General Church Fellowship A place for True Christians to join in praise, faith and fellowship. |
|
PHD - Theophysicist Saving The Lost With The Truth Of Applied Theoscience
True Christian™
|
|
Posts: 3,087
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: In the Lamb's book of life
|
|
Re: Atheists!! Think you are a moral person? Take the test!! -
02-07-2013, 09:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lone Jack
If I were to label myself the most descriptive terminology I can think of at the moment would be deistic moral relativistic ontologist.
|
I take it you mean deist in the traditional sense. You believe in a creator who does not intervene in the universe. But if he doesn't intervene in the universe, how can there be any evidence of his existence?
| Mt 21:42, 44 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes . . . ? And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.
Find out what the Bible says about: Fortnite: Battle Royale, asexuality, shaving, psychiatry, chronic fatigue syndrome, babies |
|
|
Unsaved trash, suspected queer
|
|
Posts: 94
Join Date: Feb 2013
|
|
Re: Atheists!! Think you are a moral person? Take the test!! -
02-07-2013, 05:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Taylor
No. That would make you a pagan as you would have a belief in some sort of god even though it is only in a make believe god.
|
Being open to the idea that Thor may be a real being is not the same is professing belief in the existence of Thor. In my previous example the person in question is agnostic about Thor, but clearly atheistic toward the Christian god. Even though said person outright denies the existence of your god, they are still open to the idea of (although affirming no definitive belief in) another god-being.
Are they agnostic or atheist?
More hypothetical situations:
1. Mormons believe in many gods and ultimately seek to become gods themselves. However, they only worship the chief god associated with this world and only up until the point in which they reach godhood themselves. Are they genuinely polytheists for simply acknowledging a belief in a collective of "higher beings" who are, in their view, simply a evolutionary product of the natural order?
2. A person believes in the literal existence of the Greek Olympians, but does not worship them or see them as divine. Is that person a theist for simply believing in a what they perceive to be merely a different form of life?
3. If person A believes that a group of cows are sacred holy beings who embody divinity, is that person a theist because of this arbitrary viewpoint? Is person B, who does not believe cows are in any way divine, also classify as a theist for acknowledging the existence of the same cows? If something can be divine in one person's opinion and not in another does that not make such classifications as theist, agnostic, atheist, etc. relative? Aren't such designations just arbitrary labels?
The only truth is truth itself.
I acknowledge an order within the physics of the natural world which would infer conscious intelligent influence. However, the true nature of the creator(s) is fundamentally unknowable. Based on my own frame of reference I speculate that the creator(s) did not create for our immediate benefit, is not particularly concerned for the wellbeing of humanity, is not perfect, is in a process of learning and works within an overarching order. This would suggest a singluar prime intellectual force (the laws of physics and metaphysics) and one or several secondary forces (natural selection/genetic manipulation) existing in and limited by the established laws of the primary force. Again, this is pure speculation based on my own limited point of view and is not the only speculative hypothesis in my arsenal. In that regard you might label me agnostic.
|
|
Completely CRAZY for the Lord
True Christian™
|
|
Posts: 14,663
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Leviticus Landing
|
|
Re: Atheists!! Think you are a moral person? Take the test!! -
02-07-2013, 07:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lone Jack
I acknowledge an order within the physics of the natural world which would infer conscious intelligent influence. However, the true nature of the creator(s) is fundamentally unknowable. Based on my own frame of reference I speculate that the creator(s) did not create for our immediate benefit, is not particularly concerned for the wellbeing of humanity, is not perfect, is in a process of learning and works within an overarching order. This would suggest a singluar prime intellectual force (the laws of physics and metaphysics) and one or several secondary forces (natural selection/genetic manipulation) existing in and limited by the established laws of the primary force. Again, this is pure speculation based on my own limited point of view and is not the only speculative hypothesis in my arsenal. In that regard you might label me agnostic.
|
acknowledge
infer
So where are you getting your information about physics? Physicists don't describe an order within the natural world which would imply conscious intelligent influence. They describe chaos. They further suggest that, since we are unable to observe very much of the cosmos (but can make up stories about what we do see), there may appear to be some local order much like if you were a tiny elf perched on a grain of sand in a sand bomb looking at an adjacent grain of sand as the whole kaboodle erupted in the air. But then they say these tiny granules can't actually see their immediate neighbours at all, only those 2 doors away. Maxwell's demon in their hallucination engenders spooky action at a distance have you ever heard such garbled nonsense. They explicitly exclude a creator. Generally they'd say that's because they're describing observations (rather than first causes) but theorists do specualte and come up with inane scenarios designed to mock God. None of them postulate an immense hyperspatial architect. That concept comes from the bastard proposition called "intelligent design" — think about it.
The Bible is clear.
I CORINTHIANS 2
7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.
KJV Within the godless tyranny of intelligent design, adlled ramblings such as those you have posted are commonplace. No "designer" capable of engineering "the universe" operates within the overarching order he is designing because at the design stage it doesn't exist. You might as well propose that Sir Christopher Wren during the design and construction of St Paul's Cathedral was constrained to working within the finished building. Which is obviously absurd.
What you have is not an arsenal. Your braggadocio has more in common with the pataphysics of French puppet theatre than with anything real.
Quote:
As Georges Perec, pataphysican and Oulipean, put it, "If physics proposes: 'You have a brother and he likes cheese,' then metaphysics replies: 'If you have a brother, he likes cheese.' But 'Pataphysics says: 'You don't have a brother and he likes cheese.'" source
|
|
|
Unsaved trash, suspected queer
|
|
Posts: 94
Join Date: Feb 2013
|
|
Re: Atheists!! Think you are a moral person? Take the test!! -
02-08-2013, 12:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MitzaLizalor
So where are you getting your information about physics? Physicists don't describe an order within the natural world which would imply conscious intelligent influence. They describe chaos.
|
There is nothing chaotic about the laws of physics. The very concept of LAWS of physics contradict any notion of chaos. A human minds inability to perceive the order of the subatomic universe in a comprehensible manner does not belie the perceptible results: Order.
You cannot get order from chaos. The two concepts are mutually exclusive. Although we do not understand the universe fully and may jump hastily to erroneous conclusions, we can still make accurate predictive models for the things we do understand. No predictive model or reproducible event can be achieved in a chaos. Science, knowledge, logic, learning, etc. has no legitimacy in a chaos.
Quote:
They further suggest that, since we are unable to observe very much of the cosmos (but can make up stories about what we do see), there may appear to be some local order much like if you were a tiny elf perched on a grain of sand in a sand bomb looking at an adjacent grain of sand as the whole kaboodle erupted in the air. But then they say these tiny granules can't actually see their immediate neighbours at all, only those 2 doors away.
|
The possibility of multiple pockets of dissimilar abstract realms of order, for lack of a better term, do not in any way shape or form detract from the clear and present order before us. Even if immediately outside our perceivable threshold there was genuine chaos it would not detract from the order we observe within that threshold.
Quote:
Maxwell's demon in their hallucination engenders spooky action at a distance have you ever heard such garbled nonsense. They explicitly exclude a creator. Generally they'd say that's because they're describing observations (rather than first causes) but theorists do specualte and come up with inane scenarios designed to mock God. None of them postulate an immense hyperspatial architect. That concept comes from the bastard proposition called "intelligent design" — think about it.
|
First Cause is irrelevant. In regard to any creator(s) the only inference that can be rationally reached is that such and such was created. The nature of the creator(s) is unknown. Said creator(s) is only inferred by the perceptible creations. The creations inferred to be created by their nature perceived through our own frame of reference. It is ultimately speculative and unworthy of, if not impossible to, study.
"An immense hyperspatial architect", as you put it, is a speculative leap. As I have already said, at best we can infer that an object (perceivable) is created. The nature of said creator(s) will remain mysterious. To specify an immense hyperspatial architect (i.e. a God-being) in terms of a personage is, in my opinion, theological and therefore an arbitrary fabrication.
So is the Quran. What is your point?
Quote:
Within the godless tyranny of intelligent design, adlled ramblings such as those you have posted are commonplace. No "designer" capable of engineering "the universe" operates within the overarching order he is designing because at the design stage it doesn't exist. You might as well propose that Sir Christopher Wren during the design and construction of St Paul's Cathedral was constrained to working within the finished building. Which is obviously absurd.
|
You are misrepresenting my comments. I clearly stated the hypothesis was purely speculative. Nonetheless, at no point did I say a designer who engineered the universe operates within the limits of the very creation it created. That is a strawman, Liz.
I speculated on the POSSIBILITY that there is a prime force and that there were secondary forces operating within the confines of this primary force. An analogy would be dog breeders working within the constraints of genetic variance to produce, via trial, error, and blind luck, a new breed in pursuit of some self-interest. The prime force being the laws or mathematics governing genetics and the secondary forces being the dog breeders. The point I was trying to make was that the conceivable creator of the maple tree, for example, is not necessarily the creator of the laws governing photosynthesis. The creator(s) or photosynthesis is not necessarily the creator of the atomic laws that made it possible for photosynthesis to become a reality. We cannot know the nature of the creator(s). But again, I am not affirming to believe any of this and I have no desire to convince anyone of a concept I cannot prove even to myself. It is just speculation meant to point out the ridiculousness of applying arbitrary traits to an unknown quantity. It's just wild guessing.
|
|
Putting the "stud" back in Bible Study
|
|
Posts: 79,909
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Freehold, Iowa
|
|
Re: Atheists!! Think you are a moral person? Take the test!! -
02-08-2013, 03:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lone Jack
It's just wild guessing.
|
Which proves how depraved you atheists scum truly are. With Jesus on our side, we never have to guess about anything.
Here is a partial list from just a few scripture verses:
Hypocrites (Matthew 24:51), The Unforgiving (Mark 11:26), Homosexuals (Romans 1:26, 27), Fornicators (Romans 1:29), The Wicked (Romans 1:29), The Covetous (Romans 1:29), The Malicious (Romans 1:29), The Envious (Romans 1:29), Murderers (Romans 1:29), The Deceitful (Romans 1:29), Backbiters (Romans 1:30), Haters of God (Romans 1:30), The Despiteful (Romans 1:30), The Proud (Romans 1:30), Boasters (Romans 1:30), Inventors of evil (Romans 1:30), Disobedient to parents (Romans 1:30), Covenant breakers (Romans 1:31), The Unmerciful (Romans 1:31), The Implacable (Romans 1:31), The Unrighteous (1Corinthians 6:9), Idolaters (1Corinthians 6:9), Adulterers (1Corinthians 6:9), The Effeminate (1Corinthians 6:9), Thieves (1Corinthians 6:10), Drunkards (1Corinthians 6:10), Reviler (1Corinthians 6:10), Extortioners (1Corinthians 6:10), The Fearful (Revelation 21:8), The Unbelieving (Revelation 21:8), The Abominable (Revelation 21:8), Whoremongers (Revelation 21:8), Sorcerers (Revelation 21:8), All Liars (Revelation 21:8)
|
|
Completely CRAZY for the Lord
True Christian™
|
|
Posts: 14,663
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Leviticus Landing
|
|
Re: Atheists!! Think you are a moral person? Take the test!! -
02-08-2013, 04:34 AM
..er ..still waiting for some sort of source for your speculation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lone Jack
There is nothing chaotic about the laws of physics. The very concept of LAWS of physics contradict any notion of chaos.
|
ALTHOUGH WE DO NOT AGREE WITH THEM, secularists do actually publish their "research" and there are posters here who read it occasionally. We know what they say, which is how we know they are wrong. No physicist claims that particles in a chaotic system (it has to be chaotic to be stable) behave as they do because they are "following laws" — quite the reverse in fact. If you think they are mistaken, then you need to show why. Just saying "I think something else" is not sufficient.
A peacock would be a red herring in that context because it is described by zoologists, rather than physicists, and demonstrates the principles of biology (with which we also disagree because they contradict The Bible (which I have quoted ))
Quote:
You cannot get order from chaos. The two concepts are mutually exclusive. Although we do not understand the universe fully and may jump hastily to erroneous conclusions, we can still make accurate predictive models for the things we do understand. No predictive model or reproducible event can be achieved in a chaos. Science, knowledge, logic, learning, etc. has no legitimacy in a chaos.
|
..in which case how do you explain the mathematics of non-linear dynamics? Although chaos is not usually defined in any precise manner it remains the case that a chaotic system is a stable system. The most stable system in fact, since it cannot deteriorate any further. Atheists obviously claim in that case that we are on a (non linear) trajectory from some undefined pre-existing state to a stable condition (that would mean a perfectly chaotic condition) in the remote future and that the fastest way to maximise disorder is through what they call life. In the end everything goes out, objects become too remote from one another to be detected and the background microwave radiation tends towards zero.
REVELATION 20
9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.
10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
KJV SPOT THE DIFFERENCE?
Quote:
The possibility of multiple pockets of dissimilar abstract realms of order, for lack of a better term ..etc
|
Physics has many more specific terms. I reject all of them. The Bible is quite clear that we CAN know the One who made us, that the created order does NOT expand, cool and die, that God's Plan enables enhanced order to be realised by Grace and that we may enter in to His Glorious Light.
Or suffer in the flames of HELL FOREVER which I can assure will be considerably warmer than 4 Kelvins
|
|
Unsaved trash, suspected queer
|
|
Posts: 94
Join Date: Feb 2013
|
|
Re: Atheists!! Think you are a moral person? Take the test!! -
02-09-2013, 07:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MitzaLizalor
..er ..still waiting for some sort of source for your speculation.
|
You're waiting for my "source for speculation"? Such a request makes no sense being that it is, as I've stated multiple times, wild speculation. I believe you are still missing the point of those speculatory remarks.
Quote:
ALTHOUGH WE DO NOT AGREE WITH THEM
|
Are you sure?
You seem overly eager to bring these nameless physicists into this discussion as infallible experts on the workings of the universe.
Quote:
secularists do actually publish their "research" and there are posters here who read it occasionally. We know what they say, which is how we know they are wrong. No physicist claims that particles in a chaotic system (it has to be chaotic to be stable) behave as they do because they are "following laws" — quite the reverse in fact. If you think they are mistaken, then you need to show why. Just saying "I think something else" is not sufficient.
|
If you happen to know any physicist personally and would like to invite them to join our discussion that would be great. Otherwise, it's best we frame our discussion around data instead of the asserted opinions of non-present parties. Physicists are observers and theorists foremost. Their interpretations of the aforementioned observations are their own. I am not obligated to reach the same conclusions.
To be clear, I am not concerned with any physicist's interpretative theories derived from raw data; only the data itself. I will formulate my own conclusions.
Quote:
A peacock would be a red herring in that context because it is described by zoologists, rather than physicists, and demonstrates the principles of biology
|
The peacock is a product of order. The continued existence of the species is possible because of order. From inception to adulthood, the growth of a peacock (to name one example) demonstrates predetermined behavioral mechanics ending on the genetic level, but ultimately rooted in the subatomic.
Quote:
..in which case how do you explain the mathematics of non-linear dynamics? Although chaos is not usually defined in any precise manner it remains the case that a chaotic system is a stable system.
|
And I insist that chaos and stability are incompatible. Ergo, it is not chaotic. So that we are on the same page, please define "chaos" and give an example. I fear divergent semantics may be at play.
As I mentioned earlier "A human mind's inability to perceive the order of the subatomic universe in a comprehensible manner does not belie the perceptible results: Order." In other words, your inability to make perfect sense of something does not make it chaotic. It merely highlights your own perceptual limits. The end result is undoubtedly ordered. You cannot have both order and chaos working within a sole system. They are mutually exclusive.
It is conceivable that subatomic particles exist in a chaotic state; however, this would indicate that subatomic properties have no effect or relationship to atomic properties (i.e. there is a distinct disconnect between subatomic and atomic). This would make subatomic studies an utter waste as subatomic activity would be meaningless in relation to the perceivable and knowable world. You can't learn about a chaos. There is no knowledge to retain as there is nothing concrete to learn about. It's total chaos. Does this dual reality scenario seem plausible to you? I sure doesn't seem plausible to me.
|
|
One of the Lord's Airborne Rangers Salvation from Above God's Favorite Pilot™
True Christian™
|
|
Posts: 6,282
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Flying the Friendly Skies for Jesus!
|
|
Re: Atheists!! Think you are a moral person? Take the test!! -
02-09-2013, 08:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lone Jack in EVERY SINGLE DING-DANGED POST!!!
Blah blah science, blah blah blah math, blah blah I'm a super genius.
Blah blah blah big, made-up sounding words, Blah blah I, me, myself, my.
Blah blah blah superiority complex, blah blah blah I hate Jesus.
|
What, our default font isn't good enough for the smarty-pants, God-mocking atheist?!?
Well . . . EXCUSE MEEEEEE!!!
Winging our Way Across the World for The Lord!
God Bless John Boehner and God Bless the Grand Old Party!
Barack Hussein Obama is not My President!!!
|
|
Forum Member
Forum Member
|
|
Posts: 1,485
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Reaping Bountifully
|
|
Re: Atheists!! Think you are a moral person? Take the test!! -
02-09-2013, 08:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lone Jack
I sure doesn't seem plausible to me.
|
You don't seem plausible to me either.
Enjoy swimming in the lake of fire.
Isaiah 66:15
For behold, the Lord wil come with fire, and with his charets like a whirlewinde, to render his anger with furie, and his rebuke with flames of fire.
|
|
Completely CRAZY for the Lord
True Christian™
|
|
Posts: 14,663
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Leviticus Landing
|
|
Re: Atheists!! Think you are a moral person? Take the test!! -
02-09-2013, 10:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lone Jack
You're waiting for my "source for speculation"?
|
Yes. You don't have any though.
Quote:
You seem overly eager to bring these nameless physicists into this discussion as infallible experts on the workings of the universe.
|
They are infallible experts on what physicists (and mathematicians) teach however. I'm not the one warbling about physics, chemistry and biology. You are. You're the one who needs to quote sources. At this stage I've even told you what to look for, but I don't suppose you know what that means. Reading one of your posts is a bit like reading a goth poem. Flowery, misapplied language and narcissistic self-obsession.
Here are some of your references to the tyranny of secularist false science:
• it's best we frame our discussion around data
Present some.
• I acknowledge an order within the physics
What order. What physics.
• (the laws of physics and metaphysics)
Which laws.
• one or several secondary forces (natural selection/genetic manipulation)
What do you mean by natural selection. How is "genetic manipulation" a force.
• the established laws of the primary force.
What established laws. What primary force. If it is primary why does it have "laws" at all; laws relative to what?
• You cannot get order from chaos.
Cite a source for that.
• multiple pockets of dissimilar abstract realms of order
What does that mean.
• First Cause is irrelevant.
Yet not long ago it was the primum mobile of your thought balloon: the established laws of the primary force. Remember?
• In regard to any creator(s) the only inference that can be rationally reached
Based on what - you haven't presented anything.
• The nature of the creator(s) is unknown.
That's not what The Bible says.
• the laws or mathematics governing genetics
What mathematics.
• the conceivable creator of the maple tree, for example, is not necessarily the creator of the laws governing photosynthesis.
What laws - and what has photosynthesis got to do with maple trees.
• applying arbitrary traits to an unknown quantity.
If it's unknown, all traits would be arbitrarily attributed.
Quote:
More Rubbish
the true nature of the creator(s) is fundamentally unknowable. Based on my own frame of reference I speculate that the creator(s) did not create for our immediate benefit, is not particularly concerned for the wellbeing of humanity, is not perfect, is in a process of learning and works within an overarching order.
|
That is not what God says. Here are my sources:
Deuteronomy 32:4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he. KJV
II Corinthians 4:13-15 We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak; Knowing that he which raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also by Jesus, and shall present us with you. For all things are for your sakes, that the abundant grace might through the thanksgiving of many redound to the glory of God. KJV
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. KJV
Psalm 18:30-32 As for God, his way is perfect: the word of the LORD is tried: he is a buckler to all those that trust in him. For who is God save the LORD? or who is a rock save our God? It is God that girdeth me with strength, and maketh my way perfect. KJV
Isaiah 57:15a,b For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place KJV
Malachi 3:6a For I am the LORD, I change not KJV
• To be clear, I am not concerned with any physicist's interpretative theories derived from raw data; only the data itself. I will formulate my own conclusions.
So where are the data.
• the growth of a peacock …demonstrates predetermined behavioral mechanics ending on the genetic level, but ultimately rooted in the subatomic.
So where are the papers from bevaviourists, genetecists and particle physicists.
NOTE: the fact that I'm pointing out YOU need to cite them does NOT mean I agree with them.
• And I insist that chaos and stability are incompatible.
No mathematician claims that. They are the ones who've developed subjects such as ballistics, dynamics, probability, non-linear algebra, quantum physics, wave/particle duality and you're the one challenging their claims. Where are your data.
• define "chaos" and give an example.
I'm not the one who introduced the theme of chaos. What you claim is not the same as people who do study that field. Therefore you're the one needing to refute what they say.
• A human mind's inability to perceive the order of the subatomic universe in a comprehensible manner
According to high energy physics the human mind can and does understand and furthermore has produced "the Standard Model" so if you disagree with them you need to explain in some detail.
So you're doing two things. Firstly, you are claiming that The Bible is wrong and that God, who made everything in the first place and who therefore obviously knows all about it, is a liar. Secondly, you are claiming that various fields of endeavour - mainly in the fields of maths and physics with some other stuff thrown in for good measure - are in error, suggesting that you have some insight which will set them all straight (having neither quoted any published work nor referred to any current research projects).
In taking the moral high ground, as you seem to think you're doing, two questions arise:
1 HAVE YOU TAKEN THE TEST? [reposted from Mr Creeser's original post]
2 What are you going to do about it?
|
|
Psychotheological Analyst Therapist
|
|
Posts: 9,051
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Surrounded by queers.
|
|
Re: Atheists!! Think you are a moral person? Take the test!! -
02-09-2013, 11:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lone Jack
You're waiting for my "source for speculation"? Such a request makes no sense being that it is, as I've stated multiple times, wild speculation. I believe you are still missing the point of those speculatory remarks.
Are you sure?
You seem overly eager to bring these nameless physicists into this discussion as infallible experts on the workings of the universe.
If you happen to know any physicist personally and would like to invite them to join our discussion that would be great. Otherwise, it's best we frame our discussion around data instead of the asserted opinions of non-present parties. Physicists are observers and theorists foremost. Their interpretations of the aforementioned observations are their own. I am not obligated to reach the same conclusions.
To be clear, I am not concerned with any physicist's interpretative theories derived from raw data; only the data itself. I will formulate my own conclusions.
The peacock is a product of order. The continued existence of the species is possible because of order. From inception to adulthood, the growth of a peacock (to name one example) demonstrates predetermined behavioral mechanics ending on the genetic level, but ultimately rooted in the subatomic.
And I insist that chaos and stability are incompatible. Ergo, it is not chaotic. So that we are on the same page, please define "chaos" and give an example. I fear divergent semantics may be at play.
As I mentioned earlier "A human mind's inability to perceive the order of the subatomic universe in a comprehensible manner does not belie the perceptible results: Order." In other words, your inability to make perfect sense of something does not make it chaotic. It merely highlights your own perceptual limits. The end result is undoubtedly ordered. You cannot have both order and chaos working within a sole system. They are mutually exclusive.
It is conceivable that subatomic particles exist in a chaotic state; however, this would indicate that subatomic properties have no effect or relationship to atomic properties (i.e. there is a distinct disconnect between subatomic and atomic). This would make subatomic studies an utter waste as subatomic activity would be meaningless in relation to the perceivable and knowable world. You can't learn about a chaos. There is no knowledge to retain as there is nothing concrete to learn about. It's total chaos. Does this dual reality scenario seem plausible to you? I sure doesn't seem plausible to me.
|
Why is it that you fringe wingnuts always have to change the font you write in?
YIC
1 Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
Revelation 22:15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
|
Unsaved trash, filthy boy-witch
Under Investigation
|
|
Posts: 3
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Godless New Zealand
|
|
Re: Atheists!! Think you are a moral person? Take the test!! -
02-09-2013, 03:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lone Jack
"Atheist" is an interesting term in that its meaning is subjective, dependent upon the subject matter. Given that this is a Christian forum, or rather, a "True Christian" forum, the term atheist will in the context of this post refer to those who do not believe in the existence and/or divinity of the Christian god. That being the case, no atheist would judge his or her own moral status on the statutes of the Christian Bible (supposedly inspired by said god). Ergo, the Christian Bible is not an applicable means to validate its own internal ideology to an external atheist denouncer.
Therefore, it would seem perfectly acceptable in my estimation that an atheist could admit to having done things the quiz you allude to labels as sins and still maintain that they are, in fact, good people. As good and bad are subjective premises typically linked to social indoctrination and standards, any individual assertion of a moral high ground is inherently absurd.
I might further add that the quiz has a few inconsistencies in its - shall we say - logic.
Case in point. The first question asked is, "Have you ever lied?"
Of course, any human being in their adult life has undoubtedly lied. According to the quiz that person is, for all intents and purposes, a liar. And liars are, presumably, bad.
However, it is never established why lying in and of itself is bad. It does not take into account the circumstances or the maturity level of the individual at the time of the lie. The quiz simply assumes the test takers already shares the test creators' black and white moral stance. If that were the case the test taker would never have chosen to identify themselves as a "good person".
A similar question begs to be asked: Have you ever told the truth?
Of course, any human being in their adult life has undoubtedly told the truth; On more occasions than they have lied, no doubt. Applying the same logic as the quiz, that same person is also a truthful person. And being truthful, I presume, is good by the test creators' moral leanings. This presents an incongruity which I will seek to amend. Assuming that the test taker has told the truth more than he or she has told lies, the scale would invariably favor their truthfulness over their dishonesty. Ergo, they are overall truthful individuals.
In conclusion, the quiz in question is not suitable for determining the moral status of anyone. It simply emphasizes the quiz creators' own predetermined ideology.
|
Hi, WiccanWarrior here!
I doubt your explanation will go down well, or even be understood at all properly. It blatantly uses logic, rationality and clear-thinking, as well as (gasp) multi-syllabic words.
Blessed be Y'all!
|
|
Unsaved trash, suspected queer
|
|
Posts: 94
Join Date: Feb 2013
|
|
Re: Atheists!! Think you are a moral person? Take the test!! -
02-09-2013, 10:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capt. Aaron Portway
What, our default font isn't good enough for the smarty-pants, God-mocking atheist?!?
Well . . . EXCUSE MEEEEEE!!!
|
Actually, it changed to that font flowing the use of the Preview Post function. I was unable to scroll down to verdana. Even now, if I hit the font drop down I am unable to scroll. Impact is the lowest font reachable on the list.
You might want to have your forum administrators look into that.
|
|
Psychotheological Analyst Therapist
|
|
Posts: 9,051
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Surrounded by queers.
|
|
Re: Atheists!! Think you are a moral person? Take the test!! -
02-09-2013, 10:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by WiccanWarrior
Hi, WiccanWarrior here!
I doubt your explanation will go down well, or even be understood at all properly. It blatantly uses logic, rationality and clear-thinking, as well as (gasp) multi-syllabic words.
Blessed be Y'all!
|
A poorly shrouded ad hom.
Poor form.
YIC
1 Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
Revelation 22:15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
|
|
Unsaved trash, suspected queer
|
|
Posts: 94
Join Date: Feb 2013
|
|
Re: Atheists!! Think you are a moral person? Take the test!! -
02-10-2013, 01:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MitzaLizalor
They are infallible experts on what physicists (and mathematicians) teach however.
|
In this, we disagree. Especially if they are teaching interpretations of data along with the raw data itself. They are men and women like any other. You are holding them up to almost prophetic heights. It reminds me of how certain Muslims revere their imams and mullahs. However, the problem presents itself when one considers the common worshipper isn't qualified to ascertain the mullah's infallibility unless the worshipper is equal or more knowledgeable than the mullah. The same applies here. I'm surprised you would even attribute infallibility to a human being regardless of the context. If one didn't know any better they might presume you are a proponent of mainstream scientific opinion masquerading as a Christian.
Quote:
I'm not the one warbling about physics, chemistry and biology. You are. You're the one who needs to quote sources. At this stage I've even told you what to look for, but I don't suppose you know what that means. Reading one of your posts is a bit like reading a goth poem. Flowery, misapplied language and narcissistic self-obsession.
|
Sources for what? Would not I be the source of my conclusions? It sounds to me as if you expect me to prop some random physicist up on a pedestal and regurgitate said random physicist's beliefs on the subject. As if I must corroborate with another's opinion to have an opinion. Sorry, but that isn't going to happen.
I understand you may have a predisposition to defer to arbitrary authority in matters, but I am quite capable of deriving my own conclusions. I don't need a source (be it a professor, a book or a working physicist) to tell me how to think. I'm sorry if I appear to be writing a goth poem , but I'm not concerned with rather or not you agree with me nor am I out to convert you to my way of thinking. As with most subjects, a person either accepts or denies. Genuine and absolute knowing tends to be out of reach.
Quote:
• it's best we frame our discussion around data
Present some.
|
If you are unfamiliar with general physicsI think you are perfectly capable of educating yourself. The Internet is greatin that respect.
If you are knowledgeable then perhaps you are the one who needs to demonstrate to me why I am wrong; as this subject is clearly near and dear to you. I'm beginning to think that, in the absence of any coherent counter argument, you are trying to shift an imaginary burden over to me in order to avoid addressing my points. The inane questions were my first clue. The second? Your continued deliberately imposed ignorance of my position and overuse of strawmen. You are still talking about a wildly speculative hypothesis that was explained to you to be intended to demonstrate a point, not to be construed as an academic thesis.
[quote] • In regard to any creator(s) the only inference that can be rationally reached
Based on what - you haven't presented anything.
[/QUOTE]
You can choose to accept or deny. That is wholly up to you. If I was to state that water is wet your response might be, "based on what - you haven't presented anything." When the foundation of a statement is self- evident, explanation is unnecessary. Now, just because a conclusion is rational doesn't make it true. It is simply sensible.
In this we have an interesting situation in which given our ultimate ignorance we simply don't know. It is both rational to acknowledge an intellectual creator(s) and to remain agnostic in that regard. My frame of reference leans me toward an intelligent creator(s). I do hold a slightly agnostic view in the sense that there could be something outside my very ability to comprehend. But given the faculties at my disposal the obvious will have to suffice.
Quote:
• the laws or mathematics governing genetics
What mathematics.
|
In an ordered universe each object has properties. For instance, two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom will form one water molecule. Their properties dictate this. It is "mathematic" in its simplistic predictability. These properties being set in stone can only bring forth one outcome for any circumstance. If we could isolate a portion of physical matter, pause its ongoings and take account of every substance within we could calculate every outcome into infinity on the condition we had absolute knowledge and understanding. The level of order compounds into the behavior of genes. Hence, "the mathematics of genetics".
Quote:
you are claiming that various fields of endeavour - mainly in the fields of maths and physics with some other stuff thrown in for good measure - are in error, suggesting that you have some insight which will set them all straight (having neither quoted any published work nor referred to any current research projects).
In taking the moral high ground, as you seem to think you're doing,
|
More strawmen, Liz? With a little itty bit of ad hominem for seasoning? Ah, and the filling... mmm, an appeal to authority. So many different ingredients.
|
|
Completely CRAZY for the Lord
True Christian™
|
|
Posts: 14,663
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Leviticus Landing
|
|
Re: Atheists!! Think you are a moral person? Take the test!! -
02-10-2013, 02:35 AM
Well you obviously don't know what a source is. Neither do you appreciate why they need to be cited. Nor for that matter do you seem to understand what "WE DO NOT AGREE WITH THEM" means.
There is a reason why.
I TIMOTHY 6
13 I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession;
14 That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ:
15 Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;
16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.
17 Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy;
18 That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate;
19 Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life.
20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
KJV
You close with a nice showy display of ignorance:
Quote:
two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom will form one water molecule. Their properties dictate this. It is "mathematic"
|
No it's not. It's chemistry. If you were prepared to ask a chemist about the subject .. .. well it's futile isn't it. You don't know what that means. God explains:
II PETER 1
16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
KJV
It is so sad that you choose to follow fables; they're not cunningly devised in fact I don't think the word "devised" is applicable at all.
|
Fourm Member
Forum Member
|
|
Posts: 9,266
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: On my way to Paradise
|
|
Re: Atheists!! Think you are a moral person? Take the test!! -
02-11-2013, 07:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammy vanlaun
Hi, WiccanWarrior here!
I doubt your explanation will go down well, or even be understood at all properly. It blatantly uses logic, rationality and clear-thinking, as well as (gasp) multi-syllabic words.
Blessed be Y'all!
|
Funny coming from someone who believes the moon is some goddess and that they can change the laws of physics with the wave of a stick.
Don't you have a black cat to fornicate with?
|
|
Unsaved trash, suspected queer
|
|
Posts: 94
Join Date: Feb 2013
|
|
Re: Atheists!! Think you are a moral person? Take the test!! -
02-12-2013, 02:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MitzaLizalor
Well you obviously don't know what a source is. Neither do you appreciate why they need to be cited. Nor for that matter do you seem to understand what "WE DO NOT AGREE WITH THEM" means.
|
Nice try, Liz. But I've already informed you of the source of my conclusions... Me. Clearly you have no counter-argument or rational objections, but merely disagree on principle. Which is not an uncommon stance among religious types.
Take care.
|
|
Gushing for Jesus
|
|
Posts: 23,729
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Freehold, Iowa
|
|
Re: Atheists!! Think you are a moral person? Take the test!! -
02-12-2013, 05:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lone Jack
Nice try, Liz. But I've already informed you of the source of my conclusions... Me.
|
And why, pray tell, should we care about this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lone Jack
Clearly you have no counter-argument or rational objections, but merely disagree on principle.
|
Clearly you have no ability to see the irony of your statement. Your only counter-argument or so-called "rational objections" relies on the flimsy foundation that you don't like it. Miss Lizalor took the time to show you from where she obtains her source, and why, and under what context. You continue to argue for the sake of arguing, clogging up our fine Godly forums with useless babble, and distracting our world-wide reader base from the most important thing they need - Repentance and Glorifying God. Because you are unsaved scum, befouling the LORD our God, you have agreed to forfeit your soul and you will be dismissed, damned, denounced, deported, defamed, harassed, harried, ridiculed, and otherwise rebuked to Hell as God commands us to do through his holy scripture!
Praise God!
Hello, my name is Mary. I hope to fellowship with you! That is, unless you don't listen to church authority (Deuteronomy 17:12); are a witch (Exodus 22:17); are a homosexual (Leviticus 20:13; Romans 1:24-32); or fortuneteller (Leviticus 20:27) or a snotty kid who hits their dad (Exodus 21:15); or curses their parents (Proverbs 20:20; Leviticus 20:9); an adulterer (Leviticus 20:10); a non-Christian (Exodus 22:19; Deuteronomy 13:7-12; Deuteronomy 17:2-5;Romans 1:24-32); an atheist (2 Chronicles 15:12-13); or false prophet (Zechariah 13:3); from the town of one who worships another, false god (Deuteronomy 13:13-19); were a non-virgin bride (Deuteronomy 22:20-21); or blasphemer (Leviticus 24:10-16), as God calls for your execution and will no doubt send you to Hell, and I have no interest developing a friendship with the Spiritually Walking Dead.
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
Powered by Jesus - vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Skin developed by: vBStyles.com
Content Landover Baptist Forums © 1620, 2022 all rights reserved
|