Were you raised in a Christian home? The solution to this problem is that no one is ignorant. That’s what I showed you when I quoted Romans 1:18-21. It teaches that it’s not that you are ignorant of Gods existence, its that you suppress the truth in unrighteousness and thus deceive yourself. You made the comment about the stupidity of the generation of Noahs day rejecting their own mercy, but that is exactly the same thing you are doing by rejecting Jesus Christ.

It’s not about being good enough to come to God. My heart was wretched when God found me but I did respond when He reached out to me. I didn’t respond perfectly but He used it and led me to faith in His Son. If you began to reach out to God He would respond to you in a way you will be able to perceive.

When the bible says God is good, it means He is morally perfect. That is Gods definition of good. No man except one has ever met that definition and therefore is unable to qualify for salvation without an atonement for their sins. The one who met that requirement is the man who never sinned, Jesus Christ.

Well, it’s a fallacy to say that the origin of the message dictates the truth of the message. A good message can be spoken by a bad messenger.

Secondly, it hasn’t been debunked. I know the atheist websites you visit tell you it has been, but it hasn’t. There are good reasons to believe in God that a reasonable person can and should believe .

When I say too difficult, I don’t mean by sheer human effort. Human effort is completely useless in achieving a good result as a Christian. That is why it is found to be too difficult because to come to Christ means taking up your cross and following Him. Yet properly understood it isn’t difficult in the sense that it can’t be done. We can get into a discussion about that in another reply.

You are also using fallacious reasoning to compare Jesus, a historical person, to Xenu, a fever dream of scientology or the flying spaghetti monster. All possibilities are not equal, neither are all Messiahs equally credible. The life of Jesus is a matter of history and not our imaginations. I gave you lines of evidence which you dismiss without even investigating them. Jesus is the prophesied Messiah of the Old Testament. Indeed He is the only possible person who could be the Messiah since He is the only one who fulfilled the 70 weeks of Daniel prophecy which predicted the year of the Messiahs death. Are you interested in talking about that?

When you say you’re a good person, what do you mean by that?

Shinyblurry, would you say that you are open or interested in receiving the Flying Spaghetti Monster as your personal Pasta?

You see the problem there, right?
You don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, so ask it to help you believe in it, even though you know it's not real (and is an insult to your intelligence and beliefs), just abandon reason and rationality until you believe (in something you know is false and harmful)....and forever after. Who's going to do that?
Edit: conversely, if God hasn't verified his word, why would you contradict him by trying to do it yourself? Don't you think he knows his own plan better than you?

No, it's kicking the key out of that lock some guy looking for money and control told you is a prison you are in that's inescapable unless you buy his key (and pay him for keeping that key for you). Rejecting religion means you reject the entire "lock/key/prison" concept.

Third choice, admit sin is a construct of humans to control others more easily and ignore it as the fraud it is.
Remember, bearing false witness is a sin (as is the pride you feel for sharing it), and just because you believe it doesn't make it less false. Better to keep quiet about stuff you can't prove, according to Christianity.

Edit: don't think I didn't notice that you didn't even attempt to answer either question.
How to reconcile the blatant self serving fact that religion requires you to believe that belief in it erases all sin besides disbelief, which must be a sin worse than murder, rape, torture, etc, and is the one sin that was not erased by Christ?

Jeebus, my heart stopped for a second.

Thank Flying Spaghetti Monster that darned kid wasn't killed.

Fair enough, but I thought my longer explanation by examples made my meaning more clear. Making calls that people should not be allowed to deny membership into private clubs/groups based upon behaviors and choices is going to dive away people you need to get the support of.

IMO the Dems need to stop calling out the flying spaghetti monster club for denying membership to people who eat spaghetti. Spaghetti eaters still have their right to eat spaghetti, they just don't need to join a club of people who think that's immoral. Save the outrage for the FSM branches that deny membership to those without noodley appendages, as that has now crossed over from a choice/behavior and into something immutable.

If we can agree on that in principle, let me then step forward to the real example.

Stop telling Christians that not accepting non-christians as members or leaders in their churchs is immoral or intolerant or bigotry or evil. Most of the major religions in the world on some lesser or greater extent declare each other immoral. Live and live is enough, you don't need to demand they accept membership or leadership candidate from other religions with beliefs or practices they consider incompatible with their own. Oh, and if the Dems really want bonus points here, who you choose to have sex with and how you choose to do it can be included in this.

I've researched the Church of Satan... there's one close to where I live. While at one time I found them somewhat interesting, I never found it that appealing, to fight against something to such a degree, that like Bob was saying, it's sort of like a constant flying spaghetti monster fest. Many people think The Church of Satan was highly influenced by Aleister Crowley and I do at least find him and the things he did and believed to be far more interesting than satanism.

Thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster.... I thought it was just me.

I kept waiting for the "record skip" noise and for this to turn into a comedy.

Cell phone zombies? Seriously?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA

Exactly. He got all the girls. Watch him and learn.

If this arbitrary value comes out more than 2 Einstein was wrong. And the answer is.... 2.5 woohoooo! Anything practical on the horizon?

Also strings + entanglement = Flying Spaghetti Monster confirmed.

@shinyblurry

If the flying spaghetti monster isn't real, how come all the planets look like meatballs?

If I have to be an expert to dismiss the evidence, why don't you also have to be an expert to accept the evidence?

Because experts have already examined the evidence and found it sufficient. That evidence has been used in the development of medicines, and has used to make predictions later shown to be true.

You, on the other hand, want to overthrow the accepted worldview. So you better have some pretty extraordinary evidence as well as the understanding to back it up. I see neither from you.

Why do you have macro and micro evolution in quotations? Do you realize they are scientific terms?

You should read your own links.

Within the Modern Synthesis school of thought, macroevolution is thought of as the compounded effects of microevolution. Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one – the only difference between them is of time and scale. As Ernst W. Mayr observes, "transspecific evolution is nothing but an extrapolation and magnification of the events that take place within populations and species...it is misleading to make a distinction between the causes of micro- and macroevolution".

And there is tonnes of evidence of macroevolution. You and your ilk just misuse the term and ask to see a monkey to give birth to a human.

But that's just your lack of understanding.

You could say that, but why should it be taken seriously? The flying spaghetti monster, or the flying teapot, have no explanatory power.

Of course it does. They're magic, they exist outside of time and space and can do whatever they feel like. It's the exact same "explanatory power" that god has, i.e. none whatsoever.

There are good reasons, philosophically and otherwise, to believe an all powerful being created this Universe. The idea of whether the Universe was designed is not a ridiculous question, and I think it is pretty odd that anyone would rule that explanation out apriori.

Yes, and there were good reasons to think thunder was gods fighting and rain happened when you danced. And now we know those are nonsense.

Besides, you are conflating the origin of the universe with evolution. We have a pretty good idea about the origins of the universe, but it's kinda by definition a difficult question to ask. But we know that evolution is true to a ridiculously high certainty.

It may be that in the future that someone disproves evolution. But if they do, it will be through science, not creationist bollocks.

Again, have you ever studied the subject? If you have, what evidences have you looked at?

I really don't have to study it. You have to provide some evidence to back up your assertion, which I will then trivially disprove with 5 seconds on google.

I also don't study astrology, homeopathy, tarot cards, voodoo or crystal therapy because they are all long since proven to be complete bollocks.

You're not just wrong, you're fractally wrong. You're like a kitten who can't work out why he can't eat the fish on the tv. You would require significant education to even understand why you're so wrong.

Please enlighten me as to your credentials as a paleontologist. I assume you must have some, given that you feel qualified that your expertise is such as to dismiss millions of man hours of experimental results that support the theory of evolution.

In fact, you should really publish your findings in a peer-reviewed journal. If they are correct (and not, as I suspect, complete bollocks), it will be a revelation! There's almost certainly a Nobel prize in it for you.

If I have to be an expert to dismiss the evidence, why don't you also have to be an expert to accept the evidence? Are you not then at this time simply parroting things to me that you don't really understand, not being a paleontologist yourself?

Sweet. You've accepted the evidence for evolution. "Macroevolution" is just lots of "microevolution". Why are we discussing this?

Why do you have macro and micro evolution in quotations? Do you realize they are scientific terms?:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution

They aren't actually the same thing; one has scientific evidence to back it up, the other does not. It does not logically follow that because microevolution takes place, macroevolution also must take place. It is the secular creation story which presupposes it, but isn't supported by the evidence.

You've abandoned science at this point. I could equally say that speciation is caused by invisible pink unicorns or the Flying Spaghetti Monster (praise his noodly appendages), but none of it is testable and therefore, it's non-scientific.

Besides, the existing theory explains everything pretty well.

You could say that, but why should it be taken seriously? The flying spaghetti monster, or the flying teapot, have no explanatory power. There are good reasons, philosophically and otherwise, to believe an all powerful being created this Universe. The idea of whether the Universe was designed is not a ridiculous question, and I think it is pretty odd that anyone would rule that explanation out apriori.

That is quite simply untrue. It is lies, falsehood, fiction, fabrication, myth, deceit, distortion and misinformation. In short, it's bullshit.

There is no credible evidence for a young earth. Zero, zip, nada.

Again, have you ever studied the subject? If you have, what evidences have you looked at?

In my study of the evidence from the fossil record, I found more evidence that contradicted the assertions of Darwinian evolution than confirmed it.

Please enlighten me as to your credentials as a paleontologist. I assume you must have some, given that you feel qualified that your expertise is such as to dismiss millions of man hours of experimental results that support the theory of evolution.

In fact, you should really publish your findings in a peer-reviewed journal. If they are correct (and not, as I suspect, complete bollocks), it will be a revelation! There's almost certainly a Nobel prize in it for you.

The evidence for micro evolution is overwhelming.

Sweet. You've accepted the evidence for evolution. "Macroevolution" is just lots of "microevolution". Why are we discussing this?

I purport to say that the idea of a Creator has better explanatory power for what we see than the current scientific theories for origins, not because of what science cannot explain, but for what science has explained.

You've abandoned science at this point. I could equally say that speciation is caused by invisible pink unicorns or the Flying Spaghetti Monster (praise his noodly appendages), but none of it is testable and therefore, it's non-scientific.

Besides, the existing theory explains everything pretty well.

Have you ever studied the scientific proofs for both sides? There are some "clocks" which point that way, and there are other clocks that point the other way. The clocks that point to the old Earth have many flaws, and there are simply more evidences that point to a young Earth.

That is quite simply untrue. It is lies, falsehood, fiction, fabrication, myth, deceit, distortion and misinformation. In short, it's bullshit.

There is no credible evidence for a young earth. Zero, zip, nada.

At this point, you would have to either monumentally stupid or willfully ignorant to believe in it.

The issue then becomes, if we start accepting scientific facts like the big bang and evolution, that moves stories like Adam and Eve, the flood, tower of babel and the like become parables. Which I am fine with, I was fine with that when I was a Christian as that is the most likely scenario, the problem is where do we draw the line at what is parable and what is literal? Why did the creator of the universe make himself known to only one tiny tribe of people in a backwater part of the world some 6,000 years ago, and not to all of humanity around the world, why not have prophets all over? It is either a local deity, like Odin,Athena, Ra and the like, or a racist jerk.

No science will never probably answer what was there before the big bang, time itself didn't exist... That is perhaps the only valid "gap" for a god to fill. We understand how the universe came to be in its present state fairly well, with a few odd issues like dark matter/dark energy to be resolved but those are filling in. Abiogenesis is early enough in the its understanding of life origins to be a small gap, but that is filling, and the process of biological evolution is fully understood and well mapped out.

In the end the problem is that there seems to be no god actively moving on the universe or people's lives. We don't see properly documented limbs growing without science. We don't see a consistent result from praying to only the Christian God compared to praying to some Hinu god to get results (praying itself is slightly better than not, but it doesn't matter to whom is prayed, praying to the flying spaghetti monster is just as effective as praying to Yahweh or Kali). If there is a God, then he is ineffective, and that in the end is a problem for religion... and ultimately what is the point of worshiping a god that only wants people to praise and worship him while giving us nothing in return? Wohoo I believed in God (Yahweh) and now get to spend eternity praising and worshipping him full time with no distractions like work and having fun with the family...basically I get to do the same thing the angels do (and they apparently have a choice in the matter since 1/3rd of them followed Lucifer in praising him over Yahweh)... what's the point of that? To avoid the hell he created for those who chose not to end up being his praise slave 24/7 for eternity? Let me see evidence, let me see him do something for me in my life here and now, then I'll believe.

If the flying spaghetti monster isn't real then why does DNA look like fusilli?

Atheism - 0 FSM - 1

Take that empiricism!

That's not what I was saying at all though perhaps I explained poorly.

So imagine you are in a 0 gravity environment. You have 2 balls (lol) one has a mass of 1 kg the other a mass of 100kg. You throw both equally hard. What happens?

One ball travels away from you at 100x less the velocity of the other. This is intertia, it is an effect of mass not gravity. Gravity is an additional force but it's absence would not change the fact that a big heavy space suit requires a significant force to move at a usefully velocity in the 1st place.

It was perhaps misleading to use the example of a fulcrum (lever) but in this context it's quite illustrative. If it was 0 gravity you could apply a tiny force to a massive object and just wait however long it takes to get it where you want (like an infinitely long lever). When gravity becomes a factor duration becomes more and more of a concern (like the fulcrum of the lever gets shorter and shorter).

Concequence: the lower the gravity the easier (less work/deltaV) it is to move an object. However a massive object still requires a proportional large force to move in a useful way (in this case fast enough to overcome 0.16g for long enough to get upright).

I'm not saying gravity has no effect (quite the opposite) I'm saying big heavy thing requires big heavy force to shift even in reduced gravity environments.


As for bases on the moon, mars, stargates, ueo's, void whales, phobos being hollow (phobos is some crazy shit), hexagon on Saturn etc. Etc. I'm not outright dismissive, but to treat it as anything but food for thought/entertainment is a little worrying to say the least. What do you have to go on there other than the testimony of other people who claim to have been involved or whatever?

There's no hard data avaliable to the likes of you and I on such things. Many of these ideas cannot be entirely refuted, but nor can they be confirmed either. That puts us squarely in the realm of superstition and religion.

I'm a part time discordian/khaos magus/git wizard so I do have more time than most for superstition and flights of fantasy but I steer well clear of treating any of that kind of think as objective fact.

The realms of materialism and idealism should stay entirely separate except when they converge and compliment each other e.g. If I can imagine a black swan and then go out and find one (after performing the necessary experiments to disprove any other possible explanations for why it might seem black) then I can tell others that black swans are definitely a real thing. The same cannot be said for say the flying spaghetti monster or the chocolate tea pot orbiting the sun even though believing in such things makes my life more interesting under certain circumstances (and such liberated thought processes can eventually lead to as yet undiscovered ideas which may indeed prove to be "true" or helpful).

"Given all theories of the universe are absurd, it is better to speak in the language of one which Is patently absurd so as to mortify the metaphysical man." -Alaistair Crowley

Translation: if your going to indulge stuff like this don't take it or yourself too seriously or you will go mental!

Praise be to pope Bob!
23