If you think you're too good to read my last post on this subject, you're not. That post is for anybody to read. Especially you. It covers a bit about how atheists get into the mindset that they're better than everyone else. (Which of course is bogus). Once you've done that, you should be ready for this one.
Atheists tend to hate God. Why? I don't know why you should; I quite like the guy. Maybe he's an authority figure, and you can't be bothered following his commands? Oddly enough, they're not that hard to follow if you give your life to his son Jesus. The problem is that it takes a real leap of faith to do that.
So they hate God, the very God who put them here in the first place. But it's incredibly difficult to hate God and yet still believe in him. This is what leads to ignorance, and therefore the atheists deny that he ever existed, instead relying on a bunch of "science" which they know to be lies, but are too afraid of God, because they hate him, but would rather believe what they know to be a lie.
It's not rocket science to lie about the truth and claiming the truth to be a lie; I mean, it's easier than first-grade math. And I'm pretty sure that this can be shown using university style math in some way.
This is the sort of hate that gets people into a deadlock. And they spend their lives hating God, even though he loves them dearly, and wants them to repent. This isn't new. Look in the Bible. 1 & 2 Kings feature it very often, mostly in lists of kings which have disobeyed him. There are also cases in the book of Psalms, the books of the prophets, and so on. They mostly consist of God telling Israel that he exists and that he knows that they're blatantly disobeying him while they're looking for silly little excuses not to obey him.
And that's the key. Atheists are constantly looking for silly little excuses to try to avoid the responsibilities given to them by God. They hate having someone else being in charge; they want to live their own selfish lives; they want power.
I shall hopefully cover that one next, as I believe that to be the primary cause for atheism.
24 April, 2009
23 April, 2009
Gods of atheism: Pride
Hopefully you haven't procrastinated on reading my last post on this subject. If you have, I suggest you read it now. It covers how adding a ridiculously large number of years doesn't exactly work considering that some vital parts of our life aren't old enough (I gave the sun as an example). Read that? Good. Let's move on.
I would have to say that, not just most, but every non-agnostic atheist I have encountered has been unnecessarily "sure" about their position, even if they have admitted flaws in their theory. "Oh yeah, the Bible is full of mistakes, blah blah blah." That kind of thing. They act like they know it all when they don't.
One of my MSN contacts whom I only know over the internet was wondering what my picture was of... It was from an article on the Answers in Genesis website, comparing the Bible and the theory of evolution.
Out of all the fields of "science", evolutionism (not the actual scientific side which is a part of biology) has got to be the most desperate and most flawed. Seriously, there's enough literature on the subject pointing out what's so horribly wrong with it. It's not science, it's a religion. And here's the clincher:
This guy calls himself a "rationalist".
Hopefully your BS detector should be ringing alarm bells. I know mine did. The term "rationalist" is among one of the worst terms I have ever heard when attributed to this subject. Those who are wise enough to be true rationalists are wise enough not to advertise it. This was something I wrote at Easter camp this year (although this was on the "Before God" page, but I still stand by it).
The term "rationalist" is more appropriate for an agnostic rather than an atheist. An agnostic will attempt to be rational about their worldview although at the same time their motives aren't exactly the greatest (if it's not God, we won't bag it), but at least they try to try. (Like Bart Simpson: "I can't promise I'll try, but I'll try to try.") An atheist will claim they are 100% right when they are 30% wrong (one part of me thinks it's higher while another thinks it's lower), as if righteousness will fit in a 130% scale. Try slicing 130% of a cake off. You can't do it (unless of course the cake is a lie).
The thing is, I can't pin the term "rationalist" to myself, or other creationists: who am I to judge? So, all we can really establish is that if they claim to be a rationalist, they aren't. It keeps it simple.
This god of atheism tends to cover believers of many of the so-called "New Age" religions, too, e.g. Bhuddism (not exactly "new", but it's suitable), neo-paganism, and the sick atheist joke known as Satanism. These are in order of respect: I generally respect Bhuddists (although sometimes they can get quite fired up... something obviously isn't working!), find something wrong with neo-pagans, and, if I'm ever a manager of something, will probably kick Satanists out of where I work unless they truly repent and leave their deluded idea of Satan behind.
In fact, excessive pride is the primary reason why people move on to one of these fads: because they think they're better than everyone else, including God, whom they persecute. Paired with ignorance, this generally doesn't happen, but is a deadly combination nonetheless. When they realise spirituality occurring, however, that's when the transitioning occurs.
Atheists tend to use the term "enlightened" and its variants. They claim to be enlightened because they pretend to be liberated. Paired with ignorance, they use the term. But, as I may have said earlier, you are never fully in control of your body. Either God is in charge, or Satan. No middle ground. In this case, I feel enlightened to know that God is in charge and that he isn't going to screw me over, unlike my experiences when Satan was in charge.
Examine yourself, and if your prejudice against God isn't too strong, I suggest you find someone who can help you. If your prejudice is too strong, however, you may find yourself looking into one of the "New Age" religions for "enlightenment"... all the while Satan is still in charge.
Next time, I hope to cover some more, maybe hate, prejudice, or something else if I can work something out. In the meantime, how about some neo-pagan wisdom?
I would have to say that, not just most, but every non-agnostic atheist I have encountered has been unnecessarily "sure" about their position, even if they have admitted flaws in their theory. "Oh yeah, the Bible is full of mistakes, blah blah blah." That kind of thing. They act like they know it all when they don't.
One of my MSN contacts whom I only know over the internet was wondering what my picture was of... It was from an article on the Answers in Genesis website, comparing the Bible and the theory of evolution.
Which one are you going to trust??"Replace rewritten with improved." What?!
The Bible: "It is written." - Matt 4:4
Evolution: It is REWRITTEN and REWRITTEN and ReWrItTeN and...
Out of all the fields of "science", evolutionism (not the actual scientific side which is a part of biology) has got to be the most desperate and most flawed. Seriously, there's enough literature on the subject pointing out what's so horribly wrong with it. It's not science, it's a religion. And here's the clincher:
This guy calls himself a "rationalist".
Hopefully your BS detector should be ringing alarm bells. I know mine did. The term "rationalist" is among one of the worst terms I have ever heard when attributed to this subject. Those who are wise enough to be true rationalists are wise enough not to advertise it. This was something I wrote at Easter camp this year (although this was on the "Before God" page, but I still stand by it).
The term "rationalist" is more appropriate for an agnostic rather than an atheist. An agnostic will attempt to be rational about their worldview although at the same time their motives aren't exactly the greatest (if it's not God, we won't bag it), but at least they try to try. (Like Bart Simpson: "I can't promise I'll try, but I'll try to try.") An atheist will claim they are 100% right when they are 30% wrong (one part of me thinks it's higher while another thinks it's lower), as if righteousness will fit in a 130% scale. Try slicing 130% of a cake off. You can't do it (unless of course the cake is a lie).
The thing is, I can't pin the term "rationalist" to myself, or other creationists: who am I to judge? So, all we can really establish is that if they claim to be a rationalist, they aren't. It keeps it simple.
This god of atheism tends to cover believers of many of the so-called "New Age" religions, too, e.g. Bhuddism (not exactly "new", but it's suitable), neo-paganism, and the sick atheist joke known as Satanism. These are in order of respect: I generally respect Bhuddists (although sometimes they can get quite fired up... something obviously isn't working!), find something wrong with neo-pagans, and, if I'm ever a manager of something, will probably kick Satanists out of where I work unless they truly repent and leave their deluded idea of Satan behind.
In fact, excessive pride is the primary reason why people move on to one of these fads: because they think they're better than everyone else, including God, whom they persecute. Paired with ignorance, this generally doesn't happen, but is a deadly combination nonetheless. When they realise spirituality occurring, however, that's when the transitioning occurs.
Atheists tend to use the term "enlightened" and its variants. They claim to be enlightened because they pretend to be liberated. Paired with ignorance, they use the term. But, as I may have said earlier, you are never fully in control of your body. Either God is in charge, or Satan. No middle ground. In this case, I feel enlightened to know that God is in charge and that he isn't going to screw me over, unlike my experiences when Satan was in charge.
Examine yourself, and if your prejudice against God isn't too strong, I suggest you find someone who can help you. If your prejudice is too strong, however, you may find yourself looking into one of the "New Age" religions for "enlightenment"... all the while Satan is still in charge.
Next time, I hope to cover some more, maybe hate, prejudice, or something else if I can work something out. In the meantime, how about some neo-pagan wisdom?
<@GreaseMonkey> when evolutionism came out, it took off with a big bang.That's not an excuse to make a one-off comment after you staying silent and me staying away for months, nenolod. You should know better. Running the network is not an excuse to be arrogant; in fact, it's a good excuse to abstain from that.
<@nenolod> your pun sucks
<@nenolod> that is all
22 April, 2009
Gods of atheism: Time
If you've ignored my last post on this subject, I suggest you read it now. Yesterday I started a series about the gods of atheism: ignorance. Hopefully it summed up that many atheists willfully ignore the fact that they're being fed lies. And now we move on to the next part.
Given enough time, one thing might evolve into another. The chances of a mutation occuring are quite low, one in a billion for a successful, single-CATG-pair mutation, let's say (it's in the millions or billions, I just can't remember). Now, that's when a cell duplicates, so it'd probably happen a few times in your life. But the information in your DNA is so complex that it'd take a LOT of time for one thing to properly mutate into another.
OK, I know that each of us have 23 chromosome pairs, making 46 in total.
Let's assume that 1% of the DNA is uncommon between partners, that we have one trillion CATG pairs per chromosome, and that all chromosomes are of equal length. (They're not. This just simplifies the argument.) Let's also say that the 1% of common DNA is evenly distributed between partners.
I would probably use a Poisson distribution assuming I could be bothered. The thing is, I can't, so I'm going to take a wild guess. Assume that 5 CATG pairs mutate. That's 5 out of 46,000,000,000,000. Let's take the 1%, and assume that 1% of it changes, leaving us with 4,600,000,005 out of 46,00O,000,000,000. Not much difference there, right? (The O marks where the 4,600,000,005 starts.)
46,000,000,000,000 / 4,600,000,005 = 9999.9999891304342 (or 10,000 up to 4dp). Assuming a linear approach, and that all humans have a baby on their 19th birthday and have sex with people exactly their age, it would take a minimum of 190,000 years (up from 3dp) for the DNA to change into another specimen, assuming that all DNA combinations work. However, that's assuming that the set of common DNA changes every time. It doesn't. We have to work on that 5 out of 46 trillion.
46,000,000,000,000 / 5 = 9,200,000,000,000. That's how many pairs of people it would take (total people = 18,400,000,000,000), assuming no uncommon DNA this time, to have any chance of raising the uncommon DNA up to that level.
How do we reach that number? Let's start with one pair of people. Let's assume that everyone gives birth to quadruplets, or two pairs, and that they only have intercourse once in their life. It would take 43.06521 iterations (round it up to 44 as they're iterations) to end up with that many partners. Now, 44*19 = 836 years to reach that population. Then we'd need another 836 years to come up with something completely different.
Assuming the odds of giving birth to quadruplets is 1 in 200,000. We have this occuring about 2^43 times. The odds of this happening every time is 200,000^(2^43) which equals (I am using GNU bc here.):
Runtime error (func=(main), adr=17): exponent too large in raise
Ouch. Try 10 iterations.
Now, I can't be bothered raising the odds to 50% to come up with something half-plausible, but as you can probably see, I would need to supply a lot of time. I am aware that this doesn't cover everything, but here's a best-case scenario, with a very strong lower limit, and very strict conditions. Of course, as you should know, DNA gives instructions on how to reproduce properly, and if these are tampered with, then they shouldn't be able to reproduce.
However, there is the point that we apparently share 98.5% of our DNA with a particular ape, the closest match found. Apparently we also share 40% of our DNA with lettuce and 60% of our DNA with bananas, and that a grape has more chromosomes than a human being. But given two truly random streams of DNA (which aren't going to reproduce unless you want to apply some pathetically unlikely odds), odds are they'll have a 25% similarity. But how does this scale work exactly, and are they using the same scale? Of course there'll be a close similarity, otherwise at least one won't reproduce.
From what I can establish, there is no one-to-one way of comparing DNA from two separate species, due to the differences in chromosome lengths and counts. Comparisons between human DNA and ape DNA range from 80% to 99% depending entirely on the scale used.
Quote (source):
Here's something else in that article:
Unfortunately for these atheists, there's evidence to suggest that we have only been here about 6,000 years, and the evidence pretty much rules out the possibility of there being a billion years. E.g. the age of the sun. In 1976, a group of Russian astronomers found out that the sun isn't a middle-aged star, but a very, very young one, no older than 7,500 years.
So where do you find the time? Well, it might explain it in another solar system, but not here. Either leave it as speculation for somewhere else, or find a better theory (and by better I don't mean "anything which doesn't involve a creator", and neither should you).
Given enough time, one thing might evolve into another. The chances of a mutation occuring are quite low, one in a billion for a successful, single-CATG-pair mutation, let's say (it's in the millions or billions, I just can't remember). Now, that's when a cell duplicates, so it'd probably happen a few times in your life. But the information in your DNA is so complex that it'd take a LOT of time for one thing to properly mutate into another.
OK, I know that each of us have 23 chromosome pairs, making 46 in total.
Let's assume that 1% of the DNA is uncommon between partners, that we have one trillion CATG pairs per chromosome, and that all chromosomes are of equal length. (They're not. This just simplifies the argument.) Let's also say that the 1% of common DNA is evenly distributed between partners.
I would probably use a Poisson distribution assuming I could be bothered. The thing is, I can't, so I'm going to take a wild guess. Assume that 5 CATG pairs mutate. That's 5 out of 46,000,000,000,000. Let's take the 1%, and assume that 1% of it changes, leaving us with 4,600,000,005 out of 46,00O,000,000,000. Not much difference there, right? (The O marks where the 4,600,000,005 starts.)
46,000,000,000,000 / 4,600,000,005 = 9999.9999891304342 (or 10,000 up to 4dp). Assuming a linear approach, and that all humans have a baby on their 19th birthday and have sex with people exactly their age, it would take a minimum of 190,000 years (up from 3dp) for the DNA to change into another specimen, assuming that all DNA combinations work. However, that's assuming that the set of common DNA changes every time. It doesn't. We have to work on that 5 out of 46 trillion.
46,000,000,000,000 / 5 = 9,200,000,000,000. That's how many pairs of people it would take (total people = 18,400,000,000,000), assuming no uncommon DNA this time, to have any chance of raising the uncommon DNA up to that level.
How do we reach that number? Let's start with one pair of people. Let's assume that everyone gives birth to quadruplets, or two pairs, and that they only have intercourse once in their life. It would take 43.06521 iterations (round it up to 44 as they're iterations) to end up with that many partners. Now, 44*19 = 836 years to reach that population. Then we'd need another 836 years to come up with something completely different.
Assuming the odds of giving birth to quadruplets is 1 in 200,000. We have this occuring about 2^43 times. The odds of this happening every time is 200,000^(2^43) which equals (I am using GNU bc here.):
Runtime error (func=(main), adr=17): exponent too large in raise
Ouch. Try 10 iterations.
200000^(2^10)5429 digits. That is painful. And it's only 10 iterations. As you can see, my theory just isn't going to work in that short timeframe of 836*2 = 1672 years.
17976931348623159077293051907890247336179769789423065727343008115773\
26758055009631327084773224075360211201138798713933576587897688144166\
22492847430639474124377767893424865485276302219601246094119453082952\
08500576883815068234246288147391311054082723716335051068458629823994\
72459384797163048353563296242241372160000000000000000000000000000000\
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
Now, I can't be bothered raising the odds to 50% to come up with something half-plausible, but as you can probably see, I would need to supply a lot of time. I am aware that this doesn't cover everything, but here's a best-case scenario, with a very strong lower limit, and very strict conditions. Of course, as you should know, DNA gives instructions on how to reproduce properly, and if these are tampered with, then they shouldn't be able to reproduce.
However, there is the point that we apparently share 98.5% of our DNA with a particular ape, the closest match found. Apparently we also share 40% of our DNA with lettuce and 60% of our DNA with bananas, and that a grape has more chromosomes than a human being. But given two truly random streams of DNA (which aren't going to reproduce unless you want to apply some pathetically unlikely odds), odds are they'll have a 25% similarity. But how does this scale work exactly, and are they using the same scale? Of course there'll be a close similarity, otherwise at least one won't reproduce.
From what I can establish, there is no one-to-one way of comparing DNA from two separate species, due to the differences in chromosome lengths and counts. Comparisons between human DNA and ape DNA range from 80% to 99% depending entirely on the scale used.
Quote (source):
Time didn't make me able to look someone in the eye. My father has tried that many times. For nearly 18 years I couldn't do it, at least not very well.Nobel prize–winning scientist George Wald once wrote,
However improbable we regard this event [evolution], or any of the steps it involves, given enough time, it will almost certainly happen at least once [...] . Time is the hero of the plot [...] . Given so much time, the impossible becomes possible, the possible becomes probable, the probable becomes virtually certain. One only has to wait; time itself performs miracles.
Here's something else in that article:
Atheists, when encountered with the problem of evolution being highly unlikely, decide to twist the odds in their favour. How do they do this? Simple. They add lots of time to the equation, and all of a sudden their odds look almost ever-so-slightly considerable. (Also, they add lots of space to the equation, too.) I've heard the term "time worship" before, and this is precisely what it is: adding time.What have scientists calculated the probability to be of an average- size protein occurring naturally? Walter Bradley, Ph.D. materials science, and Charles Thaxton, Ph.D. chemistry, calculated that the probability of amino acids forming into a protein is
4.9 x 10-191.
This is well beyond the laws of probability (1x10-50), and a protein is not even close to becoming a complete living cell. Sir Fred Hoyle, Ph.D. astronomy, and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Professor of Applied Math and Astronomy, calculated that the probability of getting a cell by naturalistic processes is
1 x 10-40,000.
No matter how large the environment one considers, life cannot have had a random beginning [...] . There are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (1020)2000 = 1040,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.
Unfortunately for these atheists, there's evidence to suggest that we have only been here about 6,000 years, and the evidence pretty much rules out the possibility of there being a billion years. E.g. the age of the sun. In 1976, a group of Russian astronomers found out that the sun isn't a middle-aged star, but a very, very young one, no older than 7,500 years.
So where do you find the time? Well, it might explain it in another solar system, but not here. Either leave it as speculation for somewhere else, or find a better theory (and by better I don't mean "anything which doesn't involve a creator", and neither should you).
21 April, 2009
I stand disgusted.
Here's a quick post before I go to bed.
On the ESP Ministries website (Exposing Satan's Power), there are a fair share of examples of the occult's hold on our society. Note that the person who runs ESP Ministries (Ben Alexander) was originally into witchcraft and the occult, but after some point he gave his life to God (read here). Let me sum up a few things I learnt:
On the ESP Ministries website (Exposing Satan's Power), there are a fair share of examples of the occult's hold on our society. Note that the person who runs ESP Ministries (Ben Alexander) was originally into witchcraft and the occult, but after some point he gave his life to God (read here). Let me sum up a few things I learnt:
- The Harry Potter series of books is based on actual Wiccan witchcraft, and written by a mythology student who contacted actual members of Wicca to produce a book about witchcraft.
- Also, a search for "witch" on the Scholastic website apparently leads people to the actual WICCA website, and info on "How to become a teen witch".
- Halloween was originally a day to let Satan be incredibly evil for one day so he would leave everyone alone for the rest of the year.
- While Wiccans claim to have "white witches", they often curse people for personal gain.
If you're truly ready to be disgusted, read this. If you enjoy what is happening, you seriously need help. I mean right now. Seriously, get help now. (The comment box is open for help if you need it.)The question is, are we really contacting the spirits of the dead, or are they demons impersonating the dead?. I was involved in all forms of psychic phenomena, starting with the Ouija Board and ending up in materialization, through a substance called ectoplasm. I write about this more fully in my book "Out From Darkness"
At first the spirit entities that we encountered in the phenomena of materialization through the substance called "ectoplasm" were quite friendly, but later on they materialized as horrible, grotesque looking creatures. THERE WAS NO WAY OF CONTROLLING THE SPIRIT WORLD.
Gods of atheism: Ignorance
I hosted a small LAN party for my birthday and invited a friend over. Yeah, sure, it's not much of one, but at least we used actual computers (as opposed to gaming consoles, which, unlike what you may think, do not constitute a LAN party). Now, this friend in question is an atheist, and playing games with him is quite revealing as to how he deals with issues.
He seemed to be excessively sure about things when the tables could turn. To be honest, most of the time, he was. He did a trick in capture-the-flag matches, though. When we both had each others' flags, and he was in the lead, he would stay at his base, and assumed that the bots on my team were not able to hunt him down. But then I found out that you could mark a waypoint, and hey, they went for it. Point it to his base, and sooner or later he gets munched, the flag gets returned, and I score.
Fortunately, this isn't an incredibly serious issue for him, as when I'm beating him, he doesn't complain, he just keeps calm. However, I do recall an occasion where he "cracked", and there was nothing truly ignorable; it had nothing to do with the game in question. (Although I think he was really tired at the time, too.)
Now, in terms of religion: he seems to just know the "fact" that "there is no God", because the Bible is just so full of mistakes. And he just seems so sure that evolution (as a creation theory) is reliable and has standed the test of time. On my old blog [warning: coarse language - this was started when I had a strong pottymouth] (which ironically is now run by someone who is somewhat atheistic), I did a rant about atheism [same warning] (another is about atheists on youtube and another is about hippies, but we're talking about this one). Let's copy-paste the point here (post made 30 Nov, 2008).
Now, whenever an atheist says that there are just so many contradictions, I ask them to supply examples. In the last opportunity I had with this guy, he was too tired, so no contradictions were given. Last opportunity I had with another atheist, however, he provided a couple of cases, one I could clarify, and the other where he didn't supply the contradictory phrases, so that case is still in limbo, although I have a feeling that it has been covered and solved before. Atheists tend to be quite ignorant about the fact that their proposed contradictions have been busted many times before.
Time for some miracles. It's about time I posted this one on this blog, as I think I've mentioned it before...
To sum it up:
Here's the other response I have heard: a scientific study on miracle healings... apparently the body can heal itself incredibly fast. Two problems. Firstly, why doesn't this happen every time one is injured? Why is it on a "rare" occasion? And secondly, are you disregarding divine intervention in place of a natural cause? From my point of view, God has clever ways of implementing miracles.
Why is ignorance so vital for the survival of atheism? Because if you could accept just one miracle, it would imply that there is something not naturalistic which breaks naturalistic theories.
Professor Richard Lewontin sums this up quite nicely:
Now, what if, all of a sudden, it were completely evident to all that there was a God? I believe that it will happen one day. Unfortunately for some, that day is called Judgement Day, so I cannot use this for my idea. But what if something happened before that?
Quite simply, science as we know it would change, and there would be requirements for at least some scientists to learn some history (SCARY O_O). Many, many textbooks would become invalid, and printing presses could go out of business. While the change would be quite shocking, I believe it would also be quite recoverable, although scary nonetheless.
Kinda like my life and my reluctance to give my life to God. When I finally did, a lot happened, which I'm sure I've explained earlier: I ate less, stopped being hateful, could look people in the eye, became less ashamed, stopped being such a perv, stopped drinking alcohol, and stopped being such a pottymouth (although such words do still come out, I don't really feel a need for them). And all the while, I was afraid of losing control of my life. I actually have more control over my life now.
Ultimately, I worked out that my life sucked as it was. If I had continued to ignore that, who knows what I would be?
I'm running out of ideas, and it's only 7:45pm. So yeah, let's end it here. Any questions, post them. I have probably missed things.
He seemed to be excessively sure about things when the tables could turn. To be honest, most of the time, he was. He did a trick in capture-the-flag matches, though. When we both had each others' flags, and he was in the lead, he would stay at his base, and assumed that the bots on my team were not able to hunt him down. But then I found out that you could mark a waypoint, and hey, they went for it. Point it to his base, and sooner or later he gets munched, the flag gets returned, and I score.
Fortunately, this isn't an incredibly serious issue for him, as when I'm beating him, he doesn't complain, he just keeps calm. However, I do recall an occasion where he "cracked", and there was nothing truly ignorable; it had nothing to do with the game in question. (Although I think he was really tired at the time, too.)
Now, in terms of religion: he seems to just know the "fact" that "there is no God", because the Bible is just so full of mistakes. And he just seems so sure that evolution (as a creation theory) is reliable and has standed the test of time. On my old blog [warning: coarse language - this was started when I had a strong pottymouth] (which ironically is now run by someone who is somewhat atheistic), I did a rant about atheism [same warning] (another is about atheists on youtube and another is about hippies, but we're talking about this one). Let's copy-paste the point here (post made 30 Nov, 2008).
9. "Evolution has survived the test of time."There's evidence pointing away from evolution, and to provide evidence for evolution, some people have gone so far to mix fossils to create intermediate species of their own. Ray Comfort's book "God Doesn't Believe in Atheists" mentions several of these, including one which involved a few bones and the rest made from plaster-of-Paris. On top of that, while that bit of ground is shaky, there's a gravitational pull, and there's nothing directly below that ground. He believes the big bang theory to be merely a placeholder, hoping that there will be a better theory. Of course, there's a better theory by my terminology, but not by his.
150 years. While being changed, of course. DNA, as we know it today, was discovered in 1953 [citation given], which would make that about 55 years. And how long has the Bible lasted? Thousands. Yet people still believe it.
Now, whenever an atheist says that there are just so many contradictions, I ask them to supply examples. In the last opportunity I had with this guy, he was too tired, so no contradictions were given. Last opportunity I had with another atheist, however, he provided a couple of cases, one I could clarify, and the other where he didn't supply the contradictory phrases, so that case is still in limbo, although I have a feeling that it has been covered and solved before. Atheists tend to be quite ignorant about the fact that their proposed contradictions have been busted many times before.
Time for some miracles. It's about time I posted this one on this blog, as I think I've mentioned it before...
Easter 2009: A girl who went to the easter camp I went to this year had broke her glasses on Saturday. Her eyesight was so bad that her glasses needed 3 lenses. The next morning, her friends prayed for her, that God would heal her eyesight. She opened her eyes and... it was still fuzzy. But a while later, she went back to her tent, and her friend gave her a book to read.My atheist friend whom I mentioned at the start approached this one by denying that it ever happened. If I ever get a photo of the girl in question holding her broken glasses up, I'll be keen to post it if I can. (In fact, I may have a photo of her from Bus Tour last year; I'm not sure if it's her, though. I'll have to ask her if I can put it on anyway, just to be fair.)
She could read it.
To sum it up:
GM: "It doesn't work from an atheistic point of view."Hang on. Did I just supply compelling evidence of a miracle? I think I did, didn't I? Albert Einstein, whether he was consistent or not, was dead right when he said that either nothing is a miracle or everything is a miracle. Now, why would you want to ignore that? Oh yeah, it then shatters your illusion of a world where there is no God, and you wouldn't want that, would you?
A: "That's the problem."
Here's the other response I have heard: a scientific study on miracle healings... apparently the body can heal itself incredibly fast. Two problems. Firstly, why doesn't this happen every time one is injured? Why is it on a "rare" occasion? And secondly, are you disregarding divine intervention in place of a natural cause? From my point of view, God has clever ways of implementing miracles.
Why is ignorance so vital for the survival of atheism? Because if you could accept just one miracle, it would imply that there is something not naturalistic which breaks naturalistic theories.
Professor Richard Lewontin sums this up quite nicely:
"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.There are people who, in order to teach certain sciences, must hold a suspension of disbelief and teach evolution in order to teach the whole course. In other words, to teach the course, they have to lie to their students, as explained here (comes with a complete article on the subject! Great fun! A+++++++ WOULD BUY FROM AGAIN.)
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that Miracles may happen."
Now, what if, all of a sudden, it were completely evident to all that there was a God? I believe that it will happen one day. Unfortunately for some, that day is called Judgement Day, so I cannot use this for my idea. But what if something happened before that?
Quite simply, science as we know it would change, and there would be requirements for at least some scientists to learn some history (SCARY O_O). Many, many textbooks would become invalid, and printing presses could go out of business. While the change would be quite shocking, I believe it would also be quite recoverable, although scary nonetheless.
Kinda like my life and my reluctance to give my life to God. When I finally did, a lot happened, which I'm sure I've explained earlier: I ate less, stopped being hateful, could look people in the eye, became less ashamed, stopped being such a perv, stopped drinking alcohol, and stopped being such a pottymouth (although such words do still come out, I don't really feel a need for them). And all the while, I was afraid of losing control of my life. I actually have more control over my life now.
Ultimately, I worked out that my life sucked as it was. If I had continued to ignore that, who knows what I would be?
I'm running out of ideas, and it's only 7:45pm. So yeah, let's end it here. Any questions, post them. I have probably missed things.
15 April, 2009
Homosexual marriage: If you want partnership, get a civil union.
Do you believe in true marriage? If so, you should believe that the female was created out of the male (sounds backwards, I know), and that when they engage in marriage, they become one. If you don't believe this, then don't get married. Get a civil union. Marriage is a religious issue.
As I see it, marriages and civil unions should both be classified as "recognised partnerships" from a legal standpoint; if not, then something's gone terribly wrong. I agree that two close friends living with each other should be able to be classified as "partners" without actually being "married" as such. There doesn't need to be anything sexual involved, just if they're living together and sticking up for one another, I believe that could be classified as a secular partnership.
The problem with homosexuality is that it comes under the classification as "lust". Truly sexual attraction with no true love involved can lead you very, very astray, with you landing up with someone you will probably learn to really hate. If you want to start a family, either find someone of the other gender you can fall in love with (don't try too hard, though), or find a baby to adopt (if a couple find it too hard to raise a baby, they can probably pass it on to a more capable couple or even individual, dare I say it).
On top of that, I would have to classify this sexual issue as a fetish. It's unnatural. You're wanting to put something where it's not supposed to go. Despite your thing not behaving most of the time (God-given, Satan-steered), putting it where it shouldn't go is just as bad as the act of lust itself. Double-whammy. Not good.
And just where exactly are you putting your tongue? I'm watching you too, girls. Your tongue should never go where you pee out of. Once again, a fetish.
If you've got a problem with getting a civil union, then obviously you're not that dedicated to them. You're looking for a quick fix to satisfy your unusual sexual urges and that's that. If you're really that dedicated, you will get a civil union.
Before I found God and properly gave my life to him, I used to be a macrophile (I thought I would never admit this in my whole life). Now that's a paraphilia. It still fits under the category of "unusual sexual urges" though, and yes, it is also lust, and it is also wrong, so that is why I've always tried to avoid it. I haven't had any relapses since then, but I'll still have to wait and see. Even if I'm deluded, faith in God works. Trust me.
But yeah, homosexual marriage is an anomaly. It's either not homosexual, or it's not a true marriage. Like I said, marriage is more than a dedication, it's a religious issue. If you want to be recognised as partners, and you truly care for them, go get a civil union.
But please, leave the baby hose out of the sewer outlet.
As I see it, marriages and civil unions should both be classified as "recognised partnerships" from a legal standpoint; if not, then something's gone terribly wrong. I agree that two close friends living with each other should be able to be classified as "partners" without actually being "married" as such. There doesn't need to be anything sexual involved, just if they're living together and sticking up for one another, I believe that could be classified as a secular partnership.
The problem with homosexuality is that it comes under the classification as "lust". Truly sexual attraction with no true love involved can lead you very, very astray, with you landing up with someone you will probably learn to really hate. If you want to start a family, either find someone of the other gender you can fall in love with (don't try too hard, though), or find a baby to adopt (if a couple find it too hard to raise a baby, they can probably pass it on to a more capable couple or even individual, dare I say it).
On top of that, I would have to classify this sexual issue as a fetish. It's unnatural. You're wanting to put something where it's not supposed to go. Despite your thing not behaving most of the time (God-given, Satan-steered), putting it where it shouldn't go is just as bad as the act of lust itself. Double-whammy. Not good.
And just where exactly are you putting your tongue? I'm watching you too, girls. Your tongue should never go where you pee out of. Once again, a fetish.
If you've got a problem with getting a civil union, then obviously you're not that dedicated to them. You're looking for a quick fix to satisfy your unusual sexual urges and that's that. If you're really that dedicated, you will get a civil union.
Before I found God and properly gave my life to him, I used to be a macrophile (I thought I would never admit this in my whole life). Now that's a paraphilia. It still fits under the category of "unusual sexual urges" though, and yes, it is also lust, and it is also wrong, so that is why I've always tried to avoid it. I haven't had any relapses since then, but I'll still have to wait and see. Even if I'm deluded, faith in God works. Trust me.
But yeah, homosexual marriage is an anomaly. It's either not homosexual, or it's not a true marriage. Like I said, marriage is more than a dedication, it's a religious issue. If you want to be recognised as partners, and you truly care for them, go get a civil union.
But please, leave the baby hose out of the sewer outlet.
14 April, 2009
Once and for all: Anything but once
Ever notice how someone says that "this will sort it out, once and for all", but unless it's a little niggly thing, it almost never is? It only works if everyone is being co-operative. But what if people hate your idea? Case in point. Until recently, VenomFangX was the YouTube atheist's favourite flamebait. Apparently he's 15.
Now, this should sort out the issue of naturalistic atheism "once and for all". But if you have a look at the mirror video on VenomFangXMirror (VFX censors his channel and videos, and deletes his own videos every now and then), and read the comments, you'll come across plenty of attacks...
Old or not, that argument is true. Something which is restricted to some boundaries is not going to "know" what's outside of it, unless something from outside the bounds does something. Your computer, for instance.
Oh, and just for kicks, I'll answer this one quite nicely:
Obviously VFX wasn't young enough to flame. So they decided to bully a 12-year-old for being honest about gay marriage. He's taking it better than a lot of people on YouTube; I mean, I probably couldn't do that at his age.
Jacob Myers (the guy who's now writing for the blunt knife instead of me) suggests that he may be spoonfed. But come on, there's no excuse to bully a 12-year-old, there really isn't, especially when you're telling him to die.
Thing is, there are people who are atheists because they're afraid that they'll have to follow rules which they just don't like [waaaaah! :'(], and so "nothing" will stop them. What's not so obvious is that you're never "at the steering wheel", or so to speak. I was at the point where I just couldn't control myself: I was doing things I didn't want to do and avoiding things I did want to do. I gave my life to God, and, believe in him or not, I actually have more control over my life now. Because it sucks to be steered by the Devil.
But because this isn't obvious, people are afraid to take the plunge. Either they're truly evil, or just shit-scared. I doubt the former occurs, as a lot of atheists I know at least have a good side.
And that explains why there seems to be no chance for a "once and for all", in this regard. If you would like me to extrapolate some other cases, post a comment and if I get round to it (read: if I remember), I'll probably give it a crack.
Yes, I agreed with both videos.
Now, this should sort out the issue of naturalistic atheism "once and for all". But if you have a look at the mirror video on VenomFangXMirror (VFX censors his channel and videos, and deletes his own videos every now and then), and read the comments, you'll come across plenty of attacks...
RPFS2008: The whole "outside the universe anything can happen" 'argument' is the last(severely flawed)bastion of a dying,and completely refuted and laughable,belief.Square circles, anyone?My God is doing his job fine, thanks. We're alive and kicking, how about you? I believe in miracles ("you sexy thing"), as I am, well, kinda a witness to one (I saw a video of an interview the day after it happened and someone talked about it on the day), and more than a witness to another. The miracles I am talking about happened at Easter this year at an Easter camp.
Old or not, that argument is true. Something which is restricted to some boundaries is not going to "know" what's outside of it, unless something from outside the bounds does something. Your computer, for instance.
Oh, and just for kicks, I'll answer this one quite nicely:
empbac: When he USED to be an atheist...? The kid's fifteen! How much life experience can he seriously expect us to believe he has?The main speaker at the easter camp I went to was 14 when he was converted. He's now 33. I'm turning 18 in a couple of days.
Obviously VFX wasn't young enough to flame. So they decided to bully a 12-year-old for being honest about gay marriage. He's taking it better than a lot of people on YouTube; I mean, I probably couldn't do that at his age.
Jacob Myers (the guy who's now writing for the blunt knife instead of me) suggests that he may be spoonfed. But come on, there's no excuse to bully a 12-year-old, there really isn't, especially when you're telling him to die.
Thing is, there are people who are atheists because they're afraid that they'll have to follow rules which they just don't like [waaaaah! :'(], and so "nothing" will stop them. What's not so obvious is that you're never "at the steering wheel", or so to speak. I was at the point where I just couldn't control myself: I was doing things I didn't want to do and avoiding things I did want to do. I gave my life to God, and, believe in him or not, I actually have more control over my life now. Because it sucks to be steered by the Devil.
But because this isn't obvious, people are afraid to take the plunge. Either they're truly evil, or just shit-scared. I doubt the former occurs, as a lot of atheists I know at least have a good side.
And that explains why there seems to be no chance for a "once and for all", in this regard. If you would like me to extrapolate some other cases, post a comment and if I get round to it (read: if I remember), I'll probably give it a crack.
Yes, I agreed with both videos.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)