God does NOT exist!

[pininsho]

I was reading recently about the time when quarks were discovered by particle physicists. Despite the fact that a quark has never been seen or actually identified, scientists believed in them

because their effects seemed to explain a lot of things quite neatly. There is some faith in that - and there is evidence. But the evidence doesn't appear in a clearly identifiable way.

 

Scientists didn't 'believe' in these sub atomic particles that later became known as Quarks. They knew they were there because there was overwhelming evidence from numerous independent experiments carried out around the world that things were happening at a sub atomic level that could only be explained in a mathematical/scientific way.

This is completely different to believing in something without any evidence just because it makes you feel wanted/loved/needed etc.

[Circa]

Scientists didn't 'believe' in these sub atomic particles that later became known as Quarks. They knew they were there because there was overwhelming evidence from numerous independent experiments carried out around the world that things were happening at a sub atomic level that could only be explained in a mathematical/scientific way.

This is completely different to believing in something without any evidence just because it makes you feel wanted/loved/needed etc.

 

what is the evidence that all theists believe in god because they feel wanted/loved/needed? this piece of "research" on the subject doesn't ring too true with me.

[flamingjimmy]

what is the evidence that all theists believe in god because they feel wanted/loved/needed? this piece of "research" on the subject doesn't ring too true with me.

 

What about the main point he made though that your example of the evidence for quarks being similar to the evidence for god being way way off?

 

Plek's right I'm afraid, you may not do it on purpose, but you seem to have a habit of ignoring the main points that people make and just picking a single little sentence out that you do have an argument against, or ascribing positions to posters that they did not take.

 

For example in this post you've set up a strawman, and neglected to comment on the actual point that Pinisho was making. You're pretending that Pinisho claimed he had evidence and was reffering to a piece of "research" (why you put it in quote marks I don't know, you weren't quoting him 'cause he didn't say it!) that showed that people believe in god because they feel wanted/loved/etc. He did not, he didn't even mention research.

 

 

 

Perhaps you don't do it on purpose but you certainly do do it, a lot.

[Circa]

What about the main point he made though that your example of the evidence for quarks being similar to the evidence for god being way way off?

 

Plek's right I'm afraid, you may not do it on purpose, but you seem to have a habit of ignoring the main points that people make and just picking a single little sentence out that you do have an argument against, or ascribing positions to posters that they did not take.

 

For example in this post you've set up a strawman, and neglected to comment on the actual point that Pinisho was making. You're pretending that Pinisho claimed he had evidence and was reffering to a piece of "research" (why you put it in quote marks I don't know, you weren't quoting him 'cause he didn't say it!) that showed that people believe in god because they feel wanted/loved/etc. He did not, he didn't even mention research.

 

 

 

Perhaps you don't do it on purpose but you certainly do do it, a lot.

 

Ok - for your benefit and pininsho's, I'll explain that i have seen no need to continue the point about the quarks - because i have already said what i see to be true about that. You and pininsho think that's way off, well - cool beans, but i have nothing to add, my mind is not changed and I see no need to play ping pong over it. If you guys want to take that as a major insult or breach of some hidden debating rule, I'll have to let you. None intended.

[flamingjimmy]

Ok - for your benefit and pininsho's, I'll explain that i have seen no need to continue the point about the quarks - because i have already said what i see to be true about that. You and pininsho think that's way off, well - cool beans, but i have nothing to add, my mind is not changed and I see no need to play ping pong over it.

 

You said this: "I was reading recently about the time when quarks were discovered by particle physicists. Despite the fact that a quark has never been seen or actually identified, scientists believed in them

because their effects seemed to explain a lot of things quite neatly. There is some faith in that - and there is evidence. But the evidence doesn't appear in a clearly identifiable way. I think that's

similar to the way god is."

 

My bold: this is not true, the evidence does appear in a clearly indentifiable way. You just don't seem to understand what it is! I suggest you read this article for more information on how we know quarks exist.

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/4000931/Experimental-Evidence-for-Quarks

 

To conclude, the quark model has explained the results of hundreds of experiments where no other theory could propose an adequate explanation. The experimentally determined properties of hadrons and their interactions are in perfect agreement with the model, and have been verified many time. Determining from scattering experiments that nucleons are composed of small, hard, charged, spin 1/2 particles makes it difficult to deny the physical existence of quarks, or consider them only useful as a mathematical construct."

 

Or if you like, just google 'experimental evidence for quarks' and you'll find others like this:thumbsup:

 

I think you should either admit you were wrong, or tell me why you think I'm wrong. Just saying 'I have nothing to add' and 'my mind is made up' is intellectually bankrupt.

[Grahame]

How about the Reverend Richard Fuller, who stated that: "what god sanctioned in the old testament, and permitted in in the new, cannot be a sin".

 

He even co-authored a book on the subject: Domestic Slavery Considered as a Scriptural Institution in 1845.

 

Christians or atheists? There are plenty more examples like this.

 

The message of the Bible is that if people gave up their wicked ways there would be "Peace on Earth." We are told to love our neighbour and to turn the other cheek and if everyone were to follow the Ten Commandments from the Old Testament and the teaching of Jesus into the New Testament, there would indeed be peace on earth. Unfortunately people have turned "everyone to their own way" and they choose darkness rather than light.

 

God did not say what the Reverend Richard Fuller says he said, and as I have just explained we are to live peacefully with our neighbour. If we do anything else we have sinned in the sight of God. What we need to remember is that God is the judge and if we are to take vengeance then it is us who are acting as Judge, jury and Executioner and that puts us in the wrong. "What god sanctioned in the old testament, and permitted in in the new" is this....

 

"It is mine to avenge; I will repay. In due time their foot will slip; their day of disaster is near and their doom rushes upon them. The LORD will judge his people and have compassion on his servants" [Deuteronomy 32:35]

 

"Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord." [Romans 12:19

 

"For we know him that has said, Vengeance belongs to me, I will recompense, said the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people." [Heb 10:30]

 

.

[EbonyBranch]

The message of the Bible is that if people gave up their wicked ways there would be "Peace on Earth." We are told to love our neighbour and to turn the other cheek and if everyone were to follow the Ten Commandments from the Old Testament and the teaching of Jesus into the New Testament, there would indeed be peace on earth. Unfortunately people have turned "everyone to their own way" and they choose darkness rather than light.

 

God did not say what the Reverend Richard Fuller says he said, and as I have just explained we are to live peacefully with our neighbour. If we do anything else we have sinned in the sight of God. What we need to remember is that God is the judge and if we are to take vengeance then it is us who are acting as Judge and Executioner and that puts us in the wrong. "What god sanctioned in the old testament, and permitted in in the new" is this....

 

"It is mine to avenge; I will repay. In due time their foot will slip; their day of disaster is near and their doom rushes upon them. The LORD will judge his people and have compassion on his servants" [Deuteronomy 32:35]

 

"Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord." [Romans 12:19

 

"For we know him that has said, Vengeance belongs to me, I will recompense, said the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people." [Heb 10:30]

 

.

 

I don't care whether you agree with his theology or not; was Fuller a christian or an atheist?

[plekhanov]

The rules of combat were that people were humanly given the opportunity to surrender thus ensuring their safety.

Safety from what? People who intend to enslave and/or massacre them, you know like the Israelites intended to do?

 

They would be subordinate but they would be protected from other nations because they now belonged to Israel and they would have been relatively free to live their lives as they always had done.

Relatively free! The bible states that non-Hebrew slaves were owned for life and could be beaten to death by slave owners so long as they took a while to die.

 

Should they choose not to surrender then it would be a fight to the death but the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city would be safe and looked after by the Israelites as there were no men of the city to care for the women and children and the Bible is very clear that they should be looked after.

'looked after' they were taken as sex slaves whom the Israelite soldier's could use and discard at their will or simply force them to work till they died.

 

I note that despite all your attempts at excusing the bibles advocacy of slavery & wars of conquest, slave taking and genocide you have yet to explain to us how a 'loving god' could possibly condone let alone encourage all of the above. Why doesn't his book say:

 

- Slavery is wrong, no human should own another, if you have slaves free them.

- Beating people to death is wrong, even if they are of inferior social status and take a while to die.

- Wars of aggression are wrong, do not invade other cities.

- Massacring people is wrong, do not massacre men, women or children.

 

You have now defended and attempted to justify:

- Slavery

- Beating slaves to death so long as they take a while to die.

- Invading a city to enslave the population

- Invading a city, killing all the men and enslaving the women and children.

- Invading a city and killing everyone.

 

And you dare criticise my morality for having slept with my wife before we got married

[plekhanov]

You are taking things out of context like all atheists do. Deuteronomy 20 is about when the Israelites were going into the Promised Land.

And every last man, woman and child being murdered is an appropriate punishment for the 'crime' of living on some land a book says a magic man in the sky promised to someone else is it?

 

You are now defending genocide Grahame. GENOCIDE

 

The passages you have given are when people disregard the Lord God like this,

 

"These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people."

 

This is precisely what you and your fellow atheists are doing by promoting promiscuity even among children by showing them how to use condoms, as a result there was a plague [sTi?} and promiscuity was not the only thing they were doing. In addition they had turned many of the Israelites against God. This is something else you atheists are seeking to do and turn people away from God.

So if you think people were rightly massacred in the OT for such 'crimes' does this mean that you think atheists and those who favour sex-ed today and their children should all be murdered?

 

This is a different kettle of fish to my reply to plekhanov and is an altogether more serious issue.

Once again you are flatly denying the bible, Deuteronomy 20:16-18 which I quoted also deals with your 'loving god' advocating genocide against people for the 'crime' of living on some land his 'chosen people' want.

 

First you deny the inerrancy of the Bible and you say none of these things ever happened and these places never existed etc. etc. Now you quote it when it suits you and that is typical of the hypocrisy of atheists.

You don't need to believe the bible has a word of truth in it to point out that it contradicts the claims those who say they believe it to be the inerrant word of god. Just as you don't need to believe 'The Merchant of Venice' to be literally true to quote from it to argue with someone who described Shylock as a cheery fun loving character.

 

Any more than all the times you've quoted from the Koran to argue against Muslims who claim theirs to be the 'religion of peace' mean that you must believe the Koran to be the word of god. The only hypocrite here is you as you yourself do exactly what you criticise others for doing.

[plekhanov]

If the British courts administer Justice it is not genocide. More than that they have to administer the law.

 

God is a God of Justice and a very fair and loving God as well.

 

http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/justiceofgod.html

If you kill every last man, woman and child in a civilisation that absolutely is genocide. And that is exactly what your holy book claims to have happened and what you are trying to defend.