technology available.

Analyze results, and draw a conclusion. In this case, they found nothing, and their research showed that it was impossible for any kind of large animal to survive in Loch Ness.

Thus, in the next step, the Hypothesis is declared False. Thus, they had to re-evaluate their findings, and construct a new hypothesis. Nessie does not exist. All of the evidence and research pointed to the creature being imaginary. Once the findings show an undeniable conclusion, they move on to the next and final step, which is…

Report the results. They showed their documentary at Loch Ness, at several paranormal societies, and to the Discovery Channel, which is how I found it.

Now, if you can do that with God, then yes, Christian science is ‘just the very same thing’ as actual science. If you can’t, then it’s not.

Thank you for explaining how to do the steps, but it wasn’t necessary. I already know how to test a theory.

Okay. Then do it.

Amhp? You still there, or did you give up?

I can’t spend all my life on the computer. And I also can’t waste my time trying to prove the existence of God to you. If you really want someone to explain God to you, then go to someone else. Go to someone with experience and a lot more knowledge. I am only newly saved and am still learning. I still have many questions myself. I cannot answer all your questions and I cannot prove everything myself. But I know the truth.

i want to attempt to apply the scientific method to god, right here, right now, even if only in reasoning out what we already know.

okay, so the first step is a hypothosis. some people say that god cant be a hypothosis because i didnt come up with it. what? yes, yes, it can. and it has to be if i want to test this. so,

the hypothosis shall be that: an intelligent being, known to man as god, created everything we know.

the next step is to use test to determine if its true. now, it seems at first thought that we cannot test if a god exists.

but i can think of some things that we can prove exist without testing directly. we can prove that dinosaurs exist by the fossils they left, we can prove that a crime is commited by clues left.

i want to take a detective approach to this. so, as a logical being i will try and think of what must be true if there is a god. the first thing is to consider other alternatives i think. one is evolutionary theory, which says that creatures evolved over several million years. if this is true, we should see evolution taking place today, slowly. we should see mixes between the classes of families of animals, we should the connective proof from fish to a land animal to dogs, or cats, and on to humans. we should see a lot of the ones that lead to humans. not just one or 2 examples…

if god was real, everything would be ordered, like an intelligent god must be to create us. like programs written for computers, garbage in, garbage out, if something intelligent wasnt coded into us, we would not be intelligent. we would be choas.

because we are not choas in form, i can only guess that there is something to this theory of god. this possible truth.

this is the first thing that scientific christians may think to themselves,
heres the tests they go through in their heads.

it starts with questioning everything. questioning evidence, questioning life itself.

as i come across these realizations, i come up with the conclusion that further investigation is neccessary. theres a lot to be considered, and many christians pursue that.

so, heres my results, of simple thoughts. they are not a proof. they draw not diffenite conclusions, but they are possibly what christian scientist start to think when they embark after the idea of god.

…

just a few thoughts…

- Fire

Sorry, Firestarter, you really jumped the shark with that post. You haven’t got a clue how SM works. Typical of religionist methodology, you skim over the basics, make invalid assumptions, and basically dumb it down to fit your schisms. You started with a “hypothesis” and promptly made a series of bungling, unsubstantiated and woefully ignorant If/Then assumptions and ended up deciding you didn’t prove anything so it’s back to the drawing board. Good thing… you’d be laughed out of the National Association of Biology Teachers.

FYI, individual “crimes” based on “clues” occasionally turn out not to have even been committed, and sometimes point to the wrong suspect. A single set of circumstantial evidence doesn’t necessarily “prove” something. When such has been presented in courts by overzealous prosecutors, verdicts are sometimes subsequently overturned by additional evidence. You did nothing more than make a bad attempt to mimic Socratic/maieutic method and ended up leading your only witness. You couldn’t make it as a lawyer, either.

Your level of education/familiarity with Evolutionary Theory is abysmal. It does not hold that “creatures evolved over several million years.” The plant and animal kingdoms evolved over BILLIONS of years, starting with primitive building blocks or extra-terrestrial seeding, after which single-celled and eventually more complex creatures arose, branched and diversified due to natural selection and genetic drift. To write “we should see mixes between the classes of families of animals” is nonsensical, showing your ignorance of genetics. You ignored time to several orders of magnitude, ignored the basic rationale of evolution regarding building upon what’s come before, ignored basic genetics. You are out of your element. It sounds like you just read the comic book version of “Creationism for Dummies.”

You regurgitate the everso popular fool’s proposition - “if this is true, we should see evolution taking place today, slowly.”
“SLOWLY”??? Hello… we HAVE witnessed baby steps of “evolution” in certain plants and animals, those with short lifecycles. Adaptation to different habitats, developing pesticide and antibiotic resistance, etc. Your expectation that this should occur in a macro species “overnight” instead of over tens of thousands to millions of years shows your ignorance.

That we even have a few fossil records showing links between land and sea and sometimes back to sea (or land to air and back again) is amazing, considering - a) the vast time scale and the massive amount of destruction caused by erosion and deposition, b) that we’ve only really known (for science purposes) the importance of fossils for a couple hundred years. How can you legitimately expect there to be “a lot”? Do you think they grow on trees? Fossils are unearthed from exposed sedimentary rock layers that can be thousands of feet deep. Most will likely remain permanently entombed, until tectonic forces pull them deep into the magma.

Fossils indicate that niches have been filled, invaded by new species, devastated by environmental perturbations and refilled time and again. Even the hominid record demonstrates evolutionary change - in physical stature, brain pan volumes, our atrophied organs, etc. You’re not likely to “see” a new macro SPECIES evolve in your lifetime nor in 100 lifetimes unless it’s speeded up biological tinkering. So much for your career as a “detective”.

Pyro, incredibly “simple thoughts” and conjecture cannot rise to the level of SM. In fact, you could jump in a hot air balloon and your specious attempt wouldn’t rise close to SM. What you have inadvertently done, though, is demonstrate why religion and creationism should NEVER be given a place in science classrooms. Thank you for that.

It’s easy to debunk sophomoric laymen who are ill-equipped to try to accomplish what nobody on your side of the fence can do, not even Behe and DeYoung with their sleazy math and probability contortionist act. You really should step back into your comfort zone, the fog of blind belief.

amhp wrote:
I am a very smart girl. Period. I have much knowledge in many different things, I put my brain to work everyday, and I learn new things.
The Bible says to share your knowledge. So, that is what I do when I speak of God and the Bible, but that is also what I do when I speak of science, history, and language.
When I was reading little Lillian’s science book, I noticed that the answer for every single science question started with, “Scientists believe…” Never, “The fact is”, or “The truth is,” or anything like that. Science is a belief that is filled with theories and educated guesses. Guess what? Christian science is just the very same thing.

Uh, no amandalynn, PER THE QUOTE BOX repeated again above, I was addressing amhp, who happens to be another amanda. Sorry for the confusion. I hate this message board format.

Response to prisca_sapienta:

Oh, I’ve grown up enough to chastise you about stereotyping. You really shouldn’t stereotype me.

You certainly write a lot.

First off, I don’t proselytize people. Not in restaurants, not at the movies, not anywhere. And I don’t proselytize here. I mention my Christian faith in a post and BAM!, I’m attacked by atheists. So, then I start defending my beliefs whether I realize it or not.

As for my sentence, “Science is a belief that is filled with theories and educated guesses. Guess what? Christian science is just the very same thing.” It is not sorely flawed. I never said what was behind a theory or an educated guess. I just said that science was made up of those. And that is true. I know what theories and educated guesses are made of. But that does not always mean they are facts. Some of them are, such as the Theory of Mind, but some of them aren’t.

I have no idea who M.B. Eddy is. I do my Christian science learning from two guys, both of whom I forgot the names, however one of them was one of the responsible scientists for the Human Genome Project. He is also a Christian. The other one is a former Evolutionary Biologist. They both know their facts about science and nature and all that sort, but are also faithful Christians.

I also don’t believe anyone should avoid doctors, immunizations, or medicine. I believe God gave us those for special reasons. He’s not going to just reach down and make us miraculously well again. I also support human cloning and stem cell research as well as banking umbilical cord blood and cells.

I don’t just blindly follow my Bibles. God gave us knowledge for a reason. God gave us books and people for a reason. If we didn’t need anything, but him, we would’t have all of that. I am currently taking a class from University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill. It is called Introduction to Psychology and I am currently learning about the Evolutionary Bases of Behavior. I am reading and learning about Charles Darwin and the Theory of Evolution. I do not agree with any of that, but I believe that in order to grow in knowledge, I cannot shut anything out, including Darwin.

i must agree that you stereotype out the [***] prisca.

you say that “christians” and “religionist” do this and that when talking about a person. what? how do you even know that those people are anything even similar to me, or anyone else on this site?

you cant know. please realize at least that.
. . .
then maybe you can start to get somewhere…

and i do use simple thoughts. its better than trying to complicate them to the point of not even understanding yourself fully. not that i cant grasp far more elusive complexities and notions, but i choose not to over complicate things. why should i?

no religion is truly based on blind faith, though some faith may be necessary at first. only a fool blindly places faith in anything.

im not easily angered pris. I usually would not agree with stooping to your level to insult you and your beliefs with a backhanded statement about your arguments based on insults and intricate delusions of intelligence.

but sometimes the situation calls for it.

maybe next time though…

- Fire

Awww, Sparky’s “Angered”? Why, because you used the crackpot method of trying to equate belief to scientific method and I called you on it, poking holes in your admittedly “simple thoughts”? TOUGH. Grow a pair. You were either trolling to engage someone in one of the classic religionist roundrobin arguments, or you really think you’re a “detective” or philosopher. Talk about delusions.

Xeno, at some point, I stop pussyfooting around and just call a * a *. Today was that day. I don’t visit all the notices that predictably have resident proselytizers looking to convert newbies. I was invited to this notice and allowed myself to be drawn into a pointless faith vs reality exchange.

The motivation behind the endless supply of banner waving religionists “spreading the word” seems to be a hope of sucking rational people into disagreements/arguments. (legit debate being totally impossible because of the circular logic they employ) Too often, they get away with this stunt, and it only emboldens them to push more. When they run into someone who can see through them, who won’t back down, who subsequently deconstructs their preposterous notions and rubs their faces in it, their feelings are hurt and they whine about being “attacked”. They want their wafer and eat it, too. You know it, I know it, they need to learn it while they’re still young. One person’s belittlement is another’s tough love.

FWIW, I wanted to “bug out” after bidding Chunkymove adieu, but then ye olde bannerwavers popped in to stir the pot. I’ve made the same point you did that religionists shouldn’t throw stones in glass houses, but it goes right over their heads. Bet you’ll reach a point someday when you’re tired of pussyfooting around, too.

Xeno Dragon wrote:

amhp wrote:
I mention my Christian faith in a post and BAM!, I’m attacked by atheists.

I’m sorry, but if you know anything about religious history, Christians are being attacked by Atheists like Germany was attacked by Poland. Christians have burned people at the stake, destroyed countless civilizations, and spilled the blood of millions, simply because they refused to convert to Christianity. So you don’t really get to whine when other people stand up a bit rapaciously to defend their beliefs. No, I’m not saying this is proper behavior, Atheists shouldn’t be attacking you. But then… I don’t see where any did.

I’m not those people who tortured others. And it wasn’t just Christians. People of other religions have tortured others as well.

Xeno Dragon wrote:

amhp wrote:
As for my sentence, “Science is a belief that is filled with theories and educated guesses. Guess what? Christian science is just the very same thing.” It is not sorely flawed. I never said what was behind a theory or an educated guess. I just said that science was made up of those. And that is true. I know what theories and educated guesses are made of. But that does not always mean they are facts. Some of them are, such as the Theory of Mind, but some of them aren’t.

Just to clarify, are you saying you don’t believe in most of what science claims because it hasn’t been proven? Because this is something I, at least in part, agree with. Of course, I’m consistent. I treat every religion the same way; I don’t believe them because there’s no proof. I don’t outright deny them, either, but I don’t believe them. You, on the other hand, seem to condemn science for the very same things that your religion is guilty of here, (not having proof) and yet you believe in Christianity. Could you explain the logic behind this?

I don’t condemn science. I love science. It’s one of my very favorite subjects. I love learning about science anyway I can. I love reading about new discoveries and inventions. When I was little, the science fair was one of my favorite things about school. And I always have that “Why” question in the back of my head. I believe most of science. I just don’t believe whatever contradicts the Bible.

Xeno Dragon wrote:

amhp wrote:
I have no idea who M.B. Eddy is. I do my Christian science learning from two guys, both of whom I forgot the names, however one of them was one of the responsible scientists for the Human Genome Project. He is also a Christian. The other one is a former Evolutionary Biologist. They both know their facts about science and nature and all that sort, but are also faithful Christians.

This is a prime example of what one would call, “Extremely biased sources”. Broadening your horizons a bit would do you well.

It is not extremely biased. I only like to learn my science from experienced scientists who are well-known and respected. It’s smart. I’m not just going to believe anyone. There are a lot of people who try to disprove science and prove the Bible and fail. I like to listen to people who know what they are talking about.

Xeno Dragon wrote:

amhp wrote:
I also don’t believe anyone should avoid doctors, immunizations, or medicine. I believe God gave us those for special reasons.

Um… no. That would be SCIENCE that gave us these things.

You’re absolutely right. But I believe God gave us science.

Xeno Dragon wrote:

amhp wrote:
I am reading and learning about Charles Darwin and the Theory of Evolution. I do not agree with any of that, but I believe that in order to grow in knowledge, I cannot shut anything out, including Darwin.

Why don’t you believe in it? This is an honest question, and an honest answer would be polite. By stating now that, even though you’re still in the process of learning about Darwin, you’ve already decided you disagree, you’re kind of saying you might as well not even be learning it at all. So what use is knowledge if you pre-pick what you’ll use and what you won’t? It’s all superfluous at that point, and quite frankly, if that’s the case, your tuition is being completely and utterly wasted.

I’m not JUST learning about Darwin. I knew about him and evolution all my life. One of my favorite books when I was a little girl was about evolution. I already knew enough about it to know what it is, how it supposedly happens, and to already disagree with it by the time I was reading it in my textbook. Also, I’m not wasting my tuition. The class is not about evolution. It is about psychology which I love. If the class was about evolution, I wouldn’t pay a cent to take it.

Xeno Dragon wrote:
“I’m not those people who tortured others. And it wasn’t just Christians. People of other religions have tortured others as well.”

Yes… but there is a group or two that never has. And Christians are responsible for more than any other religion. Besides, that’s not the point. It doesn’t matter what you, personally, have or haven’t done, I’m saying Christians as a whole really have no place to complain about being attacked considering what they’ve done.

I don’t complain. I just don’t appreciate it.

Xeno Dragon wrote:
“I believe most of science. I just don’t believe whatever contradicts the Bible.”

Why not? Why do you believe the Bible is infallible?

I don’t take the Bible literally, word for word. I believe much of it is metaphoric, and I also believe some of it is no longer valid.

Xeno Dragon wrote:
“It is not extremely biased.”

Yes it is. If you only follow two Christian scientists, and, as you admitted before, you immediately reject anything that doesn’t support the Bible. That’s called being extremely biased.

I don’t “follow” two Christian scientists. I follow God and the Bible. I listen to these Christian scientists because I’d rather listen to them than listen to someone who has no clue what they are talking about. I’m only listening to these two because I do not know of any others right now who are worthy of paying attention to. But if there is ever anyone else that I trust and admire, I will listen to them as long as they know what they are talking about.

Xeno Dragon wrote:
“I believe God gave us science.”
Um. Again, no. While empirical investigations of the natural world have been described since antiquity (for example, by Aristotle, Theophrastus and Pliny the Elder), and scientific methods have been employed since the Middle Ages (for example, by Ibn al-Haytham, Abū Rayhān al-Bīrūnī and Roger Bacon), the dawn of modern science is generally traced back to the early modern period, during what is known as the Scientific Revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries. The word scientist was first coined by William Whewell in the 19th century. Previously, people investigating nature called themselves natural philosophers. Humans invented science.

I believe God gave us everything. But don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying these things just miraculously appeared. God only does miracles when it’s necessary. Otherwise, He gives us gifts in ways that can be explained. In this case, He gave us science through humans.

Xeno Dragon wrote:
“If the class was about evolution, I wouldn’t pay a cent to take it.”

That’s probably a wise choice, because when you close your mind, no knowledge can get in.

Ooh, you’re terribly wrong there. My mind is more open than you want to think it is.

wow.

when i talk to people that don’t know what they believe, some say that they are atheist, some say christian, some say agnostic… the rest tend to know what they believe…

but, when a person says atheist, it usually just means they dont like the idea of god as christians say, and they just mean that, not that they fully believe there is no god.

some of these people are called on the fact that: to claim there is no god, means you have to know some how.

and unless you claim to be able to see god, and know all knowledge to know hes not there…. then what you mean is you don’t think there is a god. not you know there isn’t one, as atheist claim.

the people that are not so arrogant to claim there cannot be a god (because of their knowledge) are agnostics.

and i want to say that Xeno is one of these people. respectably so even.

he admits when he doesn’t know everything, and even though he disagrees with the god that i believe exists, hes not an arrogant person because of it.

all arguments should be conducted in a cool head.

im going to nominate him for president next time around….

as for prisca,

im over being angry. i was angry because you kept insulting me. not because your argument so much as phased me, because i am open to arguments in that i actually listen to what people are saying, and if it holds water, i consider it, if im wrong, im wrong. i correct my beliefs. you failed at convincing me im wrong though,

however, i do not take well to being told i follow beliefs blindly.

do you know how much free thinking it takes to look at the vast majority of people and dare to say that maybe the world is NOT billions of years old?

it takes guts. it takes research, and delving into.

i am not affected by your argument because ive seen them before. ive seen the claims that the earth is billions of years old based on test that regularly report diffrent results by millions of years.

ive seen the fossils claimed to be so old that can take less than a hundred years to form, only determined older by the depth they are found at.

ive been in this game a while pris, and i know what im doing when i say its worth a look in both directions. i wasnt always a christian you know.

what the heck do you think i thought before i became one?
i was the same as you, until i gave it a second look.

- Fire

Xeno Dragon wrote:
I don’t complain. I just don’t appreciate it.”

Well, when you voice that dissenting opinion, and especially the way you did here:

amhp wrote:
I mention my Christian faith in a post and BAM!, I’m attacked by atheists.

You see my point, I hope.

Okay.

Xeno Dragon wrote:
“I don’t take the Bible literally, word for word. I believe much of it is metaphoric, and I also believe some of it is no longer valid.”

That wasn’t the question. You said, “I just don’t believe whatever contradicts the Bible.” The question is why? What is so special about the Bible that causes you to reject any science that contradicts it?

I simply didn’t read what you wrote correctly. I believe the Bible is the truth. That is why I don’t listen to science that contradicts the Bible.

Xeno Dragon wrote:
“I listen to these Christian scientists because I’d rather listen to them than listen to someone who has no clue what they are talking about.”

Like… whom? Stephen Hawking? Isaac Asimov? Noam Chomsky? Maybe Francis Crick, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Stephen Gould, Massimo Pigliucci, Stephen Pinker, Karl Popper, Carl Sagan, Michael Shermer, James Watson, or E.O. Wilson?
You’re suggesting that none of these people know what they’re talking about?

No. I never suggested that. I thought we were talking about Christian scientists. I only know one name out of that bunch and that is Stephen Hawking. When I said I don’t listen to people who don’t know what they are talking about, I’m not talking about educated people. I’m talking about people who can’t back up their opinions with anything or keep their facts straight. There is a book called, “What’s With the Mutant in the Microscope: Stuff to Know when Science says your Uncle is a Monkey”, well, I’ve never read it, and I certainly never intend to. Why? You can tell just from the title that the authors don’t know what they are talking about. First off, science doesn’t say your uncle is a monkey. And if evolution were, by some small chance, true, we weren’t ever even monkeys anyway. We were our own form of primates. So, what I mean is if someone has incorrect information, I’m not going to bother.

Xeno Dragon wrote:
“Otherwise, He gives us gifts in ways that can be explained. In this case, He gave us science through humans.”

So humans can’t do anything cool on our own, it’s all god? Well, if he can take credit for all the good humans do, then he’s logically responsible for all of our evil, too. You either take all the credit, or none of it.

Sure, we can. God gave us free will and the ability to do cool things. God gave us the ability to discover science. He made science and we discovered it. God gave us science when he gave us the ability to discover it.

Adam and Eve are responsible for the sin in this world. So is Satan. And… So is God. God tricked Adam and Eve. But that’s a whole ‘nother story.

Xeno Dragon wrote:

amhp wrote:

Xeno Dragon wrote:
“If the class was about evolution, I wouldn’t pay a cent to take it.”

That’s probably a wise choice, because when you close your mind, no knowledge can get in.

Ooh, you’re terribly wrong there. My mind is more open than you want to think it is.

You’re putting words in my mouth, and assuming my intentions. I’ll ask you not to do that. I’m getting tired of repeating myself to explain things.

I never said your mind is closed. You made that connection yourself. Which, from my knowledge of psychology, means that you probably don’t truly believe your mind is open if you’ll so quickly jump to deny it at such a benign statement. But that’s your own problem to work out. (Not that you’re likely going to.)
What I said was, “when you close your mind, no knowledge can get in.” Do you deny this?
Think about it, it’s true. If one closes their mind, in your case, to anything that doesn’t support the Bible, then they will refuse to learn anything more on that subject. Idiocy in the purest sense of the word for anyone who understands the point of science; to gain knowledge. This is not an insult. It’s an undeniable observation. Well, you CAN deny it, but you’d be lying to yourself.

When you say it like that, you’re right. When one closes their mind, knowledge cannot get in. Once again, I guess I misread you.

“Which, from my knowledge of psychology, means that you probably don’t truly believe your mind is open if you’ll so quickly jump to deny it at such a benign statement.”
This is never necessarily true.

Xeno Dragon wrote:
“I believe the Bible is the truth.”
This has been made clear. WHY, though?

“Why” is a difficult question. “Why” is a question in everyone’s mind. I can tell you what I believe, how I believe, but why I believe is the tough one. I don’t know. Something just tells me it’s right.

Xeno Dragon wrote:
“And if evolution were, by some small chance, true, we weren’t ever even monkeys anyway. We were our own form of primates. So, what I mean is if someone has incorrect information, I’m not going to bother.”
You REALLY need to pay more attention when they teach you about evolution, because you clearly know nothing about it. But you’re going to have to drop that whole thing about denying any facts that don’t support the Bible, because if you learn about evolution, you’ll find this little fact that it’s been PROVEN.

Where the heck was I wrong? Do you seriously think we came from vine-swinging monkeys?? If we were “evoluted”, it was NOT that. And I did once believe it was proven. Then I started having questions. So, I asked my mom. After a while, I didn’t believe in it anymore.

Xeno Dragon wrote:
Oh, and look up those people I mentioned, and what they’ve done, the prizes they’ve won, and how much they’ve contributed to the planet. Note that they were/are all Atheists.

If they’re all atheists, okay. I don’t have to believe everything they say or “prove”. By the way, have you read Stephen Hawking’s book, “George’s Secret Key to the Universe”? In my beliefs, it has some incorrections, but it’s really fascinating!

Xeno Dragon wrote:
“He made science and we discovered it. God gave us science when he gave us the ability to discover it.”
Prove it.

No.

Xeno Dragon wrote:
“Adam and Eve are responsible for the sin in this world. So is Satan. And… So is God. God tricked Adam and Eve. But that’s a whole ‘nother story.”
One I know VERY well. We’ll have to talk about that in shouts, or another post, though. Because my point on that will derail the entire post.

Okay.

Xeno Dragon wrote:
“This is *not* necessarily true.”
Nothing in psychology is a constant. However, it tends to be accurate more often than not, and I’d bet what little food, money, and pot that I have that in this case, it’s dead-on.

Well, then, gee, let me just ask my mother. She’s a psychologist.

i would like to present my understanding that the bible makes a lot of sense to me,

and as such, i hear a lot of contradicting statements about how the world works.

maybe its not that amhp doesnt listen to them,
but she means she doesnt take them for fact unless she can examine and discover any truth about them.

this is how people need to believe things. they need to know. they dont just need everyone saying this is fact and this is true, but need to see facts and discover truths for themselves.

Xeno Dragon wrote:
You said, “I just don’t believe whatever contradicts the Bible.” The question is why? What is so special about the Bible that causes you to reject any science that contradicts it?

maybe this is what amhp means too… maybe not.

well…. there are some random ramblings from me…

- Fire

Fire wrote:
i would like to present my understanding that the bible makes a lot of sense to me,

and as such, i hear a lot of contradicting statements about how the world works.

maybe its not that amhp doesnt listen to them,
but she means she doesnt take them for fact unless she can examine and discover any truth about them.

this is how people need to believe things. they need to know. they dont just need everyone saying this is fact and this is true, but need to see facts and discover truths for themselves.

Xeno Dragon wrote:
You said, “I just don’t believe whatever contradicts the Bible.” The question is why? What is so special about the Bible that causes you to reject any science that contradicts it?

maybe this is what amhp means too… maybe not.

well…. there are some random ramblings from me…

- Fire

He’s right about me.

Xeno Dragon wrote:
“I don’t know. Something just tells me it’s right.”
Okay. Remember you said that, I’ll reference it later.

Hm.

Xeno Dragon wrote:
“Do you seriously think we came from vine-swinging monkeys?”
No. Apes did. We came from apes. Like I said, you really can’t possibly understand evolution, as you’ve proven. Which is why I’m telling you that you should pay more attention as they teach you the subject.

We did not come from apes. We never came from apes. Okay… Let’s say, just for the sake of my argument, I believe in evolution: We came from hominins. Never in our history did we look like any kind of primates alive today. But we are primates and we were always homo sapiens. However, there were different kinds of home sapiens over the millions of years of evolution.

Xeno Dragon wrote:
“If we were “evoluted”, it was NOT that.”
Like I said, you clearly don’t know anything about evolution. The word is ‘evolved’, by the way.

I create my own words when I can’t think of the right word at the right time.

Xeno Dragon wrote:
“And I did once believe it was proven. Then I started having questions. So, I asked my mom. After a while, I didn’t believe in it anymore.”
Well, you don’t have to believe it’s proven. Because it HAS been proven, whether you believe it or not. If you don’t believe it, it doesn’t mean it hasn’t been, it just means you’re wrong. Look it up, if you can take the truth.

You THINK it has been proven! They THINK it has been proven! They believe it, you believe it, and thousands of other believe it, I know! However…. The human being in general is biased. I repeat that, biased. The only people to have ever tried to prove evolution were either atheists or agnostics. When you create a hypothesis, you already either expect that it is true or not true. When you expect either way, it usually turns out that way. THAT is an actual research study.

Xeno Dragon wrote:
“If they’re all atheists, okay. I don’t have to believe everything they say or “prove”.”
This is the most… I can’t even describe how this makes you look for fear of being banned. That is… like, Scientology scary.

What the HECK was wrong with that sentence? I have freedom of religion and belief. I don’t have to believe anything anyone says. I don’t have to believe that I was born to my own mother. There might be pictures to prove it, but I still don’t have to believe it. I can believe what I want. So, I choose to believe what I believe are the facts.

Xeno Dragon wrote:
“In my beliefs, it has some incorrections,”
That’s not a word… and I seriously doubt you’re smarter than Stephen Hawking, because he’s quite possibly the smartest living human, if not the smartest human ever to exist. So I don’t think he’s going to be double-checking his work because YOU think he messed up.

I never said I was smarter than Stephen Hawking. And I certainly don’t expect him to double-check his work because of something I said. But, seriously, though, you really don’t have to be mean. Be nice. But I am very smart for my age and level.

Xeno Dragon wrote:
(Prove it.)”No.”Just admit it. It’s because you can’t. Thus it’s NOT science. Checkmate.

Checkmate? Ha, you wish. I’ve said it before: I shouldn’t have to waste my time trying to prove everything to you. Plus, trying to prove my beliefs takes an extensive amount of work. It’s not something that can be done in one night. And I have better ways to spend my time, such as studying, working, and getting paid so I can keep studying more.

Xeno Dragon wrote:
Like I said, Amhp. I’m getting sick of repeating myself, and you’re just refusing to absorb any logic in this discussion. I hope your brain works better in class. I’m not continuing to teach you if you refuse to learn.

You weren’t teaching me. And I’m tired of repeating myself too. If you want me to listen to you, you need to listen to me. I do have good points. My mom thinks so, and my friend who is an evolutionary biologist thinks so, so does my dad who is very strictly atheist.

And, oh, I’m sure my brain works well in class, considering I’m a B+ average.

Xeno Dragon wrote:

amhp wrote:

Xeno Dragon wrote:
Like I said, Amhp. I’m getting sick of repeating myself, and you’re just refusing to absorb any logic in this discussion. I hope your brain works better in class. I’m not continuing to teach you if you refuse to learn.

You weren’t teaching me. And I’m tired of repeating myself too. If you want me to listen to you, you need to listen to me. I do have good points. My mom thinks so, and my friend who is an evolutionary biologist thinks so, so does my dad who is very strictly atheist.And, oh, I’m sure my brain works well in class, considering I’m a B+ average.

Every mom thinks their kid is special. Even if they’re retarded.

How dare you. Just… You do not have any idea of my life, what I go through, what I live with, who I am, and just HOW MUCH that hurt.

i dont want to sound bad about anyone here,

but … this conversation is going nowhere.

i think ill try to stay out of it from here on out…

… and im suprised some more intelligent people stayed around as long as they have…

on both sides of the argument.

- Fire