[WashedWithHisBlood]

Re: Quantum God?

I would like to thank everyone ......

Lol save it we know you don't mean it

But having said that, my last three threads were deleted and this one is done, so until I can start threads again, I won't be able to get real answers from real Christians. That's a shame, but it make me non the less grateful. You all have helped me more than you could ever know and I will always be grateful for you.

Elizabeth

These people are real Christians. It's just a shame you and your liberal prejudice out look are unwilling accept it.

[Dolores de Barriga]

Re: Quantum God?

Dear Elizabeth:

This is what you do in order to split a quote correctly: at the beginning of each quoted portion of text add [quote ] (without space) and at the end add [/quote ] (without spaces). Look what happens with the same portion of text when I copy it again, removing the spaces before ]

(without space) and at the end add

Magic, isn't it? Then, you can revamp your quotes to look red, purple, or vomit - which is a real color name according to a scientific survey: http://blog.xkcd.com/2010/05/03/color-survey-results/

However, quoting properly would make the lives of anyone responding to your posts so much easier if you have followed this rule.

Now, let me go back and forth between "reply to topic" and "topic review" in order to fish out all your non-quote quotes and copy and paste each one of them into my reply. Don't worry; I have graded enough undergraduate papers not to get angry at their pitiful form and judge them exclusively based on their content.

The polling methods are crap. Totally meaningless because people who generically believe in God, are considered to be Christians, when they aren't really Christians. True believers who actually believe Jesus is there personal savior is about 40%, including Catholics, and Mormons.

Do you have an actual statistics source to support your view, or do you think that everything you say qualifies as Absolute Truth which does not require any evidence to support it? Assuming you did not pull out the "40%" number out of your hat, what criteria were used to determine who - among a group of people identifying themselves as followers of a certain religion - was the actual believer and who wasn't?

Same with Christianity. There are about a jillion different kinds of Christians and all of them believe that to believe the other versions means going to Hell.

What part of "statistics like these lump minor groups into larger ones for readability" don't you understand?

Th point is, that 1/3 of the globe believes in the Christian God and believes the Holy Bible to be an accurate account of who God is and what He wants. Yes, different groups interpret the Bible in different ways. This particular congregation rejects the idea of interpreting the Bible and says it is to be understood literally. But in the end, ecumenical encounters could not be possible if various Christian denominations did not acknowledge the existence of a common denominator.

http://www.pewforum.org/2012/10/09/nones-on-the-rise/

Here, you think so much of Pew, they are the ones saying it. Worldwide it's higher as Europe has become extremely secular.

Oh, so you do use Pew statistics when it is convenient for you, but reject them as not scientific enough when it isn't convenient. Fantastic.

However, I did look at that link, and it seems to me that you do not understand the difference between a "non-believer" and "non-affiliated." The actual non-believers are only 6% according to that article. The remaining 14% are people who do believe in some kind of God, just reject the idea of organized religion. They are still believers, though: they like the idea of religion, just don't like the fact that organized religions have always been used to subjugate and exploit some groups of people by other groups of people. Personally, I'm not sure how can you separate the abstract idea of religion from it's gruesome history, but if 14% of society finds a way to do it, good for them.

Like I said, there are a lot of people who say they come from Christian familys, but they themselves only believe in some generic God. They don't attend Church and they don't follow church doctrine. Yet? These people are counted as being Christians. They're not.

The plural form of "family" is "families."

Back to the content: the idea that an objective scientist can determine whether a person is really a Christian or not is a very positivistic one. This approach in studies of people has been abandoned some half century ago or so. Today, we tend to ask a person in question how they see themselves, and if they self-label themselves as Christian, then the outsider doesn't really have the grounds to disagree.

This is the silliest argument I have ever heard. If one is compelled through threat of pain or death, that is not free will. If someone pulls a gun on you and robs you, you did not have free will just because you could have said no and let him kill you. Anything that threatens punishment for not complying, can not be free will. It's manipulated, not free will. Free means just that, there can be no consequence for not complying. The only consequence has to be from the action itself, not punishment for breaking the rules.

Please don't argue with me, argue with Aristotle, Thomas Hobbes, Voltaire, and other thinkers whom we owe our understanding of what free will is. Are you a hard determinist?

I do not ridicule what anyone believes. I wholly support every members absolute right to believe whatever they want and should not be shown disrespect for simply having religious beliefs. However, those beliefs do not include making others comply with that religion, especially people like me that don't believe it and have a right to believe what we want. Your right does not trump other peoples rights.

And how is this particular congregation doing it, exactly? Do you find Landover Baptists going door to door? Have you seen them on atheist websites shoveling their beliefs down other peoples throats?

I am all for you doing whatever you want with like minded people. What I disagree with is making your religion the law. That is against our Constitution. And I'll be damned if I will put up with anyone down talking the Constitution.

Fun fact: the creators of the Constitution decided that it should be changed every generation. It certainly did:

http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/article/how-us-constitution-has-evolved-over-time

I mean, in the original constitution women and black people were not allowed to vote, and black people were counted as 3/5 of a person.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/thirteenthamendment.html

Do you still think that Constitution is unchangeable?

I don't believe "academic sources" can predict the future. It's just something I believe.

Oh, so a belief without any supporting evidence should be more convincing than, um, actual evidence?

I believe humans will not only find life on other worlds, but will be able to create life at a whim from nothing more than amino acids.

No evidence.

Stem cells have now cured Type I Diabetes,

Nope, not yet.

http://www.diabetes.org/advocacy/advocacy-priorities/funding/stem-cell-research.html

looks like organ replacement, repairing severed spinal cords and generally making Humans live past the 120 years the Bible says is the limit.

No, it doesn't. Ever heard of Methuselah?

Basically the Bible will be proven to be fiction but mostly people won't have a need for your God anymore.

That's what some people have been saying since the Rennaissance, and it still didn't happen. There is a term for your belief, it's called "wishful thinking."

Government and medicine with be able to give them what they used to get from religion.

Communist countries tried this approach, and history shows that it didn't work so well. As a general rule, whatever government tries to force usually doesn't work.

No, that is not what I mean. What I mean is that humans have a need for religion. We have a place in our brains that makes people have what they believe are "spiritual" feelings. In other words once the God religions die,

Wishful thinking, again.

humans will still have a need for religion because of this part of the brain. I would never be for removing this from anyone unless it was cancerous or something. There is this professor that makes people have religious out of body experiences by placing a strong magnet near that part of the Brain. Check it out, it's on one of the "Through the Wormhole" episodes.

This sounds interesting, but I usually don't take television programs as reliable sources of information - except for the news and maybe weather forecast. If, however, you can provide me an academic source for any of these things you have mentioned, I will be more than happy to critically read it and decide whether author's arguments are logically sound and convincing.

[MitzaLizalor]

Re: Quantum God?

Government and medicine with be able to give them what they used to get from religion.

In communist countries they have no concept of the separation between State and government. One result is the State clubbing people over the head with atheistic, communistic, doctrinaire social engineering attempts doomed to failure. That is not what the State is for. That is the responsibility of government, and in democratic belief systems power concentrates from "the people" to the government.

The State is more top down.