Expelled--No Intelligence Allowed Movie lacks intelligence?

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
The reason to be an atheist is simply that there isn't any reason to believe in the existence of a deity. You can't "prove" atheism because it's logically impossible to prove a negative, if that's what you're trying to get at. The burden of proof is on the side of whoever asserts that a deity exists. Likewise, if I claimed that Cthulu existed or that Flying Spaghetti Monster existed, I'd expect to have to prove it first before anyone would take the notion seriously.

I'm not going to defend religion, but your expectation is unreasonable and completely misses the point. The concept of deity is not actually what you seem to think it is. It's more an emotion, or a symbol of an emotion, than a real being. It's as though you were asking someone to prove that they love their parents or their spouse or their children. It can't be done. That's why they call it "faith." It's the (positive) emotional response to your logic. That, no matter much we learn and know, we'll never be able to prove every single positive either. There will always be something unknown.

Why is it unreasonable to expect people who claim that a transcendental omnipotent being exists to prove its existence? If it's more of an emotion than a real being why won't people just say so and dispense with their belief in the existence of a deity?

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Duewlon, could you please prove that the deity exists and explain where it came from for me? I'm having a hard time with it. It's not hard to believe that existence exists and that the Earth exists, but I have a hard time believing that this magical omnipotent transcendental being exists. I can point to rocks and to the Earth and say, "it exists" but I don't see this deity anywhere.

Of course

most people will not believe their own senses

You see "handiwork" - a series of coincidences throughout the Visible Universe built upon coincidences - based upon the highest mathematics of which we are only now just aware - and you say "it happened"
.. yet you see a building on the street and say "someone built it" - WHY?

there are far more than 6 senses .. sensing internal motion - 'up and down' is just one example; non-domestic and sometimes domestic animals sense what we have lost in our journey from Primate to Primate with a "spark' .. and yet we are "of this earth" .. from this bioSphere in every way

why must this Being be "magical"?
"we" humans are "magical" to our pets .. magic is simply unexplained science
- we are also energy although we are matter - it is an easy thing to travel faster than light .. and then we will shortly join them - for better or [likely] for worse. ALL of our visionaries point to this .. from the Most Ancient thru Frank Herbert and also Spielberg; and it is stored in our collective genetic memories if you know how to recall it. We are being "prepared" .. long before the "dawning of the Age of Aquarius" in teh 1960s

. . . according to the Oldest Recollections of Humans Contacting an Alien Race, --we are just a "little Lower" than they are
. . . and i think our potential is far Greater



i will not bother with the movie as Evolution is an established FACT
--it was designed to be so .. and to obfuscate from almost all of us the real issues .. we are not only not alone in the universe, our history has been manipulated all along

. . and to say that these "aliens" - or "Being" - looks like us is silly and for the movies
-how does "energy" look?

. . . The Twilight Zone ...
We are now entering the philosophical realm of the metaphysical - where religion and science collide
welcome to my world .. unifying *all* the theories
- you'll like my book .. 2010, i think

Why is it unreasonable to expect people who claim that a transcendental omnipotent being exists to prove its existence? If it's more of an emotion than a real being why won't people just say so and dispense with their belief in the existence of a deity?

i don't care to *prove* a Goddamn thing to you .. a ridiculer who must depend on seeing something to believe it. You live in a Matrix-within-many-matrices preferring illusion .. and calling it "reality" with the most audacious claim that humans are "unique" and somehow "special" in this Endless [to us] Universe. You cling to evolution pathetically just like a RELIGION so you don't have to acknowledge that there might be "responsibility" if we are not alone.
-of course, i do want to sell a few books, however - that will depend mostly on how well my story is crafted. It'd be a hell of a movie .. better than Hg:L, i hope .. more action for sure!

There IS no *proof* .. let me give you the ancient story of the 7 blind men describing an Elephant as an analogy or allegory

and what is this crap about "transcendental omnipotent" ?
people have amazing imaginations and can only relate to a "Father" and a "Good Son" and a "bad Son" ..
-do you really think so?

--toss the religious books of imagination in the trash or look deeper

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: hans030390

Originally posted by: Vic
Intelligent design is a very lacking argument, and certainly shouldn't be taught in schools because it has no scientific validity whatsoever, but most scientists just ignore it (for that very reason).

I wouldn't call it "very lacking", personally. I've done a fair amount of reading on both ID/creationism and evolution, and ID seems just as logical and reasonable, to me, as evolution. Of course, you have to look at all of the evidence from both sides (or evidence that is shared and applied differently) in the right perspective for both sides. I'd say both hold plenty of scientific validity if you do that, though not as fact...just theory. They're both theories, and they both have their own holes in their arguments (and unanswered questions). I'd say, based on your judgement of ID, that you likely haven't read some decent sources on it...some really are just bad and make ID look silly, but some really are quite reasonable.

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
One of core logical flaws with intelligent design theory is that while it implicitly claims that complex organic systems cannot arise from natural causality and that therefore an "intelligence" directed evolution, it completely fails to explain how the alleged intelligence came into being or where it came from; it just passes the buck. (It's a rehash of the logical fallacy of the First Cause argument, dressed up as being a self-proclaimed "intelligent" theory.)

That's brought up a lot, and generally people just say that God is "too complex for us to understand", hence our confusion on that very issue. While I think for some that answer might be enough, for others it is not.

I'll go into that a bit deeper based on what I understand about the Christian view of God (and likely other religions) (or at least what I think I know about it). God created everything...our universe, space, and even time. We can only understand our lives through what God has created, what we're living in (space and time, generally). Based on that, God would have to be outside of his creation of (our) time, and even (our) space/matter as we know it. It's not that God "came from" something, and you can't say "he's always been there", because then you'd be thinking in a time-based way (and he created that). One can't look at God in a linear way (time)...it's not that he has an infinite beginning or end (or a finite beginning or end). That's what he created for our lives, and he has always been outside of that.

I know that is not the best explanation you could find for that question, but that's how I look at it. Since he would be outside of time, the First Cause argument really has no use here. This is all, of course, going by the assumption of there being some sort of God in the first place, and one that really did create everything we know in and through our lives.

Like I said, I know that's not a great explanation...but it's the best I can do. It's all sort of a mental process that's hard to get out into words. It's a tough thing to answer, that's for sure.

Well said.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: hans030390
I wouldn't call it "very lacking", personally. I've done a fair amount of reading on both ID/creationism and evolution, and ID seems just as logical and reasonable, to me, as evolution. Of course, you have to look at all of the evidence from both sides (or evidence that is shared and applied differently) in the right perspective for both sides. I'd say both hold plenty of scientific validity if you do that, though not as fact...just theory. They're both theories, and they both have their own holes in their arguments (and unanswered questions). I'd say, based on your judgement of ID, that you likely haven't read some decent sources on it...some really are just bad and make ID look silly, but some really are quite reasonable.

Internal documents (leaked) from various ID/Creationist groups have basically said that ID/Creationism is just a way of bringing conservative Christianity into the lives of youth. A rather manipulative and immoral way of promoting spirituality if you ask me...

Debunking of a exposed flyer

Expelled Exposed

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: hans030390
I wouldn't call it "very lacking", personally. I've done a fair amount of reading on both ID/creationism and evolution, and ID seems just as logical and reasonable, to me, as evolution. Of course, you have to look at all of the evidence from both sides (or evidence that is shared and applied differently) in the right perspective for both sides. I'd say both hold plenty of scientific validity if you do that, though not as fact...just theory. They're both theories, and they both have their own holes in their arguments (and unanswered questions). I'd say, based on your judgement of ID, that you likely haven't read some decent sources on it...some really are just bad and make ID look silly, but some really are quite reasonable.

Internal documents (leaked) from various ID/Creationist groups have basically said that ID/Creationism is just a way of bringing conservative Christianity into the lives of youth. A rather manipulative and immoral way of promoting spirituality if you ask me...

Debunking of a exposed flyer

Expelled Exposed

don't blame "christians" on Jesus Christ
-at the least it is a cult of "judaism"

Yet Jesus was smart enough to know that his followers would turn into brain-dead, politically self-interested hypocrites who have no CLUE what he said - they insist they are "forgiven" and can screw anyone and still go to heaven .. he said so many times that his FAKE followers would die when he returned to clean it up.
- early followers called it "prophecy" .. i call it *obvious*
-what religion has NOT turned to sh!t after its founder dies?

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: hans030390
I wouldn't call it "very lacking", personally. I've done a fair amount of reading on both ID/creationism and evolution, and ID seems just as logical and reasonable, to me, as evolution. Of course, you have to look at all of the evidence from both sides (or evidence that is shared and applied differently) in the right perspective for both sides. I'd say both hold plenty of scientific validity if you do that, though not as fact...just theory. They're both theories, and they both have their own holes in their arguments (and unanswered questions). I'd say, based on your judgement of ID, that you likely haven't read some decent sources on it...some really are just bad and make ID look silly, but some really are quite reasonable.

Internal documents (leaked) from various ID/Creationist groups have basically said that ID/Creationism is just a way of bringing conservative Christianity into the lives of youth. A rather manipulative and immoral way of promoting spirituality if you ask me...

You make it sound like state secrets got stolen. Ask any Born Again Christian why they would want creationism taught and i'm sure they'd say so the kids know the truth.

If you believed your children were in danger of going to Hell because of what they were being taught, what would you do if you weren't cruel?

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: hans030390
I wouldn't call it "very lacking", personally. I've done a fair amount of reading on both ID/creationism and evolution, and ID seems just as logical and reasonable, to me, as evolution. Of course, you have to look at all of the evidence from both sides (or evidence that is shared and applied differently) in the right perspective for both sides. I'd say both hold plenty of scientific validity if you do that, though not as fact...just theory. They're both theories, and they both have their own holes in their arguments (and unanswered questions). I'd say, based on your judgement of ID, that you likely haven't read some decent sources on it...some really are just bad and make ID look silly, but some really are quite reasonable.

Internal documents (leaked) from various ID/Creationist groups have basically said that ID/Creationism is just a way of bringing conservative Christianity into the lives of youth. A rather manipulative and immoral way of promoting spirituality if you ask me...

You make it sound like state secrets got stolen. Ask any Born Again Christian why they would want creationism taught and i'm sure they'd say so the kids know the truth.

If you believed your children were in danger of going to Hell because of what they were being taught, what would you do if you weren't cruel?

There is no "hellfire" taught in the Bible .. it is fear-mongering about a "god of love" that is far more Evil than any "Satan the Devil"

"christianity" is as "fake" a religion as ANY - twisted away from what it's founder intended by Self-interest and Politics

Jesus said he would be disgusted at those who say - in what he calls "the L:ast Days": "Lord, Lord, did we not perform Powerful Works in Your Name, and even prophecy in Your Name?" - He answers today's "chrisitians" - "get away from me you hypocrites .. into everlasting destruction along with the Devil."


A little research goes a long way. Most theologians have ZERO clue about the Bible preferring to learn "tradition" .. no wonder all religion is a clusterf*ck and it turns off thinking people in favor of that OTHER "religion" - 'pure evolution' - where life arises from blind chance from "nothing"

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: hans030390
I wouldn't call it "very lacking", personally. I've done a fair amount of reading on both ID/creationism and evolution, and ID seems just as logical and reasonable, to me, as evolution. Of course, you have to look at all of the evidence from both sides (or evidence that is shared and applied differently) in the right perspective for both sides. I'd say both hold plenty of scientific validity if you do that, though not as fact...just theory. They're both theories, and they both have their own holes in their arguments (and unanswered questions). I'd say, based on your judgement of ID, that you likely haven't read some decent sources on it...some really are just bad and make ID look silly, but some really are quite reasonable.

Internal documents (leaked) from various ID/Creationist groups have basically said that ID/Creationism is just a way of bringing conservative Christianity into the lives of youth. A rather manipulative and immoral way of promoting spirituality if you ask me...

You make it sound like state secrets got stolen. Ask any Born Again Christian why they would want creationism taught and i'm sure they'd say so the kids know the truth.

If you believed your children were in danger of going to Hell because of what they were being taught, what would you do if you weren't cruel?

There is no "hellfire" taught in the Bible .. it is fear-mongering about a "god of love" that is far more Evil than any "Satan the Devil"

"christianity" is as "fake" a religion as ANY - twisted away from what it's founder intended by Self-interest and Politics

Jesus said he would be disgusted at those who say - in what he calls "the L:ast Days": "Lord, Lord, did we not perform Powerful Works in Your Name, and even prophecy in Your Name?" - He answers today's "chrisitians" - "get away from me you hypocrites .. into everlasting destruction along with the Devil."


A little research goes a long way. Most theologians have ZERO clue about the Bible preferring to learn "tradition" .. no wonder all religion is a clusterf*ck and it turns off thinking people in favor of that OTHER "religion" - 'pure evolution' - where life arises from blind chance from "nothing"

The verse your referring to I believe is Matthew 7:21 ""Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.".

Your interpretation is all of today's Christians but if you believe that verse in the slightest you have to believe that some will enter. Some people use religion as a guise for their motives, no doubt about it. Thats why I don't like organized religion very much.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: hans030390
I wouldn't call it "very lacking", personally. I've done a fair amount of reading on both ID/creationism and evolution, and ID seems just as logical and reasonable, to me, as evolution. Of course, you have to look at all of the evidence from both sides (or evidence that is shared and applied differently) in the right perspective for both sides. I'd say both hold plenty of scientific validity if you do that, though not as fact...just theory. They're both theories, and they both have their own holes in their arguments (and unanswered questions). I'd say, based on your judgement of ID, that you likely haven't read some decent sources on it...some really are just bad and make ID look silly, but some really are quite reasonable.

Internal documents (leaked) from various ID/Creationist groups have basically said that ID/Creationism is just a way of bringing conservative Christianity into the lives of youth. A rather manipulative and immoral way of promoting spirituality if you ask me...

You make it sound like state secrets got stolen. Ask any Born Again Christian why they would want creationism taught and i'm sure they'd say so the kids know the truth.

If you believed your children were in danger of going to Hell because of what they were being taught, what would you do if you weren't cruel?

There is no "hellfire" taught in the Bible .. it is fear-mongering about a "god of love" that is far more Evil than any "Satan the Devil"

"christianity" is as "fake" a religion as ANY - twisted away from what it's founder intended by Self-interest and Politics

Jesus said he would be disgusted at those who say - in what he calls "the L:ast Days": "Lord, Lord, did we not perform Powerful Works in Your Name, and even prophecy in Your Name?" - He answers today's "chrisitians" - "get away from me you hypocrites .. into everlasting destruction along with the Devil."


A little research goes a long way. Most theologians have ZERO clue about the Bible preferring to learn "tradition" .. no wonder all religion is a clusterf*ck and it turns off thinking people in favor of that OTHER "religion" - 'pure evolution' - where life arises from blind chance from "nothing"

The verse your referring to I believe is Matthew 7:21 ""Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.".

Your interpretation is all of today's Christians but if you believe that verse in the slightest you have to believe that some will enter. Some people use religion as a guise for their motives, no doubt about it. Thats why I don't like organized religion very much.

Actually i don't have to believe anything

- i already know what it is based on - christianity as found today - and TWISTED from Jesus teachings - is a lightly disguised "hypocritical paganism"; and especially from the Most Hypocritical religion of 2,000 years ago that Jesus Blasted - twisted judaism and their fake self-interest self-fulfilled lying prophecies that destroy any credibility of the bible as "god's word". Christianity now apparently depends upon a god who is really a "genie" who grants "wishes" if you are good .. and will forgive the most atrocious sins against fellow humans; granting a gift of Eternal; Life in some "heaven" - to sit as a Ruler with his own Son as a "bride"
-automatically because some fool says "i believe" ?
-what kind of moron god is that that can be "appeased" by inferior creatures like a "father" or human ruler can; or even Bribed as some christians apparently believe

they say Satan can quote scripture - i believe he had a hand in writing it and altering it

Organizes religion needs to be destroyed[period] - imo
- clearly there are "good" individual christians

After this crap superstition known as "organized religion" is gone - then man will progress; imo we need to "offend" god .. then we will know if he exists - or not. If not - dump it and make a new one - truly catholic [universal] to last for 10,000 years - and one that will also *evolve* and develop - IF we are allowed to spread off planet
[and include - no elevate - healthy sex this time; keeping priests from marrying is stupid; as a gross example of ignorance from the 10th century ]

my own analysis .. history is clear .. and it gives us a viable path to find out if we are Alone in the Universes or not

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Duewlon, could you please prove that the deity exists and explain where it came from for me? I'm having a hard time with it. It's not hard to believe that existence exists and that the Earth exists, but I have a hard time believing that this magical omnipotent transcendental being exists. I can point to rocks and to the Earth and say, "it exists" but I don't see this deity anywhere.

Why do you ask him where God came from? Where did the earth and sky and rocks come from? One saint I heard about looked for God everywhere but never found him till he looked in his own heart. Ones own heart, of course, would be the last place on earth anybody who hates himself would ever be able to look. And how can you find something you have no idea about. I'm trying to find The Snark. An assumption is that which makes you see what you think is there.

 

[spittledip]

People believe what they want for their own reasons. Most people are unaware of what those motivations are, and as such are doomed to wander this earth in darkness.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Duewlon, could you please prove that the deity exists and explain where it came from for me? I'm having a hard time with it. It's not hard to believe that existence exists and that the Earth exists, but I have a hard time believing that this magical omnipotent transcendental being exists. I can point to rocks and to the Earth and say, "it exists" but I don't see this deity anywhere.

Why do you ask him where God came from? Where did the earth and sky and rocks come from? One saint I heard about looked for God everywhere but never found him till he looked in his own heart. Ones own heart, of course, would be the last place on earth anybody who hates himself would ever be able to look. And how can you find something you have no idea about. I'm trying to find The Snark. An assumption is that which makes you see what you think is there.

The snark?

you have to look into the Darkness for that one
-you will also find god in darkness much easier than looking inward .. are you sure he is in all people's hearts?
-i now think not

now it begs the question: "which god"?

we know the physical universe came from energy
E=MC2

and we need to "see" with more than physical sight .. that is clear ..

 

[ShotgunSteven]

No Cthulhu, know peace. Know Cthulhu, no peace.

 

[jackschmittusa]

hans030390

I wouldn't call it "very lacking", personally. I've done a fair amount of reading on both ID/creationism and evolution, and ID seems just as logical and reasonable, to me, as evolution. Of course, you have to look at all of the evidence from both sides (or evidence that is shared and applied differently) in the right perspective for both sides. I'd say both hold plenty of scientific validity if you do that, though not as fact...just theory. They're both theories, and they both have their own holes in their arguments (and unanswered questions). I'd say, based on your judgement of ID, that you likely haven't read some decent sources on it...some really are just bad and make ID look silly, but some really are quite reasonable.

I have to strongly disagree with you there.

ID is based on the "irreducible complexity" idea, and falls apart without it. There is no valid evidence to support such an assumption. Every example I've seen them use for it has been debunked, and yet, they persist in using the same old stuff because they believe that many people will think it sounds "reasonable" as long as they don't bother to present the evidence against it.

A perfect example is the rotating flagellum they cite as being without function if it had fewer parts and concluding that it therefor could not have developed in stages of evolution.

The very scientist whose work inspired this assumption has since identified similar structures (lacking only a few proteins) in other organisms where it is perfectly functional. But mentioning this would make their assumptions seem less "reasonable", so they don't bother to bring it up.

Any real scientist would have to incorporate this new information into any theory pertaining to the structure's development, but they just ignore it in the hope that you never hear of it.

ID is nothing more than an assumption in search of proof. Since no supporting evidence has been found, they rely on just packaging the idea so that sounds logical and reasonable if you don't look too closely. Then they ignore those who do look more closely.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: hans030390


I wouldn't call it "very lacking", personally. I've done a fair amount of reading on both ID/creationism and evolution, and ID seems just as logical and reasonable, to me, as evolution. Of course, you have to look at all of the evidence from both sides (or evidence that is shared and applied differently) in the right perspective for both sides. I'd say both hold plenty of scientific validity if you do that, though not as fact...just theory. They're both theories, and they both have their own holes in their arguments (and unanswered questions). I'd say, based on your judgement of ID, that you likely haven't read some decent sources on it...some really are just bad and make ID look silly, but some really are quite reasonable.

First of all your a fool if you think their is a difference between a scientific theory and fact as you are using it. Second ID may be perfectly logical but that doesn't mean it happened. You need to show that ID happened.

For example based on the evidence it may be perfectly logical to say that the CIA killed JFK. That doesn't mean the CIA killed JFK. That just means one can come up with a hypothesis that explains all the evidence and adds in the CIA.

Just like the CIA killing JFK, ID is missing any evidence that proves that the hypothesis happened. You have no evidence of any process and can not show one instance where ID happened.

 

[Vageetasjn]

Originally posted by: smack Down

First of all your a fool if you think their is a difference between a scientific theory and fact as you are using it. Second ID may be perfectly logical but that doesn't mean it happened. You need to show that ID happened.

For example based on the evidence it may be perfectly logical to say that the CIA killed JFK. That doesn't mean the CIA killed JFK. That just means one can come up with a hypothesis that explains all the evidence and adds in the CIA.

Just like the CIA killing JFK, ID is missing any evidence that proves that the hypothesis happened. You have no evidence of any process and can not show one instance where ID happened.

Nah, the problem with ID is that its advocates are attempting to explain (simplify) the most complicated thing known - the universe - with something even more complicated and improbable - an intelligent creator who came from nothing.

 

[Martin]

Here's a review of the movie: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04...ref=slogin&oref=slogin

Every few minutes familiar ? and ideologically unrelated ? images interrupt the talking heads: a fist-shaking Nikita S. Khrushchev; Charlton Heston being subdued by a water hose in ?Planet of the Apes.? This is not argument, it?s circus, a distraction from the film?s contempt for precision and intellectual rigor. This goes further than a willful misunderstanding of the scientific method.

Sounds like an extremely idiotic, mindless propaganda piece. That is to say, exactly what one would expect from the ID folks.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Vageetasjn

Originally posted by: smack Down

First of all your a fool if you think their is a difference between a scientific theory and fact as you are using it. Second ID may be perfectly logical but that doesn't mean it happened. You need to show that ID happened.

For example based on the evidence it may be perfectly logical to say that the CIA killed JFK. That doesn't mean the CIA killed JFK. That just means one can come up with a hypothesis that explains all the evidence and adds in the CIA.

Just like the CIA killing JFK, ID is missing any evidence that proves that the hypothesis happened. You have no evidence of any process and can not show one instance where ID happened.

Nah, the problem with ID is that its advocates are attempting to explain (simplify) the most complicated thing known - the universe - with something even more complicated and improbable - an intelligent creator who came from nothing.

Which is fine if they had any evidence to back it up. That is the problem with ID there is no evidence of a designer intelligent or otherwise.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Duewlon, could you please prove that the deity exists and explain where it came from for me? I'm having a hard time with it. It's not hard to believe that existence exists and that the Earth exists, but I have a hard time believing that this magical omnipotent transcendental being exists. I can point to rocks and to the Earth and say, "it exists" but I don't see this deity anywhere.

Why do you ask him where God came from? Where did the earth and sky and rocks come from? One saint I heard about looked for God everywhere but never found him till he looked in his own heart. Ones own heart, of course, would be the last place on earth anybody who hates himself would ever be able to look. And how can you find something you have no idea about. I'm trying to find The Snark. An assumption is that which makes you see what you think is there.

The snark?

you have to look into the Darkness for that one
-you will also find god in darkness much easier than looking inward .. are you sure he is in all people's hearts?
-i now think not

now it begs the question: "which god"?

we know the physical universe came from energy
E=MC2

and we need to "see" with more than physical sight .. that is clear ..

The finger pointing at the moon is not the moon. Words that point to God are not God. God is a pointing word. God is not a word or that which we imagine is being pointed at while seeking. God therefore is not what we imagine God to be. God therefore, is not God.

'Darkness' is a pointing word. So is 'the heart'. I didn't say where God is, I said where He is found.

To seek God is to look in the wrong direction by 180 degrees.

Mulla Nasrudin was seen crawling in the grass in front of his house. What are you looking for?, the neighbors asked. The key to my house, said the Mulla. Where did you lose it?, they asked. Inside., he replied. Then why are you looking for it out here? Because there's more light here.

'Darkness', 'inside', whatever you like. They are just pointing words.

The great mystical quest of fish is to discover water. They have been swimming everywhere for centuries.

Seek and you will find. Seek and God will hide behind you. Seek seek seek and maybe the temple bell will ring, thought will be shattered, and there, full of love, you will burst into being, no God, no Truth, no Meaning, no pointing words at all, only the infinite, thoughtless, ego-empty, joy of Being.

 

[apoppin]

Which is fine if they had any evidence to back it up. That is the problem with ID there is no evidence of a designer intelligent or otherwise.

THe real problem is that Evolutions already have their OWN religion and their prophet is Darwin
Short of the Hand Of God smacking them silly - which they would try to explain as "natural"
- they will deny, deny, deny because it is their selfish interest to do so

only a stupid person says this building is built by "someone" but say the other Bigger and far more complex things are "accidental"

i know better an it is stupid for me to *attempt* prove anything metaphysical to you .. it would be like trying to explain electrity to a savage with limited understanding . you don't explain to them - you SHOCK them

prepare for electrocution

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Duewlon, could you please prove that the deity exists and explain where it came from for me? I'm having a hard time with it. It's not hard to believe that existence exists and that the Earth exists, but I have a hard time believing that this magical omnipotent transcendental being exists. I can point to rocks and to the Earth and say, "it exists" but I don't see this deity anywhere.

Why do you ask him where God came from? Where did the earth and sky and rocks come from? One saint I heard about looked for God everywhere but never found him till he looked in his own heart. Ones own heart, of course, would be the last place on earth anybody who hates himself would ever be able to look. And how can you find something you have no idea about. I'm trying to find The Snark. An assumption is that which makes you see what you think is there.

The snark?

you have to look into the Darkness for that one
-you will also find god in darkness much easier than looking inward .. are you sure he is in all people's hearts?
-i now think not

now it begs the question: "which god"?

we know the physical universe came from energy
E=MC2

and we need to "see" with more than physical sight .. that is clear ..

The finger pointing at the moon is not the moon. Words that point to God are not God. God is a pointing word. God is not a word or that which we imagine is being pointed at while seeking. God therefore is not what we imagine God to be. God therefore, is not God.

'Darkness' is a pointing word. So is 'the heart'. I didn't say where God is, I said where He is found.

To seek God is to look in the wrong direction by 180 degrees.

Mulla Nasrudin was seen crawling in the grass in front of his house. What are you looking for?, the neighbors asked. The key to my house, said the Mulla. Where did you lose it?, they asked. Inside., he replied. Then why are you looking for it out here? Because there's more light here.

'Darkness', 'inside', whatever you like. They are just pointing words.

The great mystical quest of fish is to discover water. They have been swimming everywhere for centuries.

Seek and you will find. Seek and God will hide behind you. Seek seek seek and maybe the temple bell will ring, thought will be shattered, and there, full of love, you will burst into being, no God, no Truth, no Meaning, no pointing words at all, only the infinite, thoughtless, ego-empty, joy of Being.

Then why the hell are you using "words" :|
- everything is "pointing" and i am sick to death of your silly semantics when you cannot put it into your own words - you obfuscate it
--communicating telepathically is "iffy" at best and of no use for a Forum

i already found Your God and i am extraordinarily disappointed .. that "joy" of which you speak is empty and best suited for someone who already agrees with him - or who takes joy in being a mindless automaton

Sorry, but the Rebels are Right .. and "free will" cuts as a two-edged sword the One who Purposed it

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The finger pointing at the moon is not the moon. Words that point to God are not God. God is a pointing word. God is not a word or that which we imagine is being pointed at while seeking. God therefore is not what we imagine God to be. God therefore, is not God.

Mum's the word.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: apoppin
only a stupid person says this building is built by "someone" but say the other Bigger and far more complex things are "accidental"

It'd sure be nice if the god warriors knew even the slightest thing about the things they are denouncing and demonizing. But then, if they weren't ignorant, irrational and unreasonable, we wouldn't be having these arguments to begin with.

 

[apoppin]

agreed

 

[leingod86]

I listen to the Skeptic's Guide to the Universe podcast. Dr. Novella interviewed one of the scientists tricked into being a part of this film under the false pretense of it being a scientific documentary rather than a religion propaganda piece. This film was definitely created on sketchy moral grounds.

Another fun tidbit is that all of the scientists who were tricked into being interviewed from the film were "expelled" from the first screening of it. They had invitations but apparently the powers that be didn't want people capable of rational thought admitted into their ooga booga fest.