It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why , When , and How !?!?!?! (Please Need Everyone Involved for This One)

page: 5
8
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 24 2007 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Deus_Brandon
You have to speak the same language to communicate.

What I am trying to say is you have to experience the same things to be able to communicate to someone who has experienced something that changed thier beliefs.


I understand what you're saying. But I'm talking about from a Biblical perspective, not from the perspective of an atheist. Yes, from an atheist's perspective, there's no such thing as an unpardonable sin.

I mean from a Biblical perspective (totally disregarding the atheistic view) an atheist cannot commit the Unpardonable Sin.

And that, to me, is irony.




posted on May, 24 2007 @ 03:36 PM
link   
As the bible views it ... ??? I have never read a verse in the bible that talks about an Athiest ... Now I have read about UNBELIEVERS ... But I believe that this is different because like Saul ... Who became Paul ... He was an UNBELIEVER ... before he was a christian ... or a Follower of Christ ... ... So he couldn't have been athiest ... Right ???

Or I guess an Athiest could change their opinion and change to be something else ... or could they ???? Athiests to me is not a religion it is a belief within ones self that either one ... They belief in SCIENCE ... and that religion that is based on Science and Physical proof. or They believe in thiersleves being some sort of God.



Originally posted by yeahright

Originally posted by Deus_Brandon
You have to speak the same language to communicate.

What I am trying to say is you have to experience the same things to be able to communicate to someone who has experienced something that changed thier beliefs.


I understand what you're saying. But I'm talking about from a Biblical perspective, not from the perspective of an atheist. Yes, from an atheist's perspective, there's no such thing as an unpardonable sin.

I mean from a Biblical perspective (totally disregarding the atheistic view) an atheist cannot commit the Unpardonable Sin.

And that, to me, is irony.

GREAT QUESTION GOT ME TO THINKING

[edit on 24-5-2007 by Deus_Brandon]



posted on May, 24 2007 @ 03:57 PM
link   
It's a bit confusing, I agree. Here was my basic point - in order to commit the unforgivable/unpardonable sin, you have to first believe in God. Without a belief in God, you cannot "knowingly" attribute the works of God to Satan. Which is the unforgivable sin. You have to "know" there's a God, and you have to "knowingly" commit the blasphemy of attributing God's works to Satan.

This came about as a result of the Pharisees who actually witnessed the miracles of Christ and knowing they were the work of God, claimed them to be Satanic (according to The Bible).

The short course is, don't worry about an unpardonable sin. For us today, there is no such thing.

We're all sinners, but the debt has been paid. All we have to do is accept it. And if anyone can show me where it says in the Christian Bible we have to accept it NOW in This Lifetime, or suffer eternal damnation, I'd like to see it.

It's an all-skate, folks. God's will is that we all be saved. Every last unworthy sinning worthless crapstack on Earth. We won't all get there at the same time, and the process may be a bit more uh...rigorous for some than it will be for others, but when it happens, it will be fair and it will make sense.

And you can sue me on the next plane of existence if I'm wrong.



posted on May, 25 2007 @ 10:04 AM
link   
Consider youself sued ... =-) ... TEEEHEEEE ....


LOL

Anyways, I found this ... and it is a pretty good article.



Jesus said, "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." (John 15:13) How can you show more love than giving your very life for someone else's life? You can't. What is more amazing is that Jesus died for us WHEN WE WERE HIS ENEMIES! I mean vile, wicked, pitiful, wretched, unclean, unholy, ungodly, prideful, spiritually leperous.

Romans 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

...Christ died for the ungodly. (Romans 5:6)

The love of God for you was demonstrated on that cross 2,000 years ago! God ain't hateful, He is loving. He gave His Son for you even though you are dead in tresspasses and sins.

Ephesians 2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
2:3 Among whom also we ALL had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
2:4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved

2:6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
2:7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
VERY GOOD ARTICLE !!!!!!!!!!!!



posted on May, 25 2007 @ 08:10 PM
link   
Well I am firmly entrenched in the Atheist camp. If people want to worship an non existent higher power they are free to do so just don't expect me to have a bar of it. Organized religion is nothing more then a means of controlling the masses .

Now you all have my take on the matter.



posted on May, 29 2007 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Thought this to be as good an explanation as any .... Would love to have a couple of relies on it ... From my good friend JCOPE ...

Science proves the existence of God



When I spoke about the definition of worship yesterday, we learned that it involved seeing God for who He is, seeing ourselves for who we are, and responding to God accordingly. I am starting to see that these requirements have to be done in this order to really build a good foundation for a blessed and meaningful life. These things are not meant to happen overnight. It will take us a lifetime and then some to fully know God really is. This open communion with God is the key component we have to live our lives to the fullest.

So in the first step we have to know God for who He is. In our foundation building, we not only have to believe that God exists, we have to know it beyond a reasonable doubt. This is the kind of belief that can't be shaken by what a novel, a movie, or any person has to say about God. When I say any person, I mean ANY person. Even me. Why would I go to discredit myself? Consider what the Bible says....

We know only a portion of the truth, and what we say about God is always incomplete. But when the Complete arrives, our incompletes will be canceled.
1 Corinthians 13:9-10

The only way that you can really know that you know that you know that God exists is that you have to know it in your core. You can't really do things like ask God for help if you still doubt His existence. To start a prayer off with "God if you exist," is an oxymoron. It doesn't make sense. If you had to call your parents and ask them for something you wouldn't start the conversation of with "Mom, if you are real, please help me out".

We also have to understand that science will always have some new theory that "proves" that there is no God, or that God didn't create the universe. You have to also understand that there will always be some one claiming to have the information that attempts to taint God and His Word. You see all that money that Dan Brown made with The Da vinci code. You better believe there are going to be another ten authors attempting the same outcome using the same platform.

But look at what the Bible says about this.....

The unspiritual self, just as it is by nature, can't receive the gifts of God's Spirit. There's no capacity for them. They seem like so much silliness. Spirit can be known only by spirit—God's Spirit and our spirits in open communion.
1 Corinthians 2:14-16

So you see those who don't believe in God not only don't understand God but they count the gifts of God as foolishness. You may know some people who are this way. You really should take a look at how much you value these peoples opinions over what God has to say. If other's opinions matter more to you than what God says then you have to consider how deep your belief and your faith in God is. Let's look at the rest of this scripture....

Spiritually alive, we have access to everything God's Spirit is doing, and can't be judged by unspiritual critics. Isaiah's question, "Is there anyone around who knows God's Spirit, anyone who knows what he is doing?" has been answered: Christ knows, and we have Christ's Spirit.

In order for us to really know about the things of God it has to be known by our spirits first. This is where Christ comes in and speaks to us, this is where we learn about our purpose and the gifts that God desires to give us. These aren't the gifts that any man can see and say "That's a good gift" it's the gifts that can't be seen that truly benefit us.

Don't believe the hype of Darwin. The theory of evolution is just that A THEORY. It's only a model of what scientists think may be the answer. In my current Bible studies, the current commentary that I am studying actually is using science to show God's existence and purpose.Let's take a little look at molecular biology.

Hubert Yockey (Information Theory and Molecular Biology) published a monograph on the microbiology infromation theory , and employed the mathematics necessary to determine the probability of creating a protein by mindless chance, as specified by evolution.

Accordingly, the probability of evolving one molecule of iso-1-cytichrime c, a small protein common in plants and animals, is an astounding one in 2.3x 10 to the 75th power. This is one chance in more than 1 followed by seventy five zeros.

That is what is required to just evolve one molecule, which is so small you can't see it with even the best technology. As a point of reference, it is estimated that the number of atoms in the visible universe is 1x10 to the 79th power. That's 1 followed by 79 zeros.

Or to put it in evolutionary terms: if a random mutation occors every second from the alleged beginning of a 20 billion year old earth, then to date that one protein molecule would be only an extremely small percentage of the completion.

So how many universe lifetimes would it take to evolve enough molecules to make a human being? With approximately 1.6x10 to the 27th power molecules in the average adult human body, it could take a bewildering 5.8x10 to the 84th universe lifetimes! The evolution theory requires an almost implausible amount of time for human kind to be created, making evolution logically improbable.

Yockey concluded, "The origin of life, by chance in a primeval soup, is impossible in probability, in the same way that a perpetual motion machis is impossible in probabilty." If the foundation of the earth is to be laid, there had to be time-in fact, by evolutions own criteria, a great deal of time. So even if earth existed for a hundred and fifty billion years the evolutionary time period would not be feasible.

Is molecular biology too much for your senses? Just consider the basic stuff. If our planet was positioned a fraction closer to the sun the earth would be burned to cosmic dust. If we are just a fraction away from the sun the earth would be a giant ice ball. The moon must have its mathematical gravitational pull exactly in balance with the earth's gravatational pull. If it were just a fraction off, the earth would be flooded with huge tidal waves.

Just because scientists believe that knowing the gifts of God is silliness doesn't mean that we have to count science as silliness. If we embrace the truth of science then we can ultimately appreciate God for being the creator of science and mathematics. If we take time to appreciate the creation that God has placed in front of us then we can begin to get a real grip on His magnitude and for who He is.

So when you don't feel close to God take some time appreciate creation. You don't need a lab coat and a microscope to do it either. Just take some time to be alone with nature and appreciate the careful detail that God used to create so much. Your perspective will change when it comes to those points in your life when you need God to bring some creativity into your existence.



posted on May, 29 2007 @ 12:52 PM
link   
Well, I disagree, naturally.

Scientists use the word THEORY because the concept in question is always open to new information and to evolve. It is not meant as theory the way laypeople understand it, which more accurately is hypothesis.

Creationists and theists always use the word "theory" like it means that it's just a guess. It is not. It is the best information science has at the moment, but scientists, unlike theists, understand that their understanding can always change as more information comes in, and therefore the theory remains a theory because it can always change and grow. It does not mean that it might not be true. It is true to the best of our ability to know AT THE PRESENT MOMENT.

And using Occam's Razor, the molecule evolving on its own is still simpler than believing some entity created it and everything else in only seven days.

It's a really nice try, to refute science with science, but I''m not buying it.



posted on May, 29 2007 @ 02:26 PM
link   
I thought a Hypothesis = An Educated Guess ?? ... But a theory could be wrong in theory ?? Interesting concept .. as I do not even begin to understand the concept ... of Occam's Razor and the whole "molecule evolving" bit ... although I can concieve a notion of it I would by no means be trying to comprehend what they are really studying. Other than change in Molecules.

Anyways .... Would love to hear why you don't believe that this is true or a good argument point as why ... Other than God created the eather in 7 days. Hmmm ... Sounds alittle failable .... (IF thats even a word)


Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
Well, I disagree, naturally.

Scientists use the word THEORY because the concept in question is always open to new information and to evolve. It is not meant as theory the way laypeople understand it, which more accurately is hypothesis.

Creationists and theists always use the word "theory" like it means that it's just a guess. It is not. It is the best information science has at the moment, but scientists, unlike theists, understand that their understanding can always change as more information comes in, and therefore the theory remains a theory because it can always change and grow. It does not mean that it might not be true. It is true to the best of our ability to know AT THE PRESENT MOMENT.

And using Occam's Razor, the molecule evolving on its own is still simpler than believing some entity created it and everything else in only seven days.

It's a really nice try, to refute science with science, but I''m not buying it.



posted on May, 29 2007 @ 02:26 PM
link   
I thought a Hypothesis = An Educated Guess ?? ... But a theory could be wrong in theory ?? Interesting concept .. as I do not even begin to understand the concept ... of Occam's Razor and the whole "molecule evolving" bit ... although I can concieve a notion of it I would by no means be trying to comprehend what they are really studying. Other than change in Molecules.

Anyways .... Would love to hear why you don't believe that this is true or a good argument point as why ... Other than God created the eather in 7 days. Hmmm ... Sounds alittle failable .... (IF thats even a word)


Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
Well, I disagree, naturally.

Scientists use the word THEORY because the concept in question is always open to new information and to evolve. It is not meant as theory the way laypeople understand it, which more accurately is hypothesis.

Creationists and theists always use the word "theory" like it means that it's just a guess. It is not. It is the best information science has at the moment, but scientists, unlike theists, understand that their understanding can always change as more information comes in, and therefore the theory remains a theory because it can always change and grow. It does not mean that it might not be true. It is true to the best of our ability to know AT THE PRESENT MOMENT.

And using Occam's Razor, the molecule evolving on its own is still simpler than believing some entity created it and everything else in only seven days.

It's a really nice try, to refute science with science, but I''m not buying it.



posted on May, 29 2007 @ 03:04 PM
link   
Scientists don't really like to use the word "Law". They prefer "theory", which means it's certainly more than an educated guess, and has not been disproven. "Hypothesis" would be closer to speculation.

Occam's Razor is basically a term to suggest we use the simplest explanation that works. Don't overcomplicate.

So in your example of "random mutation", you (or at least, Yockey) hypothesize that a divine hand must have been involved in the creation of life, and by extension, mankind. Major Malfunction hypothesizes it's at least as simple (believable) to attribute it to time, chance and circumstance.

I once heard an analogy that it would be more likely for a windstorm to blow through a junkyard and assemble a 747 than it would for life to spontaneously generate then "evolve" into humans.

Maybe. Maybe not. I'm comfortable with what I believe, but there's no way for me to impose it upon someone else, even if I had the inclination.



posted on May, 29 2007 @ 06:08 PM
link   



Hypothesis

1. A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.

2. Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption.

3. The antecedent of a conditional statement.

Theory (for scientific purposes)

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice.



www.thefreedictionary.com...
www.thefreedictionary.com...

I hope that this clears up what I was saying. Theory to people who are not scientists is defined usually by:




An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.



www.thefreedictionary.com...

I hope this illustrates that what scientists mean by "the theory of evolution" is not what is meant when creationists say "the theory of evolution."



posted on May, 30 2007 @ 09:25 AM
link   
This has cleared up everything that I had questions about pretty much ... Other than it is in relativity Theroies that we live by each day .... Anyways ... Thanks for all the Participation.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join