Joe Rogan and the "Religion of Atheism?"

Fredsnephew

Argument Topic: Hey you again Rickey

@RickeyHoltsclaw

A popular definition of a religion, is an organisation that promotes devotion to a hypothetical deity

But if someone wishes to also refer to atheism as a religion; then that is their prerogative.

Freedom of speech and all that.

Similarly, some people refer to other devotions as religious, such as sport or art for example.

You and Joe are free to choose how you apply the term.


Though the bottom line is, that atheists do not devote themselves to hypothetical deities.

Which all comes down to alternative programming in the end.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Fredsnephew ; Atheists have a "god" in the forms of Darwin and Dawkins and your "religion" is secular humanism/evolution and you will all perish in Hell together in your rejection of Jesus as Messiah.

Factfinder

To address the elephant in the room the court of appeals explained their ruling wasn't labeling atheism in general as a religion but it recognized it as the antithesis of religious practices but the freedom of religion laws allow for nonreligious to gather in the prison environment; that being the main focus of the appeal and discuss their interests as freely as the religious do in prison. So no, only a dummy believing in fairytales thinks atheism is a religious belief.

MayCaesar

Joe Rogan is wrong in saying that atheists have "no system of beliefs at all". Everyone has a system of beliefs. Just not everyone's system includes ancient fairy tales.

Soviet or Chinese communists absolutely had systems of beliefs, very rigid ones - this is how they were able to slaughter so many people without ever asking themselves, "What if I am wrong?" Secular people exactly differ from ideologically possessed ones in that they consistently question and revise their beliefs. While ideologically possessed ones strive to exterminate everyone who does not think the "right" way. As, for instance, Rickey does when saying all the time how everyone he disagrees with must suffer in hell for eternity.

I do not think that people who do not have the same system of beliefs as me should suffer for it. I do not want anyone to suffer. But those who constantly try to force their systems of beliefs on others, such as a militant Christian or Communist nutcase - if they suffer, I will spill fewer tears than if someone decent suffers. And good news for them: unlike in the fairy tales, in the real world suffering is always finite.

Factfinder

@MayCaesar

I remember when I was a theist it was common for the clergy to dismiss what nonbelievers of a god think by claiming their belief system is the same when they express faith in things like getting on an airplane. Which it idiotic of course since we seen airplanes and a are generally familiar with their successful, documented repeated and predictable flight plans observed daily in reality.

Joeseph

@Factfinder

So no, only a dummy believing in fairytales thinks atheism is a religious belief.

Spot on , like not collecting stamps is actually a hobby to people like Rickety and Just Lying.

Joeseph

@MayCaesar

What an unusual relationship christians have with God it's like meeting a woman online  never seeing her for real yet her friends who talk for her  persistently threaten you that you better never meet or have a relationship with another or they will ensure you will suffer dreadfully for life and  after.

just_sayin

@MayCaesar
Joe Rogan is wrong in saying that atheists have "no system of beliefs at all". 

If that is what he said, I can agree with you.  Atheism is vapid in moral beliefs, but not atheists themselves.  On that point you are correct. There are some implicit beliefs associated with atheism - such as believing the universe must have a naturalistic origin or life must ultimately have a purely naturalistic origin.  

Secular people exactly differ from ideologically possessed ones in that they consistently question and revise their beliefs.

May, this rings of special pleading on your part.  Do you seriously think that non-religious people are always more open minded?  You haven't seemed very open minded when presented evidence of miracles.  In fact you emphatically claimed that such events could never occur.  That doesn't seem open minded to being persuaded by evidence.  That seems like a staunch belief system that makes Science of the gaps appeals.  just sayin

But those who constantly try to force their systems of beliefs on others such as a militant Christian or Communist nutcase - if they suffer, I will spill fewer tears than if someone decent suffers.

Huh, May, can you give me any examples of laws that don't have some moral basis underlying them.  Go ahead, I'll wait.  Still trying to come up with one?  I'll wait a little longer.  Need some more time?  Go ahead, I'll wait a little bit more.  OK May, enough time has passed.  The reality is all laws reflect someone's system of beliefs and they are imposed on others.  Whether they be traffic laws, violent crime laws, or mundane laws.  Anyone wanting a law changed or a political candidate elected is advocating for imposing some belief on others.  Even atheists do this.  If it didn't dawn on you that ALL LAWS IMPOSE SOMEBODY'S BELIEFS then set aside some more time and think about it.  

For the record, if you were suffering and I knew about it, I would feel great sympathy for you and if within my power I would help you.  Maybe we differ on that point.

Joeseph

@Factfinder

Yes they use two different meanings for "faith" as in one is based on spiritual conviction the other on trust.

MayCaesar

@Factfinder

I like bringing up the hot stove example when I hear an argument like this. If it is all just a matter of arbitrary belief, then go ahead, mister priest, live your life as if the hot stove was not painful to touch, but, the opposite, gave you the biggest ecstasy imaginable whenever you touched it. See how long you can keep it up!

There are no "hot stoves" when it comes to religion. I liked that scene from the Troy movie where Eudoros expresses his horror over the plunder of the temple of Apollo, fearing the god's retaliation - and in response, Achilles laughs and chops off the Apollo statue's head. No divine strike follows.

It is all stories for children.

Factfinder

@Joeseph

True. And actually they play fast and loose with with ANY wording they can to extract some bizarre fringe like conclusions as we've seen on this site..

Factfinder

@MayCaesar

It is all stories for children. 

And not only that but the reality is every single god as far back as the Mesopotamian gods were truly believed in and taught just as the modern Abrahamic gods of today are and that never was considered 'evidence' there must be a god after the age of enlightenment yet Christians count it as 'evidence' because so many believe and changed their lives to reflect their faith. Just nuts.

just_sayin

Factfinder said:

@MayCaesar

It is all stories for children. 

And not only that but the reality is every single god as far back as the Mesopotamian gods were truly believed in and taught just a the modern Abrahamic gods of today are and that never was considered 'evidence' there must be a god after the age of enlightenment yet Christians count it as 'evidence' because so many believe and changed their lives to reflect their faith. Just nuts.

LOL. What joke your claims are. Its not that there isn't any evidence for God, its that you either won't acknowledge it or don't find it persuasive.  That's more of an issue with you than the evidence.  For example - Miquel Pellcier's documented restored leg.  What does Jules favorite AI say about the evidence:

Based on the search results, the testimonies of surgeons and witnesses played a crucial role in verifying the alleged miracle of Miguel Juan Pellicer's leg restoration:

1. Multiple eyewitnesses were interviewed and provided sworn testimony:

- Two surgeons involved in the original amputation, Juan de Estanga and Diego Millaruelo, were interviewed under oath.

- The assistant surgeon Juan Lorenzo Garcia and the hospital's priest overseer Pascual del Cacho also provided testimony.

- Dozens of other sworn witnesses testified at the trial before the court of the archbishopric of Zaragoza.

2. The surgeons confirmed the amputation:

- They testified that Miguel Pellicer's leg was indeed amputated due to gangrene.

- Juan de Estanga specifically stated he resolved to cut off the leg and helped execute the amputation.

3. Other witnesses corroborated Pellicer's condition:

- Many people in Zaragoza recognized Pellicer as the one-legged beggar they had seen for years.

- Those who had given him alms recalled that he would show his healed stump to solicit donations.

4. Immediate documentation:

- A royal notary registered the event just 62 hours after it allegedly occurred.

- The local judge, assisted by two surgeons, examined Pellicer and sent a report to superiors.

5. Identification of the restored leg:

- Witnesses noted that the restored leg could be identified as the original through specific bruises and scars present before the amputation.

6. Verification of burial site:

- The hole in the hospital cemetery where the amputated leg had been buried was excavated and found empty.

7. Official recognition:

- Based on these testimonies and examinations, the archbishop of Zaragoza officially declared the authenticity of the miracle on April 27, 1641.

The abundance and consistency of eyewitness accounts, especially from medical professionals who had been directly involved in Pellicer's case, contributed significantly to the verification process of this alleged miracle. The immediate documentation and official investigation also added weight to the claims.

Citations:

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/16topty/are_there_any_well_documented_miracles_in_history/

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_Pellicer

[3] https://biblicalscholarship.wordpress.com/2022/03/12/interview-with-vittorio-messori-concerning-the-miraculous-healing-of-miguel-juan-pellicer-severed-leg/

[4] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2845699/

[5] https://www.ncregister.com/features/how-does-the-catholic-church-investigate-eucharistic-miracles

[6] https://quod.lib.umich.edu/w/wsfh/0642292.0038.008/--miracles-on-trial-wonders-and-their-witnesses-in-eighteenth?rgn=main;view=fulltext

[7] https://www.is-there-a-god.info/life/tenhealings/

[8] https://www.globalmri.org/blog/miraculous-healing-published-in-medical-journal/

So when you go all Yosemite Sam and start saying 'that thar ain't evidence, cause I says it ain't evidence', in reality, its evidence.  You just don't like  it.  

What does Jules favorite AI (perplexity.ai) say about the miracle of Barbara Cummiskey?:

Based on the search results, there is significant reported evidence for Barbara Cummiskey's (also referred to as Barbara Cummiskey Snyder) miracle claim of being healed from severe multiple sclerosis. Here are the key points:

1. Medical diagnosis and condition:

- Diagnosed with severe multiple sclerosis at age 15 by the Mayo Clinic.

- Spent 75% of her life in hospitals over 16 years.

- Had multiple severe symptoms including paralysis, blindness, breathing difficulties, and was bedridden.

- Doctors had transitioned to palliative care, expecting her to die soon.

2. The healing event:

- Occurred on June 7, 1981 (Pentecost Sunday).

- Barbara reported hearing a voice telling her to "Get up and walk."

- She suddenly found herself able to stand, walk, see, and breathe normally.

3. Immediate witnesses:

- Friends who were with her at the time witnessed her sudden ability to stand and walk.

- Her family saw her dramatic change.

4. Medical verification:

- Dr. Thomas Marshall, her palliative care doctor, examined her the next day and reported complete healing.

- Multiple doctors in Marshall's office examined her over 3+ hours, reportedly never having seen anything like it.

- X-rays showed her formerly collapsed lung was no longer collapsed.

5. Long-term follow-up:

- The healing was reportedly permanent, with no relapse of MS symptoms.

6. Independent investigation:

- Dr. Craig Keener interviewed Barbara Cummiskey Snyder in December 2015.

- Keener also interviewed two of Barbara's doctors, Dr. Adolph and Dr. Scott Kolbaba, who corroborated the account.

7. Public record:

- The Chicago Tribune reportedly carried her story at the time.

8. Multiple sources:

- The case is mentioned in books by Lee Strobel and Craig Keener, with consistent details.

While this case is often cited as strong evidence for a miraculous healing, it's important to note that these accounts are based on testimonies and interviews rather than peer-reviewed medical studies. The evidence, while compelling to many, remains anecdotal from a strictly scientific standpoint.

Citations:

[1]

[2] https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/10fjcmq/highly_credible_miracle_claim_with_no/

[3] https://godrunning.com/2022/10/29/are-miracles-real-acts-148-10/

[4] https://jonathanmclatchie.com/extraordinary-claims-and-evidence-a-review-of-jonathan-pearces-book-on-the-resurrection-part-1/

[5] https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/16topty/are_there_any_well_documented_miracles_in_history/

[6] https://www.is-there-a-god.info/life/tenhealings/

[7] https://quod.lib.umich.edu/w/wsfh/0642292.0038.008/--miracles-on-trial-wonders-and-their-witnesses-in-eighteenth?rgn=main;view=fulltext

[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_Pellicer

Now, I have to correct Jules favorite AI just a bit here.  It claims that only antidotal evidence exists while referencing the x-rays.  Dr. Scott Kolbaba, Dr. Thomas Marshall, and Dr. Adolph all wrote books and included documented medical records of the event.  

Now that is indeed evidence of a miracle.  Its just it doesn't fit your atheistic faith claims.  I could go on and point to the evidence of the resurrection of Jesus.  I could point to evidence of fine tuning.  I could mention the complexity  of DNA code and the need for a coder and the odds of the 10 miracle level events needed for chemical evolution to have occurred, but you aren't interested in evidence. You only want things that confirm your biases.  

That thar ain't evidence cause I says it ain't evidence!!!!!


LOL

polytheistwitch

The US is a secular country in that there is no State religion and there is a separation of Church and State. The citizenry of the United States is not necessarily unreligious. As a matter of fact if there's a religion that exists there's probably someone in the US that practices it. Basically what Joe Rogan is saying that atheist need to live in the confines of a state religion because if not they adopt policies and thoughts that he doesn't like. And considering some of the projects that Joe Rogan has worked on in the past I'm not sure he should be a moral authority on anything.

Factfinder

@just_sayin

Now that is indeed evidence of a miracle.  Its just it doesn't fit your atheistic faith claims.  I could go on and point to the evidence of the resurrection of Jesus.  I could point to evidence of fine tuning.  I could mention the complex code of DNA and the need for a coder and the odds of the 10 miracle level events needed for chemical evolution to have occurred, but you aren't interested in evidence, you only want things that confirm your biases. 

And though you may or may not believe that, as well as the wall of debunked multiple tomfoolery babblings you spam the boards with repeatedly, you still come off daft as ever. DNA is evidence of the natural process of life not fairytales. Unless you finally found DNA/RNA evidence of an elf god of some sort? NO? Just your claims of  magically resurrected zombies with no bloodlines as evidence? Found the coder of any myth gods yet? Why does 'god' shrink as knowledge grows? Don't worry I won't press you to think, I know it hurts your indoctrinated brain. And you have no idea what 'anecdotal' means. Now stop lying as everyone can read I keep asking for the DNA evidence of your particular elf god but you never produce it. 

MayCaesar

Factfinder said:

@MayCaesar

It is all stories for children. 

And not only that but the reality is every single god as far back as the Mesopotamian gods were truly believed in and taught just as the modern Abrahamic gods of today are and that never was considered 'evidence' there must be a god after the age of enlightenment yet Christians count it as 'evidence' because so many believe and changed their lives to reflect their faith. Just nuts.

Us humans are not very good at learning from experience of others: we tend to think that we are an exception, that even if a billion people have gone through something we are going through before and had the same outcome, then we will have a different one. People will say, "I will make no mistakes in raising my children, unlike everyone else!", despite all evidence of them being subject to the same flaws as everyone else.

A Christian may reject the 2,5 million other gods humanity has come up with - but not the Christian god: that god, for sure, is real! And everyone, of course, has the same opinion of the god(s) in their religion.

Of course, that the Sun will rise tomorrow is a very different kind of belief. Someone can say, "No, it will not", and be proven wrong within 24 hours. But I can say, "No, god does not exist" - and when will I be proven wrong? I guess, on the "Day of Judgment", or whatever they call that? The Universe is waiting for that day with baited breath... for over 13 billion years already. Maybe in another 13 billion years the wait will be over?

Joeseph

@just_sayin


Bwahahahahaha.....Just Lying forgot to remove the disclaimer at the end of his piece regarding the Miracle Claims of ace li-r Cummisky .......

While this case is often cited as strong evidence for a miraculous healing, it's important to note that these accounts are based on testimonies and interviews rather than peer-reviewed medical studies. The evidence, while compelling to many, remains anecdotal from a strictly scientific standpoint.

OUCH 


So still not one peer reviwed medical study , whys that do you think? LOL. 


BTW  I'm still waiting for you to back up your ridiculous claim that your basis for  objective morality is god , I've asked you over 100 times now to prove it by listing out this list of set in stone objective moral dictates from your god that you all hilariously pretend to follow , are you going to cut loose and run again?

just_sayin

Joeseph said:

@just_sayin


Bwahahahahaha.....Just Lying forgot to remove the disclaimer at the end of his piece regarding the Miracle Claims of ace li-r Cummisky .......

While this case is often cited as strong evidence for a miraculous healing, it's important to note that these accounts are based on testimonies and interviews rather than peer-reviewed medical studies. The evidence, while compelling to many, remains anecdotal from a strictly scientific standpoint.

OUCH 


So still not one peer reviwed medical study , whys that do you think? LOL. 


BTW  I'm still waiting for you to back up your ridiculous claim that your basis for  objective morality is god , I've asked you over 100 times now to prove it by listing out this list of set in stone objective moral dictates from your god that you all hilariously pretend to follow , are you going to cut loose and run again?

First I don't know why but I laughed at your joke about my dead dad and you thinking I'm short.  

You are right Barbara Cummiskey's case was not peer reviewed.  Four of her doctor's published books or articles in medical journals about her case, but they were not peer reviewed.  The books contain medical records, which she allowed them to include, and at least 4 of her Mayo Clinic credentialed physicians wrote about her case.  Her case has also been written about in the Chicago Times and is in the book Miracles Today by Craig Keener - where he interviewed her, and by Lee Strobel - who interviewed her when she was still alive.  I've also seen about 10 different interviews of her on various tv shows on youtube.  

Now it seems like you are once again moving the goal posts, but hey, I'm use to it.  I'll remind you that I've posted several instances of peer reviewed studies on prayer and miracles in the 'Does Prayer Work?' debate - about 10 pages worth of references.  Here is but 1 post which mentions studies on prayer and miracles that were peer reviewed for you:

https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/182473/#Comment_182473

Now, I've answered your question about objective morals, but I guess @Barnardot is right about your intelligence.  So I will repeat myself again.  If there is no God there are no objective morals.  Morals are just the preferences of individuals or groups.  But if you believe that some things are morally right or wrong, even if individuals or groups disagree, then you believe in objective good and evil - which means there is a God. 

For what morals are objectively good - try reading the Bible.  I asked Jules favorite AI to provide a list of moral values across all people groups and if they corresponded with anything in the Bible.  Here is the response:

Based on the search results and the additional context from your query, there are indeed several moral principles that appear to be shared across many cultures, according to anthropological research. Here's a summary of the key findings, along with how they may correspond to Biblical morals:

1. Universal moral rules identified by Oxford anthropologists:

- Help your family (corresponds to Biblical commandment to honor parents)

- Help your group (aligns with Biblical teachings on community and loving neighbors)

- Return favors (similar to Biblical concepts of reciprocity and gratitude)

- Be brave (courage is valued in Biblical narratives)

- Defer to superiors (respect for authority is a Biblical principle)

- Divide resources fairly (fairness and justice are key Biblical themes)

- Respect others' property (aligns with Biblical commandment against stealing)

2. Other widely shared moral values mentioned:

- Justice (a central Biblical concept)

- Care/harm prevention (aligns with Biblical teachings on compassion and love)

- Sanctity/purity (corresponds to Biblical concepts of holiness)

- Honesty (aligns with Biblical commandments against lying)

- Tolerance (can be related to Biblical teachings on loving others)

- Reciprocity (the "Golden Rule" is explicitly stated in the Bible)

- Loyalty (valued in Biblical narratives and teachings)

- Forgiveness (a key Biblical principle)

- Harmony (aligns with Biblical concepts of peace)

3. Additional values emphasized by philosophers and theologians:

- Love and compassion (central to Biblical teachings)

- Patience (a Biblical virtue)

- Responsibility (aligns with Biblical stewardship concepts)

- Respect for human life (corresponds to Biblical sanctity of life)

Most of these moral principles have clear correspondences in Biblical teachings, either as explicit commandments or as values demonstrated through narratives and parables. The research suggests that while there may be cultural variations in how these principles are prioritized or applied, there is a common core of basic moral rules that appear to be nearly universal and align significantly with Biblical morality.

It's worth noting that while these studies provide evidence for shared moral principles across cultures, they don't necessarily prove that these morals originate from a single source or are innate to human nature. The origins and development of moral systems remain subjects of ongoing research and debate in various fields, including anthropology, psychology, and theology.

Citations:

[1] https://newatlas.com/seven-universal-moral-rules-oxford-study/58474/

[2] https://phys.org/news/2019-02-moral-world.html

[3] https://www.sciencealert.com/these-7-rules-form-a-universal-moral-code-shared-by-every-culture-study-finds

[4] https://scholarship.depauw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=library_symposium

[5] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43545-022-00350-7

[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_universalism

[7] https://www.kentmkeith.com/universalemoralcode

[8] https://ethics.ubc.ca/papers/invited/colero-html/ ;

Now, don't prove @Barnardot right and ask another question that has already been answered again.  

Joeseph

@just_sayin

First I don't know why but I laughed at your joke about my dead dad and you thinking I'm short.  

Which one was that? Oh you mean the remark about you claiming god grew a Spanish  drunkards leg back but wouldn't save your dad?

The wasn't a " joke" but a question you couldn't answer. Ahh your tall now? Starting to sound like prayer might work ......not.

You are right Barbara Cummiskey's case was not peer reviewed

Don't I know it.


. Four of her doctor's published books or articles in medical journals about her case, but they were not peer reviewed.

Yes "not peer reviewed ".

 The books contain medical records, which she allowed them to include, and at least 4 of her Mayo Clinic credentialed physicians wrote about her case.

Really before and after case reports all witnessed and signed by her , and never came up for peer review?

Maybe you can post up her doctors original diagnosis and his final reports on her present condition or are just Lying yet again?

 Her case has also been written about in the Chicago Times and is in the book Miracles Today by Craig Keener - where he interviewed her, and by Lee Strobel - who interviewed her when she was still alive. I've also seen about 10 different interviews of her on various tv shows on youtube.  

So what? How that peer review?

Now it seems like you are once again moving the goal posts, but hey, I'm use to it.

I moved nothing , you have zero proof of a miracle not even before and after medical reports , so how am I moving the goalposts.


 I'll remind you that I've posted several instances of peer reviewed studies on prayer and miracles in the 'Does Prayer Work?' debate - about 10 pages worth of references. Here is but 1 post which mentions studies on prayer and miracles that were peer reviewed for you:

No you didn't if that was the case miracles would be proven yet the world of Science still has zero proof for such.

Now, I've answered your question about objective morals

No you didn't you fled over 100 times now and counting you haven't the basic intelligence to form a coherent response.

Let's ask yet again , you say morals are objective their basis being god yet refuse to list off these set in stone moral dictates you claim are unique to Christianity,  bet you run again?

What's worse is you're admitting you and fellow christians don't know how to behave without God somehow informing you of his wishes on moral questions.


, but I guess @Barnardot is right about your intelligence.

But Barndoor can barely spell a 3 letter word and he calls anyone who disagrees with him st-pid , he called you a compulsive and a tard , so seeing as you're so reliant on his words do you accept his judgement.?....actually in this case it's hard to argue against.


 So I will repeat myself again. If there is no God there are no objective morals.

Well done you're catching on.


 Morals are just the preferences of individuals or groups.

You're getting the hang of it now and maybe I will give you the philosophical term for this view if you behave.

Morals are grunts of approval and disapproval nothing more , you cannot derive an ought from an is.


 But if you believe that some things are morally right or wrong, even if individuals or groups disagree, then you believe in objective good and evil - which means there is a God. 

Utter nonsense I treat others as I wish to be treated this is an Evolutionary drive as early man discovered cooperation worked a lot better in his grouping than hostility

For what morals are objectively good - try reading the Bible

I'm an expert on the bile you're not so stop quoting a book you constantly re-interpret at me as you haven't a clue.

You mean like a slave is your property for life? Or maybe , women should remain silent or maybe if your child disrespects you put him / her to death?




. I asked Jules favorite AI to provide a list of moral values across all people groups and if they corresponded with anything in the Bible. Here is the response:


I'm not remotely interested in Jules AI and it's pretty telling you need it's help to assist you in yet another topic you know nothing about.

So my original assessment still holds as in you cannot post up a credible scientific paper for even one of your claims , you cannot post up a list of these god given objective morals you babble on about and you don't know how to behave without communicating with God for his decision every time you face a moral question.

You also think people cannot behave morally without a god while the reverse is actually true and you deny what's written in your own bile .......that's quiet a list I think Barndoor had you pegged.

Factfinder

@just_sayin

Why does god shrink as knowledge grows? Seriously, at first god was the wind, then it was the earthquakes and volcanoes, then the lightening, then the sun... and on and on and on; but as we learned the truth about each an EVERTHING we learned along the way it's not god but nature in every case to date. Now you point in ignorance at what's not understood or known by humanity yet and claim god did it but with no answer for why should the train of thought continue to be that which has been historically wrong? And with no empirical evidence? Just weak hearsay with "so many believe there has to be something to it" pleases coupled with the false logic "the bible says" is evidence of bible claims?

Why does god shrink as knowledge grows?

RickeyHoltsclaw

@polytheistwitch ; Without Jesus, America dies. This is why America is dying under the demonic leadership of Democrat-Progressives.

just_sayin

@Factfinder
Why does god shrink as knowledge grows?

What???  Deacon, the more I learn, the bigger God becomes in my eyes.  When you said 'well if there was evidence of God growing back someone's amputated limb then I would believe' and I went and found at least 3 examples that were documented, one of which I have discussed with you - Miquel Pellicer's case (the miracle of Calanda) and saw that it had numerous eye witness testimonies taken under oath in a court setting, medical examinations, the doctor who amputated the leg's testimony, medical records from multiple cities, and about 1,000 pages of evidence, that didn't cause my belief in God to shrink.  The exact opposite happened.

When you said 'thar ain't no evidence of the resurrection' and then I discovered that there is early evidence of the resurrection which mentions it and names eye witnesses (1 Corinthians 15:3-7) that is dated within 2 years of the resurrection, along with several eye witness accounts, confirming evidence from early Christians who verified that the apostles spoke of seeing Jesus alive physically after his death, and non-Christian sources that either mention the resurrection or allude to the events surrounding it, or the disciples beliefs about it, that didn't make God smaller in my eyes.  It made atheists smaller in my eyes.  But it made my God huge.

When I see how finely tuned the universe is I don't think, God is so small.  Did you know that they have discovered over 200 necessary things to have a universe that is life permitting?  Now, non-tenured math professors won't appreciate this, but Roger Penrose calculates that the odds of the universe having such low entropy at the Big Bang by chance are astronomically small - around 1 in 10^10^123. This incredibly low probability suggests the initial low entropy state was not random.  That's just one highly improbable setting - there are over 200.  Here are few for you and there odds:

1. Gravitational constant: Fine-tuned to 1 part in 10^34
2. Electromagnetic force vs. gravitational force: Fine-tuned to 1 part in 10^37
3. Cosmological constant: Fine-tuned to 1 part in 10^120
4. Mass density of the universe: Fine-tuned to 1 part in 10^59
5. Expansion rate of the universe: Fine-tuned to 1 part in 10^55
6. Initial entropy of the universe: Fine-tuned to 1 part in 10^(10^123)
7. Strong nuclear force: If slightly stronger, there would be no hydrogen. If slightly weaker, only hydrogen would exist.
8. Weak nuclear force: If slightly different, either not enough helium for heavy elements, or stars would burn out too quickly.
9. Electromagnetic force: If slightly stronger or weaker, atomic bonds and complex molecules could not form.
10. Ratio of masses for protons and electrons: If slightly different, DNA could not form.
11. Velocity of light: If larger, stars would be too luminous. If smaller, stars would not be luminous enough.
12. Mass excess of neutron over proton: If greater, too few heavy elements for life. If smaller, stars would quickly collapse.

At some point, even an honest atheist, starts to realize that it is more than just coincidence.  There is no reason science that dictates that these constants and other settings have to be life permitting, in fact, the odds are against them being that. Yet, here we are.  You might think that makes God look small, but to me it tells me He is very much at work.  It would be like you and I seeing an iPhone on the beach.  I would think someone created that iPhone, while you would swear up and down the wind and the elements somehow by luck molded and shaped a working iPhone.  Only, the finely tuned complexity of life and the universe are astronomically more unlikely than the wind and elements making an iPhone on the beach.  

Have you noticed that in our many discussions, I am citing facts and evidence (eye witness accounts, medical records, historical documents and histories, news stories, doctor's accounts, cosmologists statements, etc.) and you are denying they exist.  If God is small in your eyes - stop squinting!!!

God is

Factfinder

@just_sayin

Preaching, circular nonsense. I understand you're desperately afraid of hell. You will say you're not but irrationally adhere to blind faith when presented with real arguments.  But you still have no evidence, and you have no idea what evidence is. And you sound foolish to boot. "The bible is proof the bible is correct" LOL. How's that god DNA coming?

Factfinder

@just_sayin

You still didn't answer the question. You told me what you believe but address the facts please. Why did god get smaller when we as a species realized the sun wasn't god?

Fredsnephew

Argument Topic: Hey Rickey

@RickeyHoltsclaw

Darwin and Dawkins would be two GODS.

Though in fact, both were/are demonstrable humanoids, rather than hypothetical fantasy GODS.

Darwin proposed a reasonable theory concerning species evolution.

And Dawkins proposes reasonable counter arguments to theological fantasy theory.

Though I do not pray or sing songs in reverence of either.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Fredsnephew ; Dawkins and Darwin are your gods...this is why you're positioned to die in Hell as you reject Jesus as God who paved the divine Path for your redemption and salvation.