- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Amen to that.
Rather ironic, when the world teaches that the strong and fittest will inherit the earth.
What's also very ironic was that Darwin denounced his theories in the end and decided there was a God.
Quote (Mr. Steve @ Feb. 13 2008,15:43) What's also very ironic was that Darwin denounced his theories in the end and decided there was a God.
You need to research that one more. There is legend that he did so but most of his family denied this.Taken from the ultimate authority, Wikipedia:
Though Darwin wrote of religion as a tribal survival strategy, he still believed that God was the ultimate lawgiver. His belief dwindled, and his grief at the death of his daughter Annie in 1851 made him more certain in his scepticism. He continued to help the local church with parish work, but on Sundays would go for a walk while his family attended church. He now thought it better to look at pain and suffering as the result of general laws rather than direct intervention by God. When asked about his religious views, he wrote that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God, and that generally “an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind.”
The “Lady Hope Story”, published in 1915, claimed that Darwin had reverted back to Christianity on his sickbed. The claims were refuted by Darwin’s children and have been dismissed as false by historians. His daughter, Henrietta, who was at his deathbed, said that he did not convert to Christianity. His last words were, in fact, directed at Emma: “Remember what a good wife you have been.”
Stu: No non-believer has ever attempted to disprove god.
Quote Good. But many non-believers say there is no God. Yet they have no proof.
On this point I have agreed with you over and over. Are you trying some kind of broken record technique here? I don’t need mathematical proof of god. I would be happy with one scrap of indisputable evidence that there is a supernatural being of the kind you describe. In all your posting you have not even supplied that. Therefore my provisional conclusion is that there is no god.Quote Theories that become fact because men want to believe it so. Same with Evolution. A theory becomes a fact to those who want it to be true. A belief system with no proof.
Pot, kettle, black, once again. Let be be dull and repeat myself: a fact is a conclusion that is so well supported by evidence that it would be perverse to deny it. That is the best science can do, and it is good enough to provide the technology to carry around 10,000 songs in your pocket and to save people’s lives. That’s not bad for ‘belief systems’ that are not proven to mathematical standard. Give me one equivalent benefit that arises from the ‘revealed knowledge’ in Genesis.Quote Charlie thought he had the proof but his observations do not necessarily lead to his conclusions.
You should put up your alternative or do the decent thing and stay quiet until you have an alternative theory.Quote Men can observe the same thing and have different reasons as to why.
Perhaps you would like to explain why it is only religious fundamentalists who insist on a ‘different reason’.Quote But to deny God is foolish. It is like denying that there was no builder of a house. That a house came about by processes with no intelligence involved in the building of the house or even no intelligence in the processes that may have constructed it.
I deny your god, and I deny Jesus is the messiah.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 14 2008,17:08) I deny your god, and I deny Jesus is the messiah. Stuart
Fine. But some of us believe in both, and should have the freedom to do so without having non-believers continually pushing their point don't you think?Quote (Heavens @ Feb. 14 2008,17:54) Quote (Stu @ Feb. 14 2008,17:08) I deny your god, and I deny Jesus is the messiah. Stuart
Fine. But some of us believe in both, and should have the freedom to do so without having non-believers continually pushing their point don't you think?
I did not push this point. I was responding to another point-pusher.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 14 2008,17:08) On this point I have agreed with you over and over. Are you trying some kind of broken record technique here? I don’t need mathematical proof of god. I would be happy with one scrap of indisputable evidence that there is a supernatural being of the kind you describe. In all your posting you have not even supplied that. Therefore my provisional conclusion is that there is no god.
If you have agreed with this, then why do you preach that there is no God and yet agree that you cannot know this for sure.You are double minded or at least by your own admission I can only assume that your knowledge is unstable.
I would never say that there is no life on any other planet in the universe because I have never visited all the trillions of planets.
Likewise to say that that there is no God and yet also admit that you cannot know this for sure, is truly just plain silly.
And if your conclusion is that there is no God, then that is your gamble to take, but you preach it so as to try and coax others to believe as you do.
That is sad Stu.
Quote (t8 @ Feb. 14 2008,22:01) Quote (Stu @ Feb. 14 2008,17:08) On this point I have agreed with you over and over. Are you trying some kind of broken record technique here? I don’t need mathematical proof of god. I would be happy with one scrap of indisputable evidence that there is a supernatural being of the kind you describe. In all your posting you have not even supplied that. Therefore my provisional conclusion is that there is no god.
If you have agreed with this, then why do you preach that there is no God and yet agree that you cannot know this for sure.You are double minded or at least by your own admission I can only assume that your knowledge is unstable.
I would never say that there is no life on any other planet in the universe because I have never visited all the trillions of planets.
Likewise to say that that there is no God and yet also admit that you cannot know this for sure, is truly just plain silly.
And if your conclusion is that there is no God, then that is your gamble to take, but you preach it so as to try and coax others to believe as you do.
That is sad Stu.
What do you think 'provisional conclusion' means, t8?Stuart
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 15 2008,05:36) Hi t8,
Misery loves companyI was once like Stu….in the sense that I didn't believe, but I'm at a loss as why he spends so much time preaching his theories at a believer's forum?
Why isn't Stu enjoying the company of others who have the same ideals? That's what I did, when I didn't believe.
Mind you, the Lord preaches to reach out to others and spread the word – maybe that's what the athiest religion preaches too?
Hi H,
If Stu was truly a nonbeliever we would not see him here where the good news is savoured.
He has a determined mission to spread his own gospel of disbelief.
That suggests he knows God but hates Him.Hi,
From Darwin-american museum of natural history“Orchid plants, members of a vast and ancient family, enchanted Darwin late in life and intrigue us still, more than a century later. With over 20,000 species in the wild today, each astonishingly adapted to its habitat and its pollinator in shape, size, color or fragrance, orchids embody life's richness. And it is that richness that Darwin's work allows us to understand.”
Really?Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 14 2008,15:20) Hi H,
If Stu was truly a nonbeliever we would not see him here where the good news is savoured.
He has a determined mission to spread his own gospel of disbelief.
That suggests he knows God but hates Him.
Actually, after quizzing some atheists I've encountered, you'd likely come up with this being the wrong answer. Rather, it is a reaction due to the invasive nature in which those of the Christian (and Muslim) religions try to force their beliefs on others and through public policies. In the US, there are many Christians who want to legislate morality. Many people do not desire that level of control in public policy.Hi,
From
“On truth and reality”Darwin imagined it might be possible that all life is descended from an original species from ancient times. DNA evidence supports this idea.
Probably all organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial life form. There is grandeur in this view of life that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved. (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species)What a wonderful expanding cycle of development, self determined and progressive,
with no end in sight to this amazing divine miracleQuote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 14 2008,16:21) Hi KJ,
Christ was apolitical.
So are we.
Many Christians are very political. So just to say you are not means little in the face of overwhelming involvement by evangelicals.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
