Posts by Jonathan Drake

21

i'm stupid, right?

by embarrassed in

i am on here as another member, but even with a username and not revealing my identity, i am still too embarrassed to use it.

had to make up a new one.

that being said.... my boyfriend is watching pornography, and it seriously hurts my feelings.

You are not stupid. do not think of yourself that way. All of us long to be loved, this is really what you're talking about here isn't it? This doesn't make you stupid, it makes you like all of us everywhere on the planet.

Having said that, everyone deserves to be happy. At the risk of encroaching on territory not my business, it seems this relationship doesn't make you happy. It even seems possible that it causes pain.

only you know your true feelings, but if you're not happy you deserve to be - IMO you should seek out someone to be happy with.

182

The Case for Theism

by FusionTheism in

"theism" here means "belief in a god" or "the worldview that an intelligent designer created the universe and life.

" ("god" here means a being with a mind who initiated and/or wound-up the universe, and designed life on earth)the most common claim that i see atheists making on twitter, is that "no evidence" exists in support of belief in a god.this post will remove any excuse atheists have for claiming "no evidence exists" in support of an initiator.

atheists can still reject this evidence as "weak," but they cannot truthfully say it does not exist.now, it is true that we do not have "observable, repeatable, falsifiable, empirical, scientific" evidence conclusively proving that an initiator exists, but we do have many lines of philisophical, experiential, and logical evidence.and... here... we... go:1:) many leading scientists, including stephen hawking, say that the space-time-matter universe had a beginning at the singularity/big bang.

Jonathan Drake

Don`t repeatedly claim you can prove there is Evidence of No god..
Then beat people up because they won`t accept your lack of proof..Or..

The evidence against God is abundant because of the evidence against all the sources of theism. But I take it you know this and agree with that evidence and that what we are really dealing with is your view that actively opposing theists in an aggressive debate sort of way is inappropriate?

Is this correct? Because I want to make sure I understand your thoughts here before I respond with my own.

182

The Case for Theism

by FusionTheism in

"theism" here means "belief in a god" or "the worldview that an intelligent designer created the universe and life.

" ("god" here means a being with a mind who initiated and/or wound-up the universe, and designed life on earth)the most common claim that i see atheists making on twitter, is that "no evidence" exists in support of belief in a god.this post will remove any excuse atheists have for claiming "no evidence exists" in support of an initiator.

atheists can still reject this evidence as "weak," but they cannot truthfully say it does not exist.now, it is true that we do not have "observable, repeatable, falsifiable, empirical, scientific" evidence conclusively proving that an initiator exists, but we do have many lines of philisophical, experiential, and logical evidence.and... here... we... go:1:) many leading scientists, including stephen hawking, say that the space-time-matter universe had a beginning at the singularity/big bang.

Jonathan Drake

@outlaw

I may be mistaken but I think you're just engaging in a semantic argument. Nothing is actually be said here.

whether Dawkins expresses himself to be atheist or agnostic he takes the position that the lack of evidence for God and the mounting evidence against all the supporting pillars of theism should make it crumble to dust. In line with this he is doing his best to make it a reality.

He often speaks out against theists actions and beliefs. You should watch his Twitter feed.

The position you appear to be taking serves no purpose.

182

The Case for Theism

by FusionTheism in

"theism" here means "belief in a god" or "the worldview that an intelligent designer created the universe and life.

" ("god" here means a being with a mind who initiated and/or wound-up the universe, and designed life on earth)the most common claim that i see atheists making on twitter, is that "no evidence" exists in support of belief in a god.this post will remove any excuse atheists have for claiming "no evidence exists" in support of an initiator.

atheists can still reject this evidence as "weak," but they cannot truthfully say it does not exist.now, it is true that we do not have "observable, repeatable, falsifiable, empirical, scientific" evidence conclusively proving that an initiator exists, but we do have many lines of philisophical, experiential, and logical evidence.and... here... we... go:1:) many leading scientists, including stephen hawking, say that the space-time-matter universe had a beginning at the singularity/big bang.

Jonathan Drake

I admit I am godless!

182

The Case for Theism

by FusionTheism in

"theism" here means "belief in a god" or "the worldview that an intelligent designer created the universe and life.

" ("god" here means a being with a mind who initiated and/or wound-up the universe, and designed life on earth)the most common claim that i see atheists making on twitter, is that "no evidence" exists in support of belief in a god.this post will remove any excuse atheists have for claiming "no evidence exists" in support of an initiator.

atheists can still reject this evidence as "weak," but they cannot truthfully say it does not exist.now, it is true that we do not have "observable, repeatable, falsifiable, empirical, scientific" evidence conclusively proving that an initiator exists, but we do have many lines of philisophical, experiential, and logical evidence.and... here... we... go:1:) many leading scientists, including stephen hawking, say that the space-time-matter universe had a beginning at the singularity/big bang.

Jonathan Drake

cofty - Once again so many people are hung up on the word "proof". It has no place in this sort of conversation. It belongs to mathematicians.

Yes, I see I actually misused "proof" too. I should have said "evidence"

182

The Case for Theism

by FusionTheism in

"theism" here means "belief in a god" or "the worldview that an intelligent designer created the universe and life.

" ("god" here means a being with a mind who initiated and/or wound-up the universe, and designed life on earth)the most common claim that i see atheists making on twitter, is that "no evidence" exists in support of belief in a god.this post will remove any excuse atheists have for claiming "no evidence exists" in support of an initiator.

atheists can still reject this evidence as "weak," but they cannot truthfully say it does not exist.now, it is true that we do not have "observable, repeatable, falsifiable, empirical, scientific" evidence conclusively proving that an initiator exists, but we do have many lines of philisophical, experiential, and logical evidence.and... here... we... go:1:) many leading scientists, including stephen hawking, say that the space-time-matter universe had a beginning at the singularity/big bang.

Jonathan Drake

What difference do personal religious beliefs make when it comes to examining the actual science?
Francis Collins is perhaps one of the greatest medical / DNA scientists the world has ever known, and he's a huge believer in Yahweh.

Oh shit, I'd love to answer this question for you! I have to! Here's what difference it makes:

Its the difference between hundreds of thousands of people suffering and dying ...

and not.

thats the difference it makes.

The actual science of stem cell research, as just one example, would effectively end many diseases and render unnecessary organ waiting lists. Instead people are suffering and dying because it's banned. It's banned purely for religious reasons - those being the absurd idea that 150 unassigned cells make up a living human life.

This is just one example of exactly how religious beliefs make a difference when examining actual science - because they kill people.

Another example - blood transfusions. Religious belief vs actual science result in...

Mother and child die because of religious beliefs over actual science

182

The Case for Theism

by FusionTheism in

"theism" here means "belief in a god" or "the worldview that an intelligent designer created the universe and life.

" ("god" here means a being with a mind who initiated and/or wound-up the universe, and designed life on earth)the most common claim that i see atheists making on twitter, is that "no evidence" exists in support of belief in a god.this post will remove any excuse atheists have for claiming "no evidence exists" in support of an initiator.

atheists can still reject this evidence as "weak," but they cannot truthfully say it does not exist.now, it is true that we do not have "observable, repeatable, falsifiable, empirical, scientific" evidence conclusively proving that an initiator exists, but we do have many lines of philisophical, experiential, and logical evidence.and... here... we... go:1:) many leading scientists, including stephen hawking, say that the space-time-matter universe had a beginning at the singularity/big bang.

Jonathan Drake

Jonathan Drake,
I don't give a damn whether we call this "Something" God or Allah or Jehovah or Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Why are YOU so hung up on labels???

Well you did entitle the thread the case for theism. I guess I just assumed you meant a personal God and not just "something".

i apologize for taking your words at face value.

182

The Case for Theism

by FusionTheism in

"theism" here means "belief in a god" or "the worldview that an intelligent designer created the universe and life.

" ("god" here means a being with a mind who initiated and/or wound-up the universe, and designed life on earth)the most common claim that i see atheists making on twitter, is that "no evidence" exists in support of belief in a god.this post will remove any excuse atheists have for claiming "no evidence exists" in support of an initiator.

atheists can still reject this evidence as "weak," but they cannot truthfully say it does not exist.now, it is true that we do not have "observable, repeatable, falsifiable, empirical, scientific" evidence conclusively proving that an initiator exists, but we do have many lines of philisophical, experiential, and logical evidence.and... here... we... go:1:) many leading scientists, including stephen hawking, say that the space-time-matter universe had a beginning at the singularity/big bang.

Jonathan Drake

Jonathan Drake,

Stephen Hawking himself declares that if "Imaginary Time" ends up being false that means...
"There would have to be something outside the universe, to wind up the clockwork, and set the universe going."

This doesn't matter. You cannot take the mans work and just assume he's talking about God. I promise he isn't, as he's elsewhere stated his opinions on god. Further "IF" imaginary time were false and that does mean something outside wound up the universe, that doesn't mean it's god that did it.

Even more, if this did prove God existed (I emphasize if) all itwould mean is that he's a malevolent piece of shit who wound it up and just watched every one suffer and die. Your not really making a good argument and it's because you're taking something that's about one thing in particular and desperately trying to make it about something else and misuse your mental capacity to twist it into some pro-God farce that it was not intended to be. If hawking saw this thread he'd shred your entire op.

182

The Case for Theism

by FusionTheism in

"theism" here means "belief in a god" or "the worldview that an intelligent designer created the universe and life.

" ("god" here means a being with a mind who initiated and/or wound-up the universe, and designed life on earth)the most common claim that i see atheists making on twitter, is that "no evidence" exists in support of belief in a god.this post will remove any excuse atheists have for claiming "no evidence exists" in support of an initiator.

atheists can still reject this evidence as "weak," but they cannot truthfully say it does not exist.now, it is true that we do not have "observable, repeatable, falsifiable, empirical, scientific" evidence conclusively proving that an initiator exists, but we do have many lines of philisophical, experiential, and logical evidence.and... here... we... go:1:) many leading scientists, including stephen hawking, say that the space-time-matter universe had a beginning at the singularity/big bang.

Jonathan Drake

Fusion I do know how to use a dictionary, and your definition from your source states that theism is a belief in an immanent God. Immanent means that the God is inherent in and has something to do with the world.

1
:indwelling, inherent <beauty is not something imposed but something immanent — Anthony Burgess>

Theism is the belief in a God that transcends our world but is still immanent (has something to do with) our world. Deism is the belief in a God that transcends our world and has nothing to do with it.

182

The Case for Theism

by FusionTheism in

"theism" here means "belief in a god" or "the worldview that an intelligent designer created the universe and life.

" ("god" here means a being with a mind who initiated and/or wound-up the universe, and designed life on earth)the most common claim that i see atheists making on twitter, is that "no evidence" exists in support of belief in a god.this post will remove any excuse atheists have for claiming "no evidence exists" in support of an initiator.

atheists can still reject this evidence as "weak," but they cannot truthfully say it does not exist.now, it is true that we do not have "observable, repeatable, falsifiable, empirical, scientific" evidence conclusively proving that an initiator exists, but we do have many lines of philisophical, experiential, and logical evidence.and... here... we... go:1:) many leading scientists, including stephen hawking, say that the space-time-matter universe had a beginning at the singularity/big bang.

Jonathan Drake

"All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology."
"Another attempt to avoid a beginning to time, was the suggestion, that maybe all the galaxies didn't meet up at a single point in the past. [...] However, their claim was proved wrong, by a number of theorems by Roger Penrose and myself."
"If one can determine that there is enough matter in the universe, to focus our past light cone, one can then apply the singularity theorems, to show that time must have a beginning. [...]"
"One can then apply the theorem of Penrose and myself, to show that time must have a beginning."

If I'm not mistaken, I believe you have just created a straw man out of Steven hawkings lecture "the beginning of time". It seems to me you are trying to make the beginning of time have something to do with God, and it absolutely doesn't.

Did you copy and paste from this lecture?