Posts by hillary

I am still waiting to hear how you differentiate between the 'nature' of God, and his/her observable qualities, and yet not include any characteristics within that observation. I have posed the question in my most recent post above.

I would be interested to read your observations as what one can actually tell about God from the 'creation' as outlined in Romans 1:20 as you seem to be suggesting that personal characteristics, like 'love' for example, are excluded from the 'nature' and 'eternal godship' mentioned in the scripture that are easily observable by all people.

HS

168

Athiest or Agnostic?

by real one in

jw
friends

how can one be considered an athiest?

athiest means you believe god does not exist.

agnostic means you don't know if god really exist.

hillary_step

Deputy,

Are you confusing God's nature, with God's character?

Though Romans 1:20 discusses two aspects of God's 'qualities' - His/Her eternal power and divine nature, it would be disengenous to say the least that you were not suggesting that his/her 'character' was not also enmeshed in this issue. I will quote your own posts as evidence:

Romans 1:19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. Everyone knows about God.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

Perhaps you might clarify what you mean by the 'nature' of God?

HS

168

Athiest or Agnostic?

by real one in

jw
friends

how can one be considered an athiest?

athiest means you believe god does not exist.

agnostic means you don't know if god really exist.

hillary_step

Deputy Dog,

I believe atheist are not being honest with themselves.

A provocative statement.

As you seem to be a person interested in honesty, perhaps you might then attend to the issues I raised regarding Romans and what we can learn about God from the Killing Fields that he 'designed'.

What's the matter? Don't like your place in the food chain?

I do not like it, or dislike it, I accept it without reservation. This seems to be the difference between the two of us. I can live with reality, and you seem to need to your fantasies.

It was your good self that actually introduced the concept of being able to tell God's character, or at least part of it, from his 'creation'. I am merely asking you to validate your comments, which you seem unable to do.

HS

365

Richard Dawkins Gets "Expelled" by Ben Stein!

by Perry in

i just got back from seeing the new movie release "expelled" which is a documentary exposing the militant culture of supression regarding intelligent design in the scientific community.

in a "million years", i never would have imagined that ben stein could get the author of "the god delusion", richard dawkins to speak favorably about i.d.

(intellignet design).

hillary_step

real one,

what facts have I ignored? are you talking about the goosebumps thing.

The facts are these.

1) I asked you why humans have goosebumps.

2) You correctly answered that they have them for two reasons both, of which are seated firmly in our evolutionary past.

a) To keep warm. b) As a protection against predators - the hair follicles arising at moments of emotional tension.

3) Humans no longer have thick growth of hair that necessitates their keeping warm, though obviously they once did have.

4) Humans are no longer in the predatorial situation where they need to expand their size to fool their predators, though obviously they once were.

5) After having this explained to you, you then denied that you believed in evolution, despite your own evidence to the contrary.

Join the dots.

Blimey Real One, how the hell do you find the bathroom when you need one?

HS

168

Athiest or Agnostic?

by real one in

jw
friends

how can one be considered an athiest?

athiest means you believe god does not exist.

agnostic means you don't know if god really exist.

hillary_step

Deputy,

I will leave others to convince you that a theist can be atheistic towards other Gods not of his choosing. I fear you will get trapped in a logical quagmire before the debate is up!

However on this point:

I don't believe it's as "dark" as some would claim.

The use of the word 'claim' is interesting, as it does not speak the truth of the situation. You sentence should read in order to be consistent, 'I don't believe it's as dark as some would believe". Think about it.

So what do you do with Romans 1? Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

Yes, what do we do with it.

1) We have a few choices. The first and most obvious one is to conclude that this is a statement of a religious mind, written in an unenlightened age, in a country full of religious fanatics, without the benefit of science to help the statement on its way by a person who truly believed that he was being used as a mouthpiece of some unseen being.

2) Another option is to take the words as true and conclude that God is a brutal and sociopathic liar. I state this against a backdrop of the fact that everything he 'designed' depended on the killing of other creatures, from microbe to blue whale in order to to survive. In order to facilitate such a Universal Killing Field, God introduces the idea of camouflage so that some are cunningly deceived into death, poisons so that some are brutally injected with toxic chemicals before being eaten, brute force so that some, like the Praying Mantis grabs its prey and eats it head-first, while it is alive. The thing this all has in common is a violence far removed from puffy clouds and gorgeous sunsets.

3) Conclude that in order for life to survive the process of evolution finds its own common level, unaffected by human emotion or Sky Gods and does what it must to ensure survival of the species, including our own.

I am sure that you wil have other options to add. ;)

HS

168

Athiest or Agnostic?

by real one in

jw
friends

how can one be considered an athiest?

athiest means you believe god does not exist.

agnostic means you don't know if god really exist.

hillary_step

Leo,

I like to think of atheism is an absence of theism; it doesn't necessarily imply that one is against theism (as atheists tend to be stereotyped), it simply means that theism is not your persuasion -- you are indifferent or ambivalent to it. I wish there was a finer distinction, similar to the one between amorality (which is indifferent towards morality) and immorality (which is more directly implies a footing counter to morality). It is for this reason that I wish that antitheism was a widely recognized word, which could usefully contrast with both theism and atheism. Because in a political sense, I see that many theists fear atheists because they think they want to take away their right to religion. I see that as more antitheistic than atheistic, and the tendency in the media is to emphasize those whose position is more the former than the latter. It would also allow the label "atheist" to be used more freely among those of the "I don't know" category.

I can agree entirely with what you have written.

The problem with the terms 'atheist' and 'agnostic' is that they are terms that come with emotional baggage attached. This baggage does not belong to the philosophical position of 'atheism' and 'agnosticism' (and I disagree with Nicolau regarding the position of agnosticism) , it is baggage that religionists have attached to the issue. Even the very premise of this thread, which given its originators previous posts on the subject was inspired not as a genuine attempt at reaching a conclusion not yet made, but more as an attack on a viewpoint, speaks to this.

Given that some words can develop over time into concepts, and that concepts can be distorted for divers reasons as I note above, my own methodology when asked whether I am an atheist or agnostic, is to ask the person inquiring to define what they mean by these terms before I answer.

The strange standards which religionists hold atheists and agnostics too in expecting them to understand what they mean by these two terms puzzles me. After all, ask a Christian whether they believe God exists and they will answer, 'Of course'. Ask the same person whether Ganesha exists and they will reply, 'Of course not'. The 'atheist' sees no such distinctions, yet the Christian will hold an atheists position toward other Gods, and vica-versa.

I propose that most religionists are atheistic toward some Gods, and most atheists are agnostic in some situations, as defined by common usage of course. I hope that you are all suitably confused. :)

HS

365

Richard Dawkins Gets "Expelled" by Ben Stein!

by Perry in

i just got back from seeing the new movie release "expelled" which is a documentary exposing the militant culture of supression regarding intelligent design in the scientific community.

in a "million years", i never would have imagined that ben stein could get the author of "the god delusion", richard dawkins to speak favorably about i.d.

(intellignet design).

hillary_step

Real One,

That you admit to ignoring the facts in order to cleave to your believe says much more about you than you might hope.

Good luck!

HS

365

Richard Dawkins Gets "Expelled" by Ben Stein!

by Perry in

i just got back from seeing the new movie release "expelled" which is a documentary exposing the militant culture of supression regarding intelligent design in the scientific community.

in a "million years", i never would have imagined that ben stein could get the author of "the god delusion", richard dawkins to speak favorably about i.d.

(intellignet design).

hillary_step

Homerovah,

Isn't wise and honest within are selves to accept the unknown that is yet to be discovered and shouldn't this be considered an example of intelligence design ?

I am not sure how you are able to correlate these two ingredents. I am perfectly open to the first part of your statement but cannot follow the logic that ends up in the second part. Can you explain?

HS

365

Richard Dawkins Gets "Expelled" by Ben Stein!

by Perry in

i just got back from seeing the new movie release "expelled" which is a documentary exposing the militant culture of supression regarding intelligent design in the scientific community.

in a "million years", i never would have imagined that ben stein could get the author of "the god delusion", richard dawkins to speak favorably about i.d.

(intellignet design).

hillary_step

real one,

What does this tell you about God the designer? Think about it.
HS,
It tells me he is the ultimate scientist!

I am not quite sure of what to make of your comment.

Goosebumps prove that we are once covered in hair, and that we were once hunted by predators and you are suggesting this is how God the Designer designed it? So am I to take it that you do accept the evolutionary process and reject the Adam and Eve myth ?

HS

hillary_step

Posts by hillary_step