130 years ago, the assumption in the Western world (where all the science was getting done) was the the Bible was correct. There was no geological scientific evidence either way. Then geological evidence started coming out that the biblical number was way, way wrong. That evidence was challenged and yet survived, so the accepted value of the age of the Earth changed. That's how science works; you change your mind in the face of evidence. That's how intelligence works, in fact.

It's the same evidence. There isn't creationist evidence and secular scientist evidence. They're both looking at the same evidence and interpreting it different. And there is plenty of geologic evidence of the flood. Recently, scientists have started to embrace catastrophism over uniformitarian because the evidence of a worldwide disaster is undeniable.

The evidence that was initially advanced for long ages by Charles Lyell was based on either misinterpretation or outright fraud. He claimed that Niagra Falls was eroding at the rate of one foot per year. He then made the leap that since the gorge was 35,000 feet long it was 35,000 years old. Very scientific. It has been confirmed however that the gorge erodes at 4 to 5 feet per year which means it is most likely under 7 thousand years old.

The "evidence" is obtained by making assumptions about the past that can't be proven, and you can't date the rocks without these assumptions. If you change the assumptions then you come up with much different dates.

It's like quantum physics. Everybody just assumed that all matter was made of solid matter that has definite speed and location, but it turns out that all matter is made up of things with probabilities only. No matter how much Einstein wanted to believe that all matter was solid all the way down, he had to agree that the evidence for quantum physics was undeniably accurate and that matter is composed of chancy waveforms. Anyone who studies it will have to come to the same conclusion. Same goes for what we're talking about.

Everyone who studies it does not come to that conclusion. The hard evidence you have for quantum physics does not exist for deep time. You can test quantum physics; you can't test deep time. All there is a pile of circumstantial evidence all based on the same unprovable assumptions.

"Any evidence...discarded" is misleading. If there's a single outlier result once, it may get some attention or it may be ignored. If there's repeatable experimentation that yields the same contradictory results again and again (dual slit experiment), or a theory that fits all evidence better than current models (quantum physics), it will stir controversy and get a lot of attention. Again, that's how science works.

Every time they measure the age of the rocks they get a range of dates, and then they discard the ones that don't agree with their assumptions as "anomalous". I think I've said this before..bif the evidence were there I would believe it. I used to believe it, but when I found out the extremely flimsy and weaknature of the evidence and realized I would have to put more faith in the scientists than I would the bible, so I decided to believe the bible instead. The whole thing stinks to high heaven but this is a religious proposition to many people. To them, they are satisfied with its explanation of reality and use it as an excuse to deny God. Take note of the awe and reverence and love people pay to the Cosmos and "mother Earth" because it is a religious experience you are witnessing They are seeing Gods glory in creation but they make naturalism their religion instead of acknowledging Him, and worship the creature rather than the Creator.

Psalm 19:1-2


The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.

Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge.

It's not that there is a 'war' on... it's that there are a bunch of non-scientists walking around saying they're 'creation scientists'.

Many creation scientists have advanced degrees and have published many papers. Why aren't they scientists? What makes a scientist a scientist?

You're absolutely correct, there is no research being done on 'young Universe'... but there is also no science being done to prove 'old Universe'. Science is done by taking small bits of knowledge that have little gaps, and filling those gaps in. We didn't figure out the half-life of Rubidium in order to prove the age of the earth, we figured out the half-life of Rubidium to figure out the half-life of Rubidium. Some other scientists had taken measurements of the natural occurrence of elements and their isotopes in various parts of the world. And then more scientists apply the knowledge acquired in both fields and try to find out what it tells us.

There was a very concerted effort, especially during the 19th and 20th centuries to come up with evidence for an old age of the Earth to support the ideas of uniformitarian geology and macro evolution. There was an ideological war going on, just as there is today, between those secular scientists who wanted to establish their own secular idea of origins to undercut the account of biblical creation. Up until that point, all geologists were flood geologists. Now a days, you're right, they are resting on their laurels, because as I said it has become conventional wisdom, which is not science but philosophy.

I agree, you absolutely should question scientists with an agenda, but I've NEVER heard a non-christian suggest that there is scientific evidence for the earth being younger than 4-5 billion years old.

I grew up in a secular home with a great love for science, and I very activiely pursued studies in astronomy and biology. In all of my studies, I never heard so much as a peep about the controversy. There is an information filter on this subject, and it had kept me in the dark about the whole thing most of my life.

You want to cast doubt on scientists by saying that there are millions of dollars and reputations on the line, but this reasoning is more destructive if you aim it at the young-earthers: Their religion has made explicit claims as to time-spans that occurred 'in the beginning'... their religious leaders have made explicit claims as to the literalness of the Bible. And most church leaders have been explicit that other denominations of Christians may not be allowed into heaven... So you have a large group of individuals who are not only risking their reputation, but what they believe is their eternal soul, on something that they didn't discover, but have worked backward to find evidence to prove that their book is correct.

None of this has anything to do with the question of salvation. The conflict you're seeing is coming from a liberal movement within the church which tends to embrace secular values and rejects traditional interpretation of scripture. As numbers go, it is a small amount of people. As a recent survey shows, the majority of Americans (ie 46 percent) believe in creationism:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/05/americans-believe-in-creationism_n_1571127.html

These views get overreprented in the media by liberals sympathic to their causes. It gets presented in such a way that it looks like it is the majority view when it is actually the minority view.

As far as what Creation scientists have to lose..not much. They already lost much of what they had to lose by becoming a creation scientist in the first place.

Young-earthers each, individually, have much more to lose than scientists. And let's be clear... religions have enough money to staff up scientific R&D labs and fund their own research if they wanted. In fact, the Vatican DOES have it's own, world-renowned observatory. So, how old does this Priest thing the Universe is?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=OwWqrXGtrRs#!

I don't agree with the catholic church on practically anything, let alone this.

So, to be clear, it's not Scientists vs. Christians. It's Scientists AND Christians vs. People Who Don't Trust Science.

It's actually the wisdom of God versus the wisdom of man.

And I expect this. Christians have long fought against persecution, and it thrived while it was being persecuted. Now that it's the dominant religion, many of the teachings have lost their luster. Members who believe that the Bible has something personal to say to them will pick up on the persecution aspect, which was intended to help those in the year 200AD... not 2012. So they make up bogey-men and pick a fight with anyone who says something that isn't explicitly allowed in the Bible (and is convenient for them)... hence the anti-Gay-Marriage protests, but no anti-shellfish protests.

Over 200 thousand Christians are martyred every year for their faith, all over the world.

You're a product of your environment, shinyblurry... you're as predictable as Islam producing suicide bombers... and just as pathetic in your misunderstanding of the Universe.

All I'll say to this is that ad hominem attacks reveal more about your character than they do mine.

It is good that you know enough about the nonsense of religion to hold that view. Sadly, many do not. Secularism is growing fast, and it is because of discussions like this that it is.

Let's cut to the chase here Shinyblurry:

You say that there's a John Smith (let's use that as a synonym for your god) , who lives close by, and he has absolute knowledge of the universe, and nothing can be known with certainty without his direct contact with me.

Let's for argument's sake say that, through whatever means, I become convinced by you that there is indeed this guy John Smith who does indeed have all this knowledge...

So how can I get to meet this wonderful John Smith gent? Does he actually even exist? Is he entirely made up? Is his existence some form of delusion, like a folk legend about fairies at the end of the garden? Have you dreamed of him while high on drugs? How can I work this out?

You say proof has to come through personal revelation by sincerely inviting him into your life, but this is *entirely* false. I was brought up a catholic, went to religious schooling, was baptised, made my communion, and confirmed, I preyed to him regularly. I did more than just invite him into my life, I spoke to him, and sometimes even pleaded with him, but I have never, ever, received any indication of any kind, no matter how minuscule, that he actually existed.

Even Matt Dillahunty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Dillahunty) was raised a Baptist, and sought to become a minister, but now he is one of the world's most highly regarded proponents of secularism and atheism.

And what about all the existing ministers that leave religious orders and become atheists? There are currently organisations set up in the USA (such as The Clergy Project - http://clergyproject.org/) to help these people integrate back into society. I also personally know an ordained priest who left the priesthood on becoming an atheist.

Without you first proving that your god exists I can't entertain any notions that he may have any knowledge about anything. You've told me that this can be done by inviting him into your life, but this is entirely and demonstrably false.

In the absence of any proof / revelation that this omnipotent all knowing god of which you speak even exists, I'm afraid the knowledge you claim that he has must remain unproven too.

Jump the first hurdle of a god's existence, until then we're wasting our time debating what you claim he knows.

The door is open.

Thanks.

Anyway, I think it is foolish for anyone to say that god does not exist and they know it. But, god could mean so many things. All I know is that a bunch of dudes wrote the Bible based on older stories. It is man made, there may be some truth to it but there is some truth to everything. The kind of fascism hypocricy that today's extremist republican christians exhibit disgusts me. They would let rich, corrupt motherfuckers, manipulate them for their own gain and throw them from a plane. Their perception of reality is so completely bent by right wing think tanks and corporatism that they live in some sort of Christian inspired DaDa universe while the rich send their zombie minds to the polls to vote with their manipulated hearts and steal every last penny from their coffers as they self willingly turn a blind eye.

Well, in this context God means the being that created the Universe. The scripture claims to be revelation from this God, in the person of Jesus Christ. God says we have all sinned and are accountable to Him for our sins, but He sent a Savior who paid the price for our sins so we could be forgiven and have eternal life with Him. Jesus says everyone who comes to God must go through Him:

John 14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

So, God could be many things, but there is only one way to know God according to Jesus. So, it's not something you can just pick and choose from. If Jesus wasn't raised from the dead, none of it is true. I have found His claims to be true.

I can't speak for your impressions of Christians as seen through the lens of our current culture, but seen through the lens of society at large Christians have been a force for good. Before the welfare system was created, the church in America was providing the social safety net, and still does in a number of ways. They're the ones running the charities, food banks, youth centers, blood drives, homeless shelters, etc. Look in any community, you will undoubtedly find Christians taking care of the poor and doing good works. I'm not saying there are no secular charities, food banks, etc, but this is something the church is well noted for.

There is some truth to what you say. Christians are not perfect, and unfortunately in the western church this sometimes becomes very apparent. You do not usually see this kind of behavior from Christians in countries where there is some cost to becoming a Christian. When there is no cost to following Christ, the church becomes lazy and apostate, as you see today in America. A good percentage of American Christians probably are not saved. This isn't though a reason to reject Jesus. He in fact predicted this behavior from Christians in Matthew 24. It is simply that we are not following His ways that you see this kind of behavior.

Question: Do you have any church background or were you raised in a secular home?

@Yogi - I know they are frustrating, but the whole point of our secular society is an acceptance of difference - the right to believe and say dumb shit is important.

@ Bible quoters: The Bible says homosexuals should be killed. Same for adulterers and witches (!?). Pedophilia and slavery are fine though. Not sure why you guys have such distain for other religions, you have *really* similar beliefs to the Taleban.

In this clip I don't hear Keller say there is or isn't a God. I don't hear him say that evolution is bunk or not. I hear him saying that Dawkins argument is spurious for several reasons.

As I understand it, the scientific method requires that something must be falsifiable; evolution is not. I'm not saying evolution doesn't happen, just that you can't apply the scientific method to it. Also, the scientific method is always in the hands of humans. That is the fly in the ointment. Humans are hugely fallible. The method may be perfect, but the handlers aren't.

I think it would be beneficial to watch the entire talk so that Keller isn't being made the problem for pointing out the problem. There is a problem and it isn't Keller or me. It isn't you either. It's the fallibility of humans not being taken into account in this equation.

>> ^PalmliX:

Who cares if he quotes two "respectable secular sources"? Just because someone is "respected" and "secular" doesn't mean that what they have to say on any given subject will be truthful or even meaningful.
Even if the most respected scientist in the world came out and said that God was absolutely real it still wouldn't matter. They wouldn't be able to provide any evidence for their claim and at the end of the day the opinion of one, or even several scientists isn't all that important. It's the facts that matter, things that we can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt to be true.
As far as I can tell, Tim Keller's basic point is that a belief in evolution is the same as a belief in a god because if evolution is correct and our beliefs are formed purely for survival reasons and don't necessarily tell us what is true, than how can judge the objective truth of our various beliefs?
Well I know of one particularly effective way of judging our beliefs. It's called the scientific method and it works because it only deals with facts, only with things that can be proven true. Anything else is useless.
I'm glad that you found Plantiga's observation fascinating as well as humorous, and Lewis' comments on transparency germane to the conversation, but so what? So what if his audience is UC Berkly and they laughed at his jokes? This doesn't change the facts of our universe. Now maybe as you said, Keller's point has been lost in translation and I'm just not 'getting it', so please help me to understand.
>> ^silvercord:
Why is it that he is quoting two respectable SECULAR sources for the refutation of Dawkins', et al, conclusions and is first being accused of arguing against evolution (he isn't doing this) and then being accused as the one who didn't think the refutation through. Hmmmm.
I find Plantiga's observation fascinating as well as humorous, btw, and Lewis' comments on transparency germane to the conversation. It seems his audience (UC Berkeley) is tracking. Maybe it's being lost in translation here.
>> ^PalmliX:
Why explain or attempt to know anything then? I just don't get the point this guy is trying to make. Are there not facts that exist in this universe? When I leave the apartment every morning I take the elevator I don't jump out of my 10th floor window. Is my "belief" in gravity the same as someone else's "belief" in god?
I seriously think this guy doesn't actually understand the scientific process. Science ONLY deals with facts. It ONLY deals with things we can know FOR SURE. Now if provable facts aren't enough for this guy then nothing ever will be.

Who cares if he quotes two "respectable secular sources"? Just because someone is "respected" and "secular" doesn't mean that what they have to say on any given subject will be truthful or even meaningful.

Even if the most respected scientist in the world came out and said that God was absolutely real it still wouldn't matter. They wouldn't be able to provide any evidence for their claim and at the end of the day the opinion of one, or even several scientists isn't all that important. It's the facts that matter, things that we can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt to be true.

As far as I can tell, Tim Keller's basic point is that a belief in evolution is the same as a belief in a god because if evolution is correct and our beliefs are formed purely for survival reasons and don't necessarily tell us what is true, than how can judge the objective truth of our various beliefs?

Well I know of one particularly effective way of judging our beliefs. It's called the scientific method and it works because it only deals with facts, only with things that can be proven true. Anything else is useless.

I'm glad that you found Plantiga's observation fascinating as well as humorous, and Lewis' comments on transparency germane to the conversation, but so what? So what if his audience is UC Berkly and they laughed at his jokes? This doesn't change the facts of our universe. Now maybe as you said, Keller's point has been lost in translation and I'm just not 'getting it', so please help me to understand.
>> ^silvercord:

Why is it that he is quoting two respectable SECULAR sources for the refutation of Dawkins', et al, conclusions and is first being accused of arguing against evolution (he isn't doing this) and then being accused as the one who didn't think the refutation through. Hmmmm.
I find Plantiga's observation fascinating as well as humorous, btw, and Lewis' comments on transparency germane to the conversation. It seems his audience (UC Berkeley) is tracking. Maybe it's being lost in translation here.
>> ^PalmliX:
Why explain or attempt to know anything then? I just don't get the point this guy is trying to make. Are there not facts that exist in this universe? When I leave the apartment every morning I take the elevator I don't jump out of my 10th floor window. Is my "belief" in gravity the same as someone else's "belief" in god?
I seriously think this guy doesn't actually understand the scientific process. Science ONLY deals with facts. It ONLY deals with things we can know FOR SURE. Now if provable facts aren't enough for this guy then nothing ever will be.

So your saying that I have gained the whole world and lost my soul because I seek to understand the meaning of existence without the bible? Since you can't show that I have a soul, I think that is a good trade! Joking aside, quoting scripture to me is a pretty useless thing, why would I care? We are talking science, and since we are talking about science, and the bible isn't a science book you are just quote bombing with no real usefulness, your knowledge of scriptures that pertain to your own believe structure aren't very useful in a conversation with others. It would be like me quoting the Koran to you, why would you care?

The topic of the video is what academics think about God. And when they're talking about God, they are really talking about the Christian God, so it is relevant to the conversation.

I don't know what you just don't stay out of science threads, it is obvious you have no respect for it, and all the advantages in life you that gain because of it you just toss aside with a mental gymnastics that should earn you a gold medal. You have no moral problems with using the technology that science creates while simultaneously saying we are twice as damned because of our pursuits.

Psalm 19:1-3

The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.

Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge.

There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard.

I don't have any problem with science. I think the exploration of the creation reveals the glory of the Creator, which is something I highly esteem. I only take issue with the hubris of men who exalt mans position in the Universe over God. It's kins of like that joke..

"God is sitting in Heaven when a scientist says to
Him, "Lord, we don't need you anymore. Science has finally
figured out a way to create life out of nothing. In other
words, we can now do what you did in the beginning."

"Oh, is that so? Tell me..." replies God.

"Well," says the scientist, "we can take dirt and
form it into the likeness of You and breathe life into it, thus
creating man."

"Well, that's interesting. Show me."

So the scientist bends down to the earth and
starts to mold the soil.

"Oh no, no, no..." interrupts God, "Get your own dirt.""

As for evil, what I do see is a time in man that we are finally closer to understanding and coaxing human nature away from immorality with science. We are starting to confidently grasp the physiological, neurological, and chemical elements of our existence that determine our behavior. And for many decades now, medical science has been helping people of all faiths with very measurable success rates in problems that in the past were relegated to prayer and usually suffering followed by death (god left infant morality rates much higher than science and technology has).

What's different in the world? 30 thousand people starving to death every day in a world that has a 70 trillion dollar GDP. The inequity in the world today is greater than at any other time. Most people aren't aware, and don't really care about anything which is happening outside their limited sphere of interest. There is no actual difference between the man of yesterday and the man of today. If anything, he is even more corrupt than ever.

As far as infant morality rates, God didn't create the world like this. It became this way because of sin.

It is important that you don't think I hate religion, but maths are what enabled Newton to formulate his theories, not bible calculus or some methodology set forth from the bible...it was all Newton and his brain. Religious value is at best intangible is what I mean, the fruit of Newtons efforts are entirely repeatable without any religious interactions at all.

It doesn't really matter if you hate religion, it's whether you love Jesus that is important. Did you?

Newton gave the credit to God, and said all of his inspiration came from Him. The value of his faith in God was very tangible to him, and the fruit it bore benefited all humankind.

Your 2 most important questions are also not only answerable with scientific inquiry, but also not really the 2 most important questions.

What scientific inquiry will answer them?

There are no "most important questions", only questions a specific person find important. I personally obsess over knowing "Truth", others just care to know how things work mechanically, others still to be a good father or wife or husband, others still how to cure global poverty...all of these quests are good, and all have answers that can be found outside biblical answers. Not to mention that most of the Christian world has vastly different ideas even though they read the same bible. So while you think your are quoting universal truth at me, Christians are as dis-unified in their believes as to make me question your main thesis of the "2 questions"; I doubt any significantly large group of christian's actually shares that those 2 questions alone are the most important 2 questions in a christian's life.

The vast majority of Christians have agreement on all of the core teachings of the bible, going back to the early church.

I don't expect you to agree with me that they are important; you of course have your own ideas about what is important. However, God did put you here for a reason, and you can only find that reason out from Him. If there is no God, there is no purpose, truth or meaning for anything. Did you catch this video?:

http://videosift.com/video/The-Truth-about-Atheism

I notice that you put the word truth in quotation marks. Do you know what truth is? Without truth, you are living in a world of uncertainty. You are staring down a hall of mirrors, not knowing which is the true reflection.

There are only two routes to know what truth is. One is that you're omnipotent. Two, is that you are given revelation of the truth by an omnipotent being. I am claiming the second option; that's the only way I know what the truth is. What is your route to the truth?

The only salvation the bible offers is from the own hell that it proclaims, it is saving you from the hell that isn't visible with a cure that isn't testable in a sea of other religious that claim similar and dissimilar truths. There is no reasonable argument (an argument that is undeniable from a logical standpoint) that can lead you to faith in any religion, it has to come from some other place that isn't your brain (and by this I mean reason and thought, not the brain technically)...and to me, this isn't worth investigating any further than when I did when I was a christian. Faith is ultimately irrational, and I have given up on indulging irrational behavior inasmuch as it is in my power.

These are rational beliefs until you are given revelation by God, and then you throw these theories out the window and start over. That's where I was at before I was saved, because I didn't grow up in a Christian home like you did. I grew up in a secular home without religion, and I thought along these same lines, and I was equally skeptical about all supernatural claims. It's only because God had mercy on me and showed me He is there that I know that He is.

The way it works is, God gives you enough information/revelation to know that He is, and then He puts the onus on you to seek Him out. You probably believe you are rejecting God for intellectual reasons, but you're really not when it comes down to it. You are rejecting God because of the sin in your life, because sin is what separates us from God. Sin corrupts your intellect and twists your logic just enough to keep you from seeing reality. If you honestly want to know the truth, and are willing to give up everything in your life to have it, then you will find it:

John 14:6

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Jesus is the truth. Those who are seeking the truth end up on his doorstep. The way you know God is true is when God reveals Himself to you through personal revelation. Would you give up everything in your life to know the truth?

A Christian is someone who has surrendered their life to Christ. It sounds like you, like many others I've spoken to, grew up in a Christian home and were never taught how to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. You had your parents faith and didn't really understand why you believed. When you encountered the skepticism of the world, you found you couldn't justify your belief to yourself and fell away. Does that sound about right?

You don't become a Christian through osmosis from your parents; you need to be born again. Without the internal witness of the Holy Spirit, you won't have any reason to believe. You have nothing to stand on if your entire experience of Christianity is is going to church, reading the bible, and praying. Why would you do any of it if you didn't experience the tangible presence of God? To know God is to know Him personally, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and in truth.

Perhaps I am mistaken, perhaps there is some undeniable bit of logical truth that leads to Christendom and if I were ever exposed to such knowledge I would gladly embrace truth of any kind. I highly doubt such incorruptible knowledge exists, however, so Agnosticism for the duration of my life is the only reasonable thing to do. Do you know of some undeniable claim that can't be logically refuted that leads to Christianity as the answer?

Now this is interesting, what you're saying here, when you mention "incorruptible knowledge". I'd like to explore this, but before we do, could you answer two simple questions?:

Tell me one thing you know for certain, and how you know it.

Could you be wrong about everything you know?

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

@shinyblurry So your saying that I have gained the whole world and lost my soul because I seek to understand the meaning of existence without the bible?

Why is it that he is quoting two respectable SECULAR sources for the refutation of Dawkins', et al, conclusions and is first being accused of arguing against evolution (he isn't doing this) and then being accused as the one who didn't think the refutation through. Hmmmm.

I find Plantiga's observation fascinating as well as humorous, btw, and Lewis' comments on transparency germane to the conversation. It seems his audience (UC Berkeley) is tracking. Maybe it's being lost in translation here.

>> ^PalmliX:

Why explain or attempt to know anything then? I just don't get the point this guy is trying to make. Are there not facts that exist in this universe? When I leave the apartment every morning I take the elevator I don't jump out of my 10th floor window. Is my "belief" in gravity the same as someone else's "belief" in god?
I seriously think this guy doesn't actually understand the scientific process. Science ONLY deals with facts. It ONLY deals with things we can know FOR SURE. Now if provable facts aren't enough for this guy then nothing ever will be.

Yes, but you as well, are leaving out a key detail.
She wasn't killed instantaneously. Regardless whether she was "declared" dead or not as she was still alive. Even though she was thought to be dead, clearly her brain was still functioning and was not dead. Her subconscious was still functioning.

What we know is that she was declared dead, and became conscious when Jesus returned her to the light. It's possible that the staff made a mistake, and it's also possible that she was clinically dead. You are weighing this heavily on the mistake side because of your naturalistic presuppositions, yet there is no actual evidence backing it up. This is exactly how your naturalistic presuppositions will always distort the evidence you're looking at in favor of naturalistic conclusions. If you had evidence of the supernatural in front of you, you would never actually recognize it. It's what I mean when I say your worldview is like a pair of glasses you wear to interpret reality.

Last night I dreamed I was chased by a dinosaur, this does not give evidence that dinosaurs are waiting for us in the afterlife. (poor example maybe - but my point is there.)

This isn't a good analogy because it doesn't match the circumstances. It's the circumstances which give the testimony weight.

And no, in answer to your question, I have NEVER seen nor experienced anything in this existence that gives the possibility that a God exists - sorry. (all due respect.)

Is the truth important to you? IE, if the truth was contrary to all of your preconceived notions about reality, would you want to know it?

And you are wrong about me not looking for anything passed the "world view" as you put it. I am spiritual, I'd love for a representation of the mystical to give evidence to itself. I'd love to live in that make believe world, honestly. I just learned early that it isn't there. I don't explain things away but I've never seen anything that could prove it existed. You are not privileged to my experiences so you shouldn't make assumptions - only I know what I give belief to.

What does it mean to be spiritual, to you? Would you be willing to pray to a non-existent God to help you with your unbelief?

My reality lays on a solid foundation while yours lays somewhere else.

What is the solid foundation that your reality is resting on?

You are correct in that I don't give myself freely to the unprovable purely for the reason of faith that it exists. That, to me, would be more than foolish. If I was to do so, I would fall prey to every word, and person said to me. I would have to join all religions and believe in them all even though they contradict one another. And what is to stop me there, why shouldn't I believe every person who has ever tried to swindle me. Faith is something earned and not given freely and so far religion has swindled my far more in life than it has proven itself to have any basis in reality.

I don't expect you to believe something without any evidence; my point is that neither do you have any basis for doing the opposite. My earlier question was, how do you know you haven't been indoctrinated into your beliefs by the secular culture? For instance, if you believe that truth is determined by what we can sense, ie empiricism, how do you reconcile that with the problem of induction?

Call me an Atheist if you like, but I prefer the term Realist. I am a Realist who likes to play at fantasy but in the end, I always land with my feat back on solid ground knowing which way is up.

I'm curious at what you mean by play at fantasy? Do you have an active imagination?

>> ^Sagemind:

Yes, but you as well, are leaving out a key detail

I did read what you have to say @mentality, and I will answer it.

I'll say first of all that you're starting off with the wrong presuppositions about me. I didn't grow up Christian, I grew up in a secular home without any religion. I was an for agnostic for most of my life and very skeptical of the Christian religion; it was about the last thing that I thought might be true. The reason I became a Christian is because God gave me personal revelation of His existence. On that basis, it would be irrational for me not to be a Christian, based on the evidence I have received.

I can really relate to what you're saying. I used to feel much the same way, and you're absolutely right; if Jesus isn't alive then everything you said is basically true. In that case I am just a victim of my own confirmation bias. I also can't tell you why Jesus didn't come into your life at that time. Perhaps it just wasn't the right time and there were more things He wanted you to learn about and do in the world before He opened your eyes. I didn't receive any revelation for most of my adult life so there is definitely a timing issue involved. Which is to say that I know that He heard your prayer, but God operates on His own schedule. You're also right about this:

"The truth will reveal itself to you, if you sincerely want to know."

Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. If you are looking for the truth you will end up on His doorstep.

So, I will be praying for you. I know the Lord heard your prayer, so open your heart again to the idea because if you meant it, it is a prayer He intends to answer. I believe that is why we're talking about this now. Jesus said this:

Revelation 3:20

Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.

If you hear His voice, open the door, and He will come in to your life. God bless.

I was just listing the major reason why I am not a republican. I generally agree with conservative values, and I take conservative positions on most social issues, but I also disagree with a few things so that's why I'm not a member of that party. In regards to Mitt Romney, he seems like he does care for the poor. I think he is a pretty likeable guy, for the most part. That's isn't the reason I am not voting for him, however. The reason I am not voting for him is because he is an elder in the Mormon church. His family has been connected with it since the church started, and one of his relatives helped construct the first temple. A Romney presidency means that the elders of the Mormon church will be running this country, and that isn't something that I as a Christian can support.


In reply to this comment by deedub81:
If Romney doesn't care about the Poor, why has he spent his money AND HIS PERSONAL TIME serving and helping them?

In reply to this comment by shinyblurry:
>> ^cosmovitelli:

Shiny and QM face facts: you're both too smart to stick with these evasive, ideologically motivated destroyers for much longer.
Sadly, the actual, mediocre, boring effort to do things as well as possible is all there is for us.. No amazing plan, no secret trick to simultaneously give & keep trillions, no 'wealth creators'..
Just a big pile of flawed people, some of whom are trying to make the world more relaxed, open and productive.
And some are solipsists who want OUT in any way they can imagine it might be possible - extreme wealth, private land, preferential treatment by the supernatural, sexual conquest, fame, power over others..
..or all of the above and then still desperately hurting defenseless hungry uncared-for children to acquire ANOTHER billion.. (and then trying to flee further from the anger and the pain they have unthinkingly perpetuated..)
Ryan and Romney are taking fuck you to the next level.


I'm not on board for the Romney/Ryan ticket. I'm not a republican because they don't care about the poor and a few other reasons. I'm not a democrat because it is the party of secular humanism. I cannot in good conscience vote for either candidate this election.

If Romney doesn't care about the Poor, why has he spent his money AND HIS PERSONAL TIME serving and helping them?

In reply to this comment by shinyblurry:
>> ^cosmovitelli:

Shiny and QM face facts: you're both too smart to stick with these evasive, ideologically motivated destroyers for much longer.
Sadly, the actual, mediocre, boring effort to do things as well as possible is all there is for us.. No amazing plan, no secret trick to simultaneously give & keep trillions, no 'wealth creators'..
Just a big pile of flawed people, some of whom are trying to make the world more relaxed, open and productive.
And some are solipsists who want OUT in any way they can imagine it might be possible - extreme wealth, private land, preferential treatment by the supernatural, sexual conquest, fame, power over others..
..or all of the above and then still desperately hurting defenseless hungry uncared-for children to acquire ANOTHER billion.. (and then trying to flee further from the anger and the pain they have unthinkingly perpetuated..)
Ryan and Romney are taking fuck you to the next level.


I'm not on board for the Romney/Ryan ticket. I'm not a republican because they don't care about the poor and a few other reasons. I'm not a democrat because it is the party of secular humanism. I cannot in good conscience vote for either candidate this election.