Hell is an Unattended Stove

[Falconer02]

But people who aren't Christians can't understand these truths from God's Spirit. It all sounds foolish to them because only those who have the Spirit can understand what the Spirit means” (1 Corinthians 2:14).]"

But people who aren't scientologists can't understand the truths from Xenu's spirit! It all sounds foolish to THEM because only those who are level-4 scientologists can understand what Xenu is trying to do!

Both of these are cop-out advertisements of belief systems.

continued in response to Falconer:

Everything below this has already been discussed between Queen and Sherna so I really don't want it to spiral around again.

Predestination may raise some intellectual problems, but that is because man tries to wrap his finite mind around an infinite God. However, those who accept the gift of salvation become the “elect” of God

So don't think for yourself. Just be a drone to get a reward that has no proof of existing. How is this not another cop-out advertisement?

[shernajwine]

Given the choice between determinism and some evil guy with a pitchfork running around wreaking havoc, determinism seems a lot more plausible.

It's not a contest between determinism and the devil. It's conceding whether the mind is separate from the brain or just a byproduct. But I guess you're saying that it's either (my genes made me do it, or the devil made me do it?) In either case you are implying the absence of free will and then it's just a matter of what you are willing to accept as being in control. I don't believe in determinism and I don't think the devil can make me do anything I don't want to do. I am free to make my own choices.

Says who?  This isn't fact...

So you're saying that something could exist within our natural physical laws and time and be eternal? Being eternal means being immortal, universe or God....is immortality a naturalistic concept? No it isn't.

How convenient.  How can you be sure that there is supernatural going on in your life, then?  A scientist can't detect it, but you can?

Scientists could detect it, they just wouldn't be able to use natural processes to explain it. This is where the materialistic philosophy is infecting the field of science.
When the metaphysicians of science concede that science has its limitations, they usually mean that reality and NOT science is what is limited. Because science has to be able to explain everything, reality has to be limited to those things that science can explain. Because science understands only material causes, whatever cannot be reduced to material causes has to be ignored, whether it be complex specified aperiodic genetic information, or irreducibly complex organs, or consciousness itself.

Well, I'm sorry but I think it's pretty pathetic that when the evidence points towards a Creator materialists use the very science that gave the evidence, to say that unless it is falsifiable it can't be reality. WELL A SUPER UNIVERSE IS NOT FALSIFIABLE!
AND IT GETS BETTER..... The design position IS falsifiable, since advocates of naturalism could discover a natural process capable of creating the necessary information if such a process exists. If Neo-Darwinism were true as a general theory of biological creation, it would falsify the claim that some additional information-creating mechanism is necessary. (There is NO evidence that evolution can create information) The "design is religion, not science" position is not falsifiable because it decides the disputed question by the manipulation of words rather than by empirical investigation. Hence, by the standard of falsifiability the intelligent design hypothesis is scientific, and the refusal to consider it on its merits is unscientific.

Labeling an eternal universe "not natural" is a false assertion.  Again, the god you are arguing for is one that's obviously made up...I can't and won't believe in fantasy just to satisfy any fears about life's "purpose".

By what I have stated and probably it was already information you were aware of....the multi verse theory is null...because it is can't be proven. The prospect of finding a naturalistic cause for the origin of the universe is bleak at best, since the laws of physics indicate that we will never be able escape the bounds of our universe to even attempt to look for the cause of the universe. SO, what are you left with? A finite cosmos that HAD A BEGINNING. Now, remember whatever began to exist must have a cause, the universe had a beginning, therefore the universe has a cause.

As an atheist you are governed by two main principles: 1) all your beliefs must be supported by observational evidence, and 2) beliefs that contradict observational evidence cannot be tolerated. However, you state that there is no god, even though observational evidence indicates that the universe has a cause that cannot be detected observationally. So despite the lack of observational evidence for a naturalistic cause for the universe, you believe that the universe has a naturalistic cause and that there is no god, contradicting the tenet that all beliefs should be based upon observational evidence.

So, refuse to believe in God, call Him a fantasy....but you are going around here trying to tell people how intellectually dishonest they are when they stoop to believing in a sky daddy. But you don't even know what you believe and science can't give you an answer. So you contradict yourself by saying you are on the fence about determinism but make statements about "I am my brain". You make assertive statements about the mind being physical but then say you don't know, when I ask if you are a robot with no free will.

It sounds like you're confused.

I'm not.

Italics are quotes taken from The Wedge of Truth and godandscience.org

[queenofnines]

"[“But people who aren't Christians can't understand these truths from God's Spirit. It all sounds foolish to them because only those who have the Spirit can understand what the Spirit means” (1 Corinthians 2:14).]"

Yes we can, because most of us are ex-religious.  Why do y'all keep forgetting this??

This does not negate man's choice; rather it is confirmation of God's grace that some do choose salvation.

Predestination means to mark out or determine before hand.

Uh, read these two sentences separately and try to see the logical fallacy here.

Either way you slice it, if you are on Team God, your whole life IS already determined (you just can't know it).  If you are on Team Science, your whole life MAY be already determined (if you believe in strict physical laws with no other explanation).  Determinism is claimed in both cases, and yet we have this undeniable feeling of some will in either.  What a conundrum.

[queenofnines]

It's not a contest between determinism and the devil.

That's actually not what I meant, but I can see where you might have thought that.  I meant in a choice between determinism and the fantastical fairy tales of religion, determinism grants way more respect.

But I guess you're saying that it's either (my genes made me do it, or the devil made me do it?)

Again, I picked the wrong example of a bonkers aspect of Christianity.  But what you state is definitely how many would describe it.  In my opinion, it's either my genes made me do it, or there's some other explanation that doesn't rely on recycled primitive myths.

I don't believe in determinism and I don't think the devil can make me do anything I don't want to do. I am free to make my own choices.

But god already knows your entire future; you are merely going through the motions of a book that's already been written.  HOW IS THAT FREE?

So you're saying that something could exist within our natural physical laws and time and be eternal? Being eternal means being immortal, universe or God....is immortality a naturalistic concept? No it isn't.

I'm not a scientist or physicist, but from what I've gathered, yes it's possible for the potential for universes to have always existed (we don't know).  You're forgetting that universes are born, change form, and die, only to be recycled again.  Physical laws are not necessarily always the same in each new form of a universe.  And time is a man-made concept.  As for mortality, the universe isn't "alive" in the way we are, so I don't think this is a valid argument.

Well, I'm sorry but I think it's pretty pathetic that when the evidence points towards a Creator materialists use the very science that gave the evidence, to say that unless it is falsifiable it can't be reality.

Something theists like to do is swap out their personal god for a general one.  The scientific evidence points AWAY from Biblegod, and this is who you are arguing for, is it not??  Some examples of how the evidence points away from Biblegod include: the age of the earth, evolution, dinosaurs, no geological record of a global flood, DNA that traces all species back to common animal ancestors.

the multi verse theory is null...because it is can't be proven.

God is null...because he can't be proven.    Do you see the problem with saying something like that?  An idea isn't null until new facts and concepts have replaced it (obviously there are some extreme examples where this statement doesn't apply).

The prospect of finding a naturalistic cause for the origin of the universe is bleak at best, since the laws of physics indicate that we will never be able escape the bounds of our universe to even attempt to look for the cause of the universe.

The future of science is never "bleak"!  Theists are content to stop trying, to stop exploring...because they already know the answer: "God did it!"  That type of poor thinking is why religion holds us back and gets us NOWHERE.

Now, remember whatever began to exist must have a cause, the universe had a beginning, therefore the universe has a cause.

Sounds like a broken record.  Of course our current universe had a cause!!

So despite the lack of observational evidence for a naturalistic cause for the universe, you believe that the universe has a naturalistic cause and that there is no god, contradicting the tenet that all beliefs should be based upon observational evidence.

We've already been over this in another thread...such a statement drives home how much theists HATE not knowing.  It makes you guys so uncomfortable, and the phrasing reminds me of childish taunts.  "Stupid scientists!  You guys don't KNOW how the Big Bang started, therefore, you're wrong!  Neener, neener, neener!"  Everything that followed the Big Bang had a natural cause, so it's incredibly likely that it, too, had one.  Nonetheless, it takes HUMILITY to realize one's tiny place in the universe and to not claim things we cannot currently know.  It takes willful self-delusion to rely on ancient, pre-scientific myths and say you have the ultimate answer.

But you don't even know what you believe and science can't give you an answer. So you contradict yourself by saying you are on the fence about determinism but make statements about "I am my brain". You make assertive statements about the mind being physical but then say you don't know, when I ask if you are a robot with no free will.  It sounds like you're confused.

And it sounds like you have incredibly high expectations for everyone who is outside of your club.  Again, there is nothing wrong with saying "I'm not sure", or "I'm leaning towards this, but I'm not going to put all of my eggs in that basket until the EVIDENCE is in."  That's how science goes about things and intellectually honest, objective people too.

[shernajwine]

But god already knows your entire future; you are merely going through the motions of a book that's already been written.  HOW IS THAT FREE?

Knowing is not causing. I make the choice, God knew I would make it.

The scientific evidence points AWAY from Biblegod, and this is who you are arguing for, is it not??  Some examples of how the evidence points away from Biblegod include: the age of the earth, evolution, dinosaurs, no geological record of a global flood, DNA that traces all species back to common animal ancestors.

1.Age of the earth-completely consistent with Genesis. I have said this before and you and falconer dismiss it saying "that's not what other christians say". Well, now your just ignoring relevant information so you can continue to argue your point. You may have read this information already? http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/creation.html

2.Evolution-The text book typically defines as evolution as "change over time" or "change in gene frequency" this is irrefutable observed scientific fact. To falsify Intelligent Design evolution has to be irrefutably proven to have the ability to create information. The genome of a bacterium, which can be described as a miniature chemical factory of astounding complexity, contains an enormous amount of information. Dawkins himself likes to say that the bacterial cell contains more information that the entire Encyclopedia Britannica. Our bodies contain a vast number of these cells working together in marvelous harmony. If evolution produced these wonderful things, then evolution must be very productive at creating information.
When evolution is defined as "change", the scientists at least have some observed examples to cite. When evolution is defined as "information creation" they have nothing but speculation. Information creating evolution is not empirical science at all because it has never been observed either in the wild or in the laboratory.

So, evolution does not disprove "biblegod" in that it has not disproven Intelligent Design and "biblegod" is a very legitimate candidate for the Designer.

3.Dinosaurs. Well when you look at old earth creation theory you see that dinosaurs existed and became extinct before the creation of man.

4. Proof of global flood. I think we went over this in another thread. There is reliable biblical interpretation that suggests the flood was local.
(I would like to amend here that in that particular thread I suggested that baby dinosaurs could have represented the species on the ark...at the time I was still fuzzy about earth age theory)

5.DNA similarity_ Similarity (“homology”) is not an absolute indication of common ancestry (Evolution) but certainly points to a common designer (creation). Think about a Porsche and Volkswagen “beetle” car. They both have air-cooled, flat, horizontally-opposed, 4-cylinder engines in the rear, independent suspension, two doors, boot (trunk) in the front, and many other similarities ('homologies'). Why do these two very different cars have so many similarities? Because they had the same designer! Whether similarity is morphological (appearance), or biochemical, is of no consequence to the lack of logic in this argument for evolution.

God is null...because he can't be proven

I don't believe that....if I were a materialist then of course I would...my point is the contradiction they make when they use an idea like a multi verse to get around the "fine tuning" and universe cause issues. A concept that is untestable, is sufficient for them as long as it continues to deny that God could exist.

Theists are content to stop trying, to stop exploring...because they already know the answer: "God did it!"

That's not true in the least! I personally know theists, Christians, that are very passionate about science and exploring things and learning new things. We just aren't so narrow minded to say that God isn't a relevant explanation for things science CAN'T explain! And materialist philosophy stifles curiosity in much the same way, since, wherever evolution completely fails to explain something.....the continue to believe a FALSE theory by saying "evolution did it". That leaves no room for any more ideas because evolution has already failed at explaining it, so you have met a dead end. You're not believing evolution because it has all the answers, you're believing in it despite the answer it points to.

"Stupid scientists!  You guys don't KNOW how the Big Bang started, therefore, you're wrong!

Who is saying the Big Bang is wrong?

Again, there is nothing wrong with saying "I'm not sure"

You are right about that. But here is what materialist scientists are doing. They have a puzzle that is incomplete, they have several pieces in front of them that look like they will fit; but the picture it would make is unsatisfactory to them...so they look at the other pieces in front of them and say "well...if we could make these pieces fit the picture would be exactly what we want"....the pieces clearly DON'T fit, but they are the only pieces they are willing to use and so they sit back say...."how do we get these pieces to fit, that is the scientific question to focus on." That is not honest, that is certainly not objective.

[jcribb16]

Yes we can, because most of us are ex-religious.  Why do y'all keep forgetting this??

Because if you can turn away from God...then you were never really religious...you never really had a personal close relationship...say what you want, but you were always in the dark.

Marie, I really like what you said here!  Qon, if you are really ex-religious, then that means that you accepted Christ as your Saviour, and then rebelled against Him.  Is this what I am understanding?  If so, then like Marie asked (in so many words), did you really experience salvation of the Lord?  It just doesn't quite match up here.

[johnnywd]

God or the Devil, this has been the time tested question of who is more powerful. The way that I always explain to my friends is that God was first and created all the Angels, that includes the fallen Angel known as the Devil, so......therefore God is all powerful. But, God did give the Devil some power b/c you can't have black without white, light without dark, cold without hot. There always has to be an opposite. In the end though, God is just testing all of us and checking to see what each of us is capable of and what we choose on a day to day basis. There are many forks in the road, which path we choose is totally up to us. God gave us knowledge to know the difference between each choice we make. Now don't start thinking that I'm all Holyier than thow, heck, I don't even attend church unless absolutely called for. But this is how I have come to practice what I believe in. You don't have to go to church to believe in God or Satan for that matter. You don't even have to think about God on a daily basis if you don't want to either. He gave us the freedom to do this, otherwise life would not be interesting and I think that he knew that from the very beginning.

[jordandog]

You don't even have to think about God on a daily basis if you don't want to either.

Ahhh, I believe around these parts and it's people (meaning the Forums) that qualifies you as one of the "Lukewarm Christians".
I see this is your first post here, welcome to the Land of Diverse Opinions!

[Falconer02]

If I may pry into your argument, Sherna and Queen--

..my point is the contradiction they make when they use an idea like a multi verse to get around the "fine tuning" and universe cause issues. A concept that is untestable, is sufficient for them as long as it continues to deny that God could exist.

I'm...kind of with you on this. The problem is the belief in your defined god rather than just a generally unknown metaphysical deity. Remember my "Man in Guam" example I made a while back in another thread? Your god is too well defined with character traits, emotion, physical aspects, agendas, etc. whereas something like the multi-verse is just a scientific idea open to skepticism and doubt. If it's capable of being proven wrong, hey! Throw whatever faults are in it into the junk pile and let's keep on moving forward. People seem to have a heart attack at the idea of doing that with an mythological/defined god.

Who is saying the Big Bang is wrong?

You? No. You know your stuff pretty well. My neighbor? The young-earth creationist that believes T-rex lived with humans 6,000 years ago? Those people.

We've already been over this in another thread...such a statement drives home how much theists HATE not knowing.  It makes you guys so uncomfortable. Everything that followed the Big Bang had a natural cause, so it's incredibly likely that it, too, had one.   Nonetheless, it takes HUMILITY to realize one's tiny place in the universe and to not claim things we cannot currently know.  It takes willful self-delusion to rely on ancient, pre-scientific myths and say you have the ultimate answer.

I'm Falconer and I approve this message.

That's not true in the least! I personally know theists, Christians, that are very passionate about science and exploring things and learning new things

I'm sure the view is different depending on whatever person or sect of christianity we're talking about. For instance Jcribb pretty much did this above.

[shernajwine]

Throw whatever faults are in it into the junk pile and let's keep on moving forward

I agree. I have a problem when ideas that are not junk are thrown in a pile because it doesn't fit the naturalistic philosophy agenda! As I stated earlier, Intelligent Design is a legitimate theory in that is falsifiable. It's falsifiable because Neo-Darwinism could prove it bunk if they had definitive and irrefutable proof that evolution creates information. They currently don't. It's not unbiased science any longer when this happens. The have a preformed  idea of what the information needs to fit into, anything that is going to re-form it...no, not to be considered....instead let's MAKE the information we will consider fit the form! Queen said, science has come along way...it sure has. But now, at least where origins is concerned, it is at a screeching halt because no matter how hard they try, materialism isn't fitting the form quite the way they want it to. They are holding on to the junk, hoping they can figure out how to de-junkify it.

such a statement drives home how much theists HATE not knowing

I think more likely it drives home how much of a contradiction atheism really is.

[queenofnines]

I have said this before and you and falconer dismiss it saying "that's not what other christians say". Well, now your just ignoring relevant information so you can continue to argue your point. You may have read this information already?

Yes I have and what I see on that site is a whole lotta justification.  People 2,000 years ago had no concept of the Big Bang or billions of years, so why wouldn't a "day" mean a day when they wrote it??  Don't you find it fishy that this "Old Earth Creation" was only thought up AFTER the scientific evidence was in that deemed the Biblical notion of a 6,000-year-old Earth absurd?  I do!

To falsify Intelligent Design evolution has to be irrefutably proven to have the ability to create information.

I believe abiogenesis deals with this, NOT evolution.  So evolution still stands.

So, evolution does not disprove "biblegod" in that it has not disproven Intelligent Design and "biblegod" is a very legitimate candidate for the Designer.

Consider this: wouldn't you expect living things to look like survival machines if there wasn't a god?  The universe doesn't run off of magic, you know!  I've made this point before: god would have a stronger case if our bodies didn't act like big, natural computers.  Because he's god -- he doesn't need all of these organs and systems for us to be alive, but life without a god DOES.  Dun dun dun!

Well when you look at old earth creation theory you see that dinosaurs existed and became extinct before the creation of man.

And what was the purpose of that??

There is reliable biblical interpretation that suggests the flood was local.

There probably was a local flood, which is why we have so many myths about it across cultures.  

5.DNA similarity_ Similarity (“homology”) is not an absolute indication of common ancestry (Evolution) but certainly points to a common designer (creation).

Wow.  This is denial if I ever saw it!

A concept that is untestable, is sufficient for them as long as it continues to deny that God could exist.

Psst...scientists are not part of some conspiracy to keep disproving god.  I promise.

They have a puzzle that is incomplete, they have several pieces in front of them that look like they will fit; but the picture it would make is unsatisfactory to them...so they look at the other pieces in front of them and say "well...if we could make these pieces fit the picture would be exactly what we want"....the pieces clearly DON'T fit, but they are the only pieces they are willing to use and so they sit back say...."how do we get these pieces to fit, that is the scientific question to focus on." That is not honest, that is certainly not objective.

This comment reminded me of this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4RyUa3OubY 

[queenofnines]

Qon, if you are really ex-religious, then that means that you accepted Christ as your Saviour, and then rebelled against Him.  Is this what I am understanding?  If so, then like Marie asked (in so many words), did you really experience salvation of the Lord?  It just doesn't quite match up here.

*sigh*  Yes I really experienced "the salvation of the Lord"; I was baptized at the age of reason (my own choice), and went to Bible studies, groups, and clubs.  I sigh because it's a pretty offensive thing that Christians like to accuse ex-Christians of.  *Deep breath*  Putting myself into your shoes, though, I can remember/relate to you saying such a thing.  I used to carry around the same falsehood myself as a Christian, backed with: "Atheists just don't understand the Spirit!" (as you mentioned earlier).  Yes, that was me!

The vast majority who leave the fold are not "rebelling" (obviously there are some, like teenagers who were raised fundamentally).  For me it was due to an increase in knowledge, pure and simple.

People seem to have a heart attack at the idea of doing that with an mythological/defined god.

   Indeed they do!

The young-earth creationist that believes T-rex lived with humans 6,000 years ago? Those people.

Think you'll enjoy this vid, Falc: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KY8iPJwztys  

[shernajwine]

Don't you find it fishy that this "Old Earth Creation" was only thought up AFTER the scientific evidnence was in that deemed the Biblical notion of a 6,000-year-old Earth absurd?

No, I think it's religion being flexible and intellectually honest enough to say, "Hey guys, we need to go back and look at our interpretation of the bible, and see where we got it wrong." If you read the information on how the word is interpreted than you see that the Hebrew word was used in the same context elsewhere in the bible in reference to "a period of time" not a 24 hour day. That's not justification it's just plain fact. So basically what you're saying is "How dare you go back and research the bible to make sure you understand it properly!"

I believe abiogenesis deals with this, NOT evolution.  So evolution still stands.

Well, now you are just playing with words. Evolution as defined by "change over time" yes it absolutely does. But Darwinian evolution on origins as described in chemical theory does not stand.

Because he's god -- he doesn't need all of these organs and systems for us to be alive, but life without a god DOES.

There is no life without God. Prove that evolution has the ability to create the information necessary for living cells to function and then come back and make that statement again.

And what was the purpose of that??

I can't say I know the mind of God. I do believe that God enjoys His creation and He can create in whatever order He likes. He's God!

This is denial if I ever saw it!

Good comeback. Here is something written by a non-creationist about this subject.
Evolution also suffers from the problem that many putative  The order of nucleotides in a DNA or RNA molecule, or the order of amino acids in a protein molecule.sequences which look logical based on the progression of one set of anatomical characteristics suddenly look illogical when attention is switched to another set. For example, the lungfish superficially seems to make a good intermediate between fish and amphibian, until one examines the rest of its internal organs, which are not intermediate in character, nor are the ways in which its eggs develop. And if different species have common ancestors, it would be reasonable to expect that similar structures in the different species be specified in similar ways in their  Deoxyribonucleic acid: the chemical inside the nucleus of a cell that carries the genetic instructions for making living organisms.DNA and develop in similar ways in their embryos; this is frequently not so. So evolutionary relationships depend upon an arbitrary choice of which characteristics of the organisms in question are considered most important, and different relationships can be "proved" at will.

Furthermore, Denton argues, the classic cases printed in biology textbooks to show the evolution of present-day organisms from their supposed ancestors are in fact highly conjectural if not downright false. We read the same examples coming up again and again in textbook after textbook because there are only a few species for which an even remotely plausible fossil genealogy can be propounded out of the 100,000 fossil species known to paleontology. He takes the horse as an example and points out that several of the standard claims about the pattern of equine evolution, such as the gradual reduction of the side toes, are extremely questionable and that the morphological distance covered from the earliest horse to the present horses is so small, compared with the vast changes that evolution must encompass, that it is questionable whether the series, even if true, proves much at all. And even the emergence of one species from another has never been directly observed by science. Robert Locke

Psst...scientists are not part of some conspiracy to keep disproving god.  I promise.

“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.  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 counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.  Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door.”

Richard Lewontin

In fact the a priori reasoning is so entirely satisfactory to me that if the facts won't fit in, why so much the worse for the facts is my feeling."

Erasmus Darwin, in a letter to his brother Charles, after reading his new book, "The Origin of Species," in Darwin, F., ed., "The Life of Charles Darwin," [1902], Senate: London, 1995, reprint, p215.

"Another reason that scientists are so prone to throw the baby out with the bath water is that science itself, as I have suggested, is a religion. The neophyte scientist, recently come or converted to the world view of science, can be every bit as fanatical as a Christian crusader or a soldier of Allah. This is particularly the case when we have come to science from a culture and home in which belief in God is firmly associated with ignorance, superstition, rigidity and hypocrisy. Then we have emotional as well as intellectual motives to smash the idols of primitive faith. A mark of maturity in scientists, however, is their awareness that science may be as subject to dogmatism as any other religion."

Peck, M. Scott [psychiatrist and Medical Director of New Milford Hospital Mental Health Clinic, Connecticut, USA], "The Road Less Travelled: A New Psychology of Love, Traditional Values and Spiritual Growth," [1978], Arrow: London, 1990, p.238.

[queenofnines]

Here is something written by a non-creationist about this subject.

Woe to the day you found that "godandscience" website (your Robert Locke is also on there, I know).  It appears you've made it your go-to source and final authority on "answers" to the tough questions.  Because it agrees with your desired position (Christian god) and appears detailed and educated, you're absorbing everything it says like a sponge.    As a former Christian myself, all I'm trying to do is warn you that you're being scammed so as to save one more person from frittering their only life away...but you won't listen because you think I'm "lost" and you're shackled down by the mindset a god-belief requires.

we have emotional as well as intellectual motives to smash the idols of primitive faith.

Cherry-picking a few quotes doesn't speak for scientists on the whole.  Just look at your life today compared to what it would have been 200 years ago and you'll see science's "intentions".

Good articles I found today on determinism/"free will" without god (these echo my position):

http://www.atheistnexus.org/profiles/blogs/determinism-a-surrogate?xg_source=activity (also read the comments for more detail from the author)
http://www.atheistnexus.org/group/freewillanintelligentchoice/forum/topics/free-will-explained

[Annella]

Here is something written by a non-creationist about this subject.

Woe to the day you found that "godandscience" website (your Robert Locke is also on there, I know).  It appears you've made it your go-to source and final authority on "answers" to the tough questions.  Because it agrees with your desired position (Christian god) and appears detailed and educated, you're absorbing everything it says like a sponge.    As a former Christian myself, all I'm trying to do is warn you that you're being scammed so as to save one more person from frittering their only life away...but you won't listen because you think I'm "lost" and you're shackled down by the mindset a god-belief requires.

we have emotional as well as intellectual motives to smash the idols of primitive faith.

Cherry-picking a few quotes doesn't speak for scientists on the whole.  Just look at your life today compared to what it would have been 200 years ago and you'll see science's "intentions".

Good articles I found today on determinism/"free will" without god (these echo my position):

http://www.atheistnexus.org/profiles/blogs/determinism-a-surrogate?xg_source=activity (also read the comments for more detail from the author)
http://www.atheistnexus.org/group/freewillanintelligentchoice/forum/topics/free-will-explained

Wait a minute qon, don't you have sources you go to to lend "credence" to your points of atheism?  Why can't Sherna, as Christian, have her points of research materials also?  I disagree that Sherna has ONLY used that particular website to debate with you.  She's taken various books, sites, published works, etc. to establish a sound theory for debate against your various postings.

Or maybe it's because she CAN verbally "spar" on a intelligent level on these subject that have you on the defensive.  She's not some brain dead protester pushing an empty agenda.  It's not fair to "slight" her research as petty and non essential.  So she goes to a website to get "some" information....so what?  That's not the ONLY place she goes, and it shows.  Somehow you feel it's necessary to insinuate she's "parroting" this website.

That's insulting her savvy research/study, which just isn't fair compared to her postings as a whole.