More exposing of the atheist from another stupid unversity student and professor

More exposing of the atheist from another stupid unversity student and professor

Joined: July 13th, 2009, 1:50 pm

June 4th, 2010, 2:00 pm #1

Carl Sagan was one of the worlds most famous atheists. He summed up atheism when he declared: The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be. An atheist is one who plainly states that God does not exist.

However, it is much easier for someone to call himself an atheist than it
is for him to defend his position. In order to know that there is no God,a person would have to know every single fact in the Universe, because
the one fact that he did not know might be the fact that God exists.
For instance, if a person had a unique, blue-striped shirt, he could not prove that no other shirt in the world was like it unless he had seen every other shirt in the world. The atheist cannot prove that God does not exist, because he cannot possibly know every other fact there is to know, any more than a man with a blue-striped shirt can see every other shirt that exists.

The OBJECTIVE TRUTH of the matter is that most atheists do not deal with facts at all. They are so set against the idea of God that they dismiss or ignore the evidence that proves His existence. I read that Isaac Asimov, another famous atheist, once said: Emotionally, I am an atheist. I dont have the evidence to prove that God doesnt exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesnt that Idont want to waste my time. Atheism does not answer the evidence for Gods existence, and cannot offer a reasonable alternative for belief in Him.

http://thinkexist.com/quotes/like/i_am_ ... ng/334134/

Such stupidity from a person who attended Columbia University to state that emotions make him an atheist....It only proves his atheisam was not from intelligence because he sure had none.



"If I must choose between righteousness and peace, I choose RIGHTEOUSNESS"." ~ Theodore Roosevelt
Quote
Like
Share

Striver
Striver

June 4th, 2010, 3:12 pm #2

Produce this God of yours and we'll accept him. Until this can be done, all you have is a belief. Remember reading-hearing about the most advanced Christians believing the sun circled Earth? All they had, as reality proved, was a belief...a wrong belief.

Besides, any religion with a doctrine-dogma beyond which this religion forbids its members to go, is not Christianity, but Churchanity.

Humanity's purpose is to become a Magnetic, Christed, Center; a catalyst; to become the woman in Matt. 13:33. To accomplish this, every human has to attain Christ mind.

The growing Jesus into a Christ and on to at-one-ment with Source is an allegory depicting the attaining of Christ mind. This objective maturation is an easy to understand, physical parallel to the subjective growth of mind quality. The many B.C. infant saviors born to a virgin has been point out to you ad nauseum. You just can't get it. No one blames you for your inability to grasp abstracts. This is a stage all, even the Christ (prior to His becoming a Christ) have to pass.

Religions have not brought people to this quality mind called in the Occident, Christ. This means to acquire Christ mind they will have to become inclusive of material not possessed by religion. This stage of needing to know more is also unavoidable. This stage is presented in the N.T, by the ewrlve year old Jesus decision to undergo transfiguration.

But religions prevent their members from becoming more inclusive by using the fear tactic of the always available and reliable Satan tempting them, luring them away from God. Nothing new here. The Shamans and Witch Doctors of old used fear to control members of their tribe. This means religion, by blocking the way to Christ mind makes them an anti-Christ.

So, if belief in the nonsense called Churchanity plus the Caligula-Nero God they have created is the guage for one's being a Christian-Churchanist, it is no wonder thinking people are seen as atheists. If the term 'atheist' is the opposite of Churchanity, atheism is a badge I wear proudly.I don't believe there is a Satan, but if there were, ole Sate could have no greater ally than Fundamentalist religion.
Quote
Share

Joined: July 13th, 2009, 1:50 pm

June 4th, 2010, 4:57 pm #3

His name is Jesus Christ. You quoted verses about Him but since you don't know Him as I do, you wouldn't be able to grasp what I know.

Here is the verse you quoted but only when properly used within the context which it is quoted can it be PRPOERLY understood. I know you won't be able go beyond limited capabilities to grasp what the Bible context shows, so I'll have to explain it to you.



Phil 2:1-11
1 If you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any fellowship with the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion,
2 then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and purpose.
3 Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves.
4 Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others.
5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,

7 but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death-- even death on a cross!
9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (NIV)

The first FOUR verses give an idea of what happened when God the Son became man the next six what DID HAPPEN.

Christ,... shown to be God BY NATURE in (vs 6) did not insist in Himself being worshipped as God. Instead (vs7) He surrendered that insistance and MADE HIMSEL NOTHING taking on the NATURE OF A SERVANT made in the likeness of a human. In the first FOUR verses we can see what Christ actually did, in that WHILE God the Son COULD HAVE COME and INSISTED ON BEING WORSHIPPED AS GOD, He didn't even though He was in His PERFECT RIGHT TO INSIST ON BEING WORSHIPPED AS GOD. Instead God took on flesh and became man and so TRUE Christians see Christ as the MAN who is GOD or the GODMAN.

Now Striver if you can disprove this HISTORICAL FACT with substantiated FACTUAL evidence from the time these events happened, then by all means attempt to do so but as I ALREADY MAQDE YOU AWARE OF Striver...you already know I know you know nothing. All you can do is give an opinion about the FACT, you can't change nor disprove the FACT. Your blunder in life happened when you thought your university education somehow convinced you you were smart but the FACT is you're really not smart at all where it is important to be smart. You need to KNOW God personally to grasp THAT INTELLIGENCE. I have it, YOU DON'T.






"If I must choose between righteousness and peace, I choose RIGHTEOUSNESS"." ~ Theodore Roosevelt
Quote
Like
Share

Phred
Phred

June 4th, 2010, 6:15 pm #4

Carl Sagan was one of the worlds most famous atheists. He summed up atheism when he declared: The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be. An atheist is one who plainly states that God does not exist.

However, it is much easier for someone to call himself an atheist than it
is for him to defend his position. In order to know that there is no God,a person would have to know every single fact in the Universe, because
the one fact that he did not know might be the fact that God exists.
For instance, if a person had a unique, blue-striped shirt, he could not prove that no other shirt in the world was like it unless he had seen every other shirt in the world. The atheist cannot prove that God does not exist, because he cannot possibly know every other fact there is to know, any more than a man with a blue-striped shirt can see every other shirt that exists.

The OBJECTIVE TRUTH of the matter is that most atheists do not deal with facts at all. They are so set against the idea of God that they dismiss or ignore the evidence that proves His existence. I read that Isaac Asimov, another famous atheist, once said: Emotionally, I am an atheist. I dont have the evidence to prove that God doesnt exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesnt that Idont want to waste my time. Atheism does not answer the evidence for Gods existence, and cannot offer a reasonable alternative for belief in Him.

http://thinkexist.com/quotes/like/i_am_ ... ng/334134/

Such stupidity from a person who attended Columbia University to state that emotions make him an atheist....It only proves his atheisam was not from intelligence because he sure had none.



"If I must choose between righteousness and peace, I choose RIGHTEOUSNESS"." ~ Theodore Roosevelt
If I were truly on the side of pure science I would have to say I'm agnostic because you can't prove a negative. But, like you when you say there IS a god (stating your belief as fact) I say there is NOT a god (also stating my belief as fact).

Now, if we were to weigh the odds in favor of each position...

A being who holds the position of every atomic particle in the entire universe in his head at every moment for all of time, created it all, yet shows no evidence whatsoever of its existence except in the minds of those who believe in it. Every person has a "soul" which also shows no evidence of its existence and this "soul" will be taken up to "heaven" if you believe the correct thing or sent to "hell" if you do not. And, of those that DO believe in a god, there is a huge split between those that believe in one flavor of this god or another flavor and there are thousands of flavors. All believe they KNOW the only possible ONE TRUE GOD. So some are obviously wrong. If some can be wrong, why can't all be wrong?

Or...

There is no god.

The odds favor simplicity as they always do. I vote for #2.
Quote
Share

Phred
Phred

June 4th, 2010, 6:16 pm #5

His name is Jesus Christ. You quoted verses about Him but since you don't know Him as I do, you wouldn't be able to grasp what I know.

Here is the verse you quoted but only when properly used within the context which it is quoted can it be PRPOERLY understood. I know you won't be able go beyond limited capabilities to grasp what the Bible context shows, so I'll have to explain it to you.



Phil 2:1-11
1 If you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any fellowship with the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion,
2 then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and purpose.
3 Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves.
4 Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others.
5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,

7 but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death-- even death on a cross!
9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (NIV)

The first FOUR verses give an idea of what happened when God the Son became man the next six what DID HAPPEN.

Christ,... shown to be God BY NATURE in (vs 6) did not insist in Himself being worshipped as God. Instead (vs7) He surrendered that insistance and MADE HIMSEL NOTHING taking on the NATURE OF A SERVANT made in the likeness of a human. In the first FOUR verses we can see what Christ actually did, in that WHILE God the Son COULD HAVE COME and INSISTED ON BEING WORSHIPPED AS GOD, He didn't even though He was in His PERFECT RIGHT TO INSIST ON BEING WORSHIPPED AS GOD. Instead God took on flesh and became man and so TRUE Christians see Christ as the MAN who is GOD or the GODMAN.

Now Striver if you can disprove this HISTORICAL FACT with substantiated FACTUAL evidence from the time these events happened, then by all means attempt to do so but as I ALREADY MAQDE YOU AWARE OF Striver...you already know I know you know nothing. All you can do is give an opinion about the FACT, you can't change nor disprove the FACT. Your blunder in life happened when you thought your university education somehow convinced you you were smart but the FACT is you're really not smart at all where it is important to be smart. You need to KNOW God personally to grasp THAT INTELLIGENCE. I have it, YOU DON'T.






"If I must choose between righteousness and peace, I choose RIGHTEOUSNESS"." ~ Theodore Roosevelt
A man may have lived who, in Greek, was known as Jesus. Later Jesus Christ. There is no proof this man was in any way a "god".
Quote
Share

Joined: July 13th, 2009, 1:50 pm

June 4th, 2010, 6:17 pm #6

Produce this God of yours and we'll accept him. Until this can be done, all you have is a belief. Remember reading-hearing about the most advanced Christians believing the sun circled Earth? All they had, as reality proved, was a belief...a wrong belief.

Besides, any religion with a doctrine-dogma beyond which this religion forbids its members to go, is not Christianity, but Churchanity.

Humanity's purpose is to become a Magnetic, Christed, Center; a catalyst; to become the woman in Matt. 13:33. To accomplish this, every human has to attain Christ mind.

The growing Jesus into a Christ and on to at-one-ment with Source is an allegory depicting the attaining of Christ mind. This objective maturation is an easy to understand, physical parallel to the subjective growth of mind quality. The many B.C. infant saviors born to a virgin has been point out to you ad nauseum. You just can't get it. No one blames you for your inability to grasp abstracts. This is a stage all, even the Christ (prior to His becoming a Christ) have to pass.

Religions have not brought people to this quality mind called in the Occident, Christ. This means to acquire Christ mind they will have to become inclusive of material not possessed by religion. This stage of needing to know more is also unavoidable. This stage is presented in the N.T, by the ewrlve year old Jesus decision to undergo transfiguration.

But religions prevent their members from becoming more inclusive by using the fear tactic of the always available and reliable Satan tempting them, luring them away from God. Nothing new here. The Shamans and Witch Doctors of old used fear to control members of their tribe. This means religion, by blocking the way to Christ mind makes them an anti-Christ.

So, if belief in the nonsense called Churchanity plus the Caligula-Nero God they have created is the guage for one's being a Christian-Churchanist, it is no wonder thinking people are seen as atheists. If the term 'atheist' is the opposite of Churchanity, atheism is a badge I wear proudly.I don't believe there is a Satan, but if there were, ole Sate could have no greater ally than Fundamentalist religion.
http://www.network54.com/Forum/272761/m ... f+grasping


Here I am again Striver demonstating that a Gr 10 high school dropout is far more educated at least than a former Louisanna State University student.

While his statement is TRUE that the Catholic church DID EMBRACE Ptolemy's geocentrific theory the influence came from an early Christian so called apologist named Origen. I won't go into much about him because you wouldn't understand being in the darkness state of atheism, but Origen is much like the heretics that are being confronted by Jack and myself in particular. He claimed to be a Christian but was later declared a heretic by the church because of some of the positions he held such as universalism and the pre-existence of the soul.

The main lesson the church learned is not to believe in SCIENCE if it is BAD SCIENCE like you do Striver. Origen convinced the church to believe by distortion and the manipulation of Scripture that the ALL the planets revolved around the earth. That's bad science, like the horrible theory of macro-evolution you embrace. He convinced the higher ups in the church that God's CENTRAL FOCUS POINT was the earth and all other planets revolved around the earth and the gullible who don't do their homework and research blindly believed and accepted just like you do with your blind acceptance of whatever you thought you learned from your CR classes and your blindly accepting the horrible science of macro-evolution.

Thankfully the church OWED UP to it's error in embracing that bad science. Maybe the lesson is a better fit for you. Hopefully you acknowledge the great blunders of your evolutionist scientists who embraced abiogenesis garbage, and Haeckel's recapitualtion forgeries.

Go on Striver. Be a stupid gullible atheist.


"If I must choose between righteousness and peace, I choose RIGHTEOUSNESS"." ~ Theodore Roosevelt
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: July 13th, 2009, 1:50 pm

June 4th, 2010, 6:25 pm #7

If I were truly on the side of pure science I would have to say I'm agnostic because you can't prove a negative. But, like you when you say there IS a god (stating your belief as fact) I say there is NOT a god (also stating my belief as fact).

Now, if we were to weigh the odds in favor of each position...

A being who holds the position of every atomic particle in the entire universe in his head at every moment for all of time, created it all, yet shows no evidence whatsoever of its existence except in the minds of those who believe in it. Every person has a "soul" which also shows no evidence of its existence and this "soul" will be taken up to "heaven" if you believe the correct thing or sent to "hell" if you do not. And, of those that DO believe in a god, there is a huge split between those that believe in one flavor of this god or another flavor and there are thousands of flavors. All believe they KNOW the only possible ONE TRUE GOD. So some are obviously wrong. If some can be wrong, why can't all be wrong?

Or...

There is no god.

The odds favor simplicity as they always do. I vote for #2.
Hmmm. Is an atomic particle nothing Phreddy? Where did it come from? Intelligent people who KNOW what a soul is acknowledge that it is the centre of every living human being. The soul leaves the body when a person dies. I know you know little Phreddy but if you talk to a dead body, the dead body may be there but the person's left. Which are you Phreddy?

"If I must choose between righteousness and peace, I choose RIGHTEOUSNESS"." ~ Theodore Roosevelt
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: July 13th, 2009, 1:50 pm

June 4th, 2010, 6:32 pm #8

A man may have lived who, in Greek, was known as Jesus. Later Jesus Christ. There is no proof this man was in any way a "god".
....that is the habit atheists tend to have. Here again what I'm asking Striver to provide, and he's actually attended a university.

Now Striver if you can disprove this HISTORICAL FACT with substantiated FACTUAL evidence from the time these events happened, then by all means attempt to do so but as I ALREADY MAQDE YOU AWARE OF Striver...you already know I know you know nothing. All you can do is give an opinion about the FACT, you can't change nor disprove the FACT. Your blunder in life happened when you thought your university education somehow convinced you you were smart but the FACT is you're really not smart at all where it is important to be smart. You need to KNOW God personally to grasp THAT INTELLIGENCE. I have it, YOU DON'T.

What you gave Phreddy is a "MAY HAVE".....A may have is not a substantiated fact from the HISTORICAL TIME PERIOD in which Christ (God the Son) existed.




"If I must choose between righteousness and peace, I choose RIGHTEOUSNESS"." ~ Theodore Roosevelt
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 4th, 2005, 1:31 pm

June 4th, 2010, 7:17 pm #9

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

The argument from ignorance,[1] also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam ("appeal to ignorance"[1][2]), or negative evidence,[1] is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true.
Quote
Like
Share

Phred
Phred

June 4th, 2010, 7:28 pm #10

You have a big fat hole in your belief.
Quote
Share