Forums → WEPR → Theism and Atheism
| 4668 | 1394129 |
I grew up atheist for 16 years. I had always kept an open mind towards religion, but never really felt a need to believe in it. My sister started going to a Wednesday night children's program at a church. Eventually, I was dragged into a Christmas Eve service. Scoffing, I reluctantly went, assuming that this was going to be a load of crap, but when I went, I felt something. Something that I've never felt before. I felt a sense of empowerment and a sense of calling. Jesus called upon my soul, just like he did with his disciples. he wanted me to follow him. Now, my life is being lived for Christ. He died on the cross for my sins, and the sins of everyone who believes in him. He was beaten, brutalized, struck with a whip 39 times, made to carry a cross up to the stage of his death. This I believe to be true, and I can never repay him for what he has done.
I still have my struggles with Christianity, but I've found this bit of information most useful. Religion is not comprehensible in the human mind, because we cannot comprehend the idea of a perfect and supreme being, a God, but we can believe it in our heart, and that's the idea of faith. Faith is, even though everything rides against me believing in Jesus, I still believe in him because I know that it's true in my heart. I invite my fellow Brothers and sisters of the LORD to talk about how Jesus has helped you in your life. No atheists and no insults please
- 4,668 Replies
It may be necessary to first solve the problem of coming to a workable agreed-upon definition of evil.
Not really possible in an absolute sense due to individual perspectives on all events, so a dictionary definition will have to do.
Okay, but, even ignoring all the subjective stuff, we would get something like this:
Objective definition of evil (adjective):
[2] b : causing discomfort or repulsion : UNCOMFORTABLE, OFFENSIVE, PAINFUL, FOUL [...] c : ANGRY, DISAGREEABLE, UNPLEASANT, WRATHFUL, MALIGNANT [...] 3 a : causing or tending to cause harm : BANEFUL, HARMFUL, PERNICIOUS [...] b : portending harm or misfortune [...]
Objective definition of evil (noun):
1 a : the fact of suffering and wickedness : the totality of undesirable, harmful, wicked acts, experiences, and things b : a cosmic force producing evil actions or states [...] 2 a : something that is injurious to moral or physical hapiness or welfare : MISFORTUNE, CALAMITY, DISASTER [...] esp : something (as a condition or practice) that has harmful effects [...]
Webster's Third New International Dictionary (unabridged)
This suggests that "evil" is just suffering or any cause of suffering.
[2] b : causing discomfort or repulsion : UNCOMFORTABLE, OFFENSIVE, PAINFUL, FOUL [...] c : ANGRY, DISAGREEABLE, UNPLEASANT, WRATHFUL, MALIGNANT [...] 3 a : causing or tending to cause harm : BANEFUL, HARMFUL, PERNICIOUS [...] b : portending harm or misfortune [...]
I would add to that, against or without the will of an individual and/or group.
if you don't mind, I would like to borrow this thread just this once. bear in mind, it will only be until @themastaplaya opens his comments so I can discuss it with him myself, but since he won't I have been forced to do this.
FYI: There is not logic behind the idea that people came from a pile of sloppy goo either. You obviously have no understanding of genetic sequencing.
since you're obviously so well-learned that you understand biology, lets dissect your statement then shall we?
"sloppy goo" is an obvious reference to abiogenesis, or the generation of biomolecules through the process of natural chemical reactions. this was proven to happen through use of the miller-urey experiment, where he created similar conditions to the environment of the early earth, and allowed it to cycle until the eventual formation of amino acids occured. through this same process, it is also likely that early fatty acids, and other biomolecules have been generated as well. If you don't lend credibility to the miller-urey experiment, then I suggest you watch this telling you about the process of abiogenesis. for your enjoyment, "mastaplaya".
as for genetic sequencing, you wouldn't have brought this up at all if you had any idea what you just said. genetic sequencing and abiogenesis, though they both pertain to biology, are only remotely related.
next time, I suggest you open your comments section, and talk with me in person, before I decide you need to be schooled again in public.
-Blade
He just popped out of existence. We loose to many theists to psychotic breakdown.
well that's too bad. if he isn't going to defend his stupidity, then he's nothing better than a moron who loves propaganda. we all know the dangers of people like this.
-Blade
this was proven to happen through use of the miller-urey experiment
*demonstrated to be possible. There are many hypotheses regarding the actual event.
this was proven to happen through use of the miller-urey experiment, where he created similar conditions to the environment of the early earth, and allowed it to cycle until the eventual formation of amino acids occured.
It's also important to note that the conditions of the original experiment replicating he early Earth environment might not have been right. Miller reran is experiment including the missing compounds and it failed to produce anything. That is usually where creationists like to leave off. However another individual, Jeffrey Bada noted there were still more elements missing from the brew and when those were added to the compounds added to the second experiment the result produced even more diverse organic molecules than the original Miller-Urey experiment did.
So in the end the corrected experiment actually gave results showing it even more likely than even the original experiment.
C'mon! Nobody here is old school anymore!
However, this is a blend of Theism and the soup idea of evolution. I love it.
C'mon! Nobody here is old school anymore!
However, this is a blend of Theism and the soup idea of evolution. I love it.
I'm not sure what you're trying to suggest with this. Could you elaborate?
It's a hilarious blend of Intelligent design and the "soup theory", because notice how the character that appears to be God is cooking up (or essentially creating) earth. I'm just making light of all this chatter here.
By the way, I love Gary Larson. Yes, The Far Side is what I'm referring to.
The Soup Theory is Abiogenesis.
How can you completely believe in evolution without believing in abiogenesis? Oh wait, you could be someone who believes in God (Theism), but also believes in evolution (Confused Person).
____________________________________________________________
FYI: Evolution is an extreme exaggeration of adaptation, something that can only, however, occur within a certain group of like species (ex. whales can only adapt in other but similar kinds of whales. Whales cannot adapt into geese)
How can you completely believe in evolution without believing in abiogenesis?
"How can you accept the theory of gravity without accepting the germ theory".
but also believes in evolution (Confused Person).
And pray tell, how is said person a "confused person"?
Evolution is an extreme exaggeration of adaptation,
No it isn't
something that can only, however, occur within a certain group of like species
So, in other words, you accept micro-evolution but not macro-evolution? That'd be like saying "yeah inches exist, but not yards".
The only difference between them is the amount of time.
Whales cannot adapt into geese)
Exactly...and evolution explains that.
Also, I advise moving this evolution talk to the evolution thread.
Pang, you must give reasons why you say what you do.
No it isn't
..Is childish and quarrelsome. Seriously, "no it isn't" and all ofyour other meaningless squaking means noting except that you are covering your ears and shout out loud noise to avoid hearing me. And don't turn this around and say that I'm doing that 'cause I'm not. I can't be. You are saying nothing and you are showing me nothing but absolute and total crap!
You must be logged in to post a reply!