Amazon Vehicles Beauty Return your textbook rentals STEM nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Starting at $39.99 Wickedly Prime Handmade Wedding Shop Home Gift Guide Father's Day Gifts Home Gift Guide Shop Popular Services masterpiece masterpiece masterpiece  Introducing Echo Show All-New Fire 7 Kids Edition, starting at $99.99 Kindle Oasis AutoRip in CDs & Vinyl National Bike Month on Amazon Ellen
Customer Discussions > Religion forum

Given the almost certainty of God's existence, why does anyone not want to believe?

This discussion has reached the maximum length permitted, and cannot accept new replies. Start a new discussion

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 9976-10000 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jan 18, 2009, 8:45:38 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 18, 2009, 8:48:17 PM PST
Searching says:

Don't worry. I am supporting Darwin, not trying to refute him--although, as I said, there was stuff that came later, just as happens in every branch of science, that added refinement to the theory.

Wow. I'd better hurry up and finish my homework if I want to post anything here.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 18, 2009, 8:52:30 PM PST
MC1171611 says:
Or "Piltdown Man" or "Peking Man" or "Nebraska Man..." How fast WAS that train going when it hit "Lucy" (Australopithecus aferensis), anyhow? Nice how the most complete specimen is only 40% complete, and that good ol' knee was in different strata quite a distance away. I guess it's good that he found "Lucy" when he did; his funding was about to run out!

Don't forget that whatever dino supposedly evolved into a bird had to develop a four-chambered heart; I've never seen an evolutionist address how THAT little switch took place with the critter still alive.

Evolution has already been rejected by objective researchers: if you believe Evolution, then you are not objective. When cornered, Dawkins said that either life grew from crystals or was seeded by previously-existing life, but he offered no explanation for where that life came from. Evolution is a belief system that allows the adherent to ignore the awe of nature and attribute it to some mysterious force that he calls "nature," in effect following the digression found in Romans 1: worshiping the creature (and creation) more than the Creator. Man has lifted himself to the position of supreme intellect and ability through science (falsely so called) and shunned the God that made him. You say the Bible is simply a book of myths written down by ancient men; as a man who has studied the Bible for years, I loudly laugh at the idiocy of such a statement. A person who is so dense as to claim the Bible is just a mythical compilation assuredly knows nothing of the Book.

Just remember, when you're laying in bed and you begin to question your fast-held beliefs about the universe: regardless of how badly you've treated God, no matter how many times you've walked over His sacrifice for you, no matter how much you've belittled HIS creation, He will still forgive you and save your soul. I know you'll never admit that you have questions: it's against the party line to ask questions or raise doubts! But we who KNOW GOD and the power of His resurrection know that you do question and doubt, and we'd love nothing more than to see you come to the knowledge of His Son, Jesus Christ.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 18, 2009, 9:03:56 PM PST
Abuelo says:
Dean, and Searching, and others,

OK. This is not so hard. At the bottom of the "Religion Forum" page is a place to give a title and first post of new discussion thread.

Here's what I put in:

Topic: Approaching God from "outside the box"

First post:

This thread is derived from a thread, now exhausted, entitled "Given the almost certainty of God's existence, why does anybody not want to believe?"

The focus of this new thread is response to questions raised by existence, questions conventionally addressed by religion. The idea behind the thread is to see what insights may be gained by looking at questions of existence in ways at a tangent to or otherwise different from the approaches of conventional religion, whether or not these viewpoints or approaches are associated with a divine being.

Fresh ideas are most welcome.

Based on the cordiality of the concluding weeks of the prior thread, the founders of this thread are hopeful that thread participants will remain respectful of each other's views and, indeed, join in a collegial effort to reflect upon and meditate openly about why it is that we are here, and to approach this and related questions in some sense "outside the box" of conventional religion.

Actually, I haven't posted this yet in the new forum, but this is my suggestion. Will this work, or do you have any suggestions?

On second thought, I'll just post it, and we can tidy up the details of scope and protocol in subsequent posts on that thread.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 18, 2009, 9:05:24 PM PST
To Searching, Abuelo, and any others interested--"Seeking God Outside the Box" is now a thread on this forum, Let's roll!

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 18, 2009, 9:12:09 PM PST
Homunculus says:

High school text books cite as fact Darwin's Tree of Life (proven false), but nothing about the Cambrian explosion. They cite Archaeopteryx as intermediate, when it cannot be such a thing. Jonathan Wells wrote a long book (Icons of Evolution, from which I did not draw in my post below, just because I didn't have time or inclination) on how the high school texts are full of deception and complete lies regarding Darwinian evolution.

You keep claiming newer info. If the "newer info" was viable, it would be headline news, just like the Archaeoraptor. But it's just more garbage on top of old garbage by unreliable authors. Citing the latest and greatest doesn't change a thing. If it was something viable, we'd all know about it. You MUST acknowledge that. There IS NO fossil record. There is NO mechanism for change. That's called 0-2; you need both, and you've got neither. The fossil record is a done deal. There should be literally billions of intermediates, and there are none; the Academy tap dances on the issue, giving vague assurances of something they say out the other side of their mouth "it's settled science." Furthermore, there must be NEW genes to facilitate the theory upward. There is no source for new information to get into the genome; mutations NEVER do it. End of story. Darwinism is dead of it's own failure; it is alive only because of the priorities of atheism. And that is fading fast.

Surely you must agree.

Check this thought out. The first time I heard the concept of multiple universes, I thought "that makes sense; God is from eternity past, and they would be evidence of His work all the way back. And I can still make that work, although some theologians may disagree. But the problem with multiple universe theory is the same thing as Darwinism; MM. They are trying too hard to eliminate God. That is the bottom line. Garbage on top of garbage trying to hurt Christianity in the process. And nothing is going to hurt Christianity except Christians themselves. I hope I haven't done that; I pray I haven't, though again, I do fail often.

I object to garbage science. Darwinism is garbage science that proves nothing, produces nothing. If the evidence was there, I wouldn't deny it. I believed it for many years. I disbelieve it because it has nothing to warrant believing; just the stalking horse for atheism; the liturgy for the atheist logos (tm).

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 18, 2009, 9:14:29 PM PST
<<Given the almost certainty of God's existence, why does anyone not want to believe?>>

Because you can't point at anything and say--that's God.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 18, 2009, 9:17:42 PM PST
Homunculus says:
Gilbert J. Avila

You said: "Because you can't point at anything and say--that's God."

How about "everything?" Everything is His handiwork; there is no other viable theory for existence other than God. God is "necessary."

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 18, 2009, 9:18:22 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 18, 2009, 9:21:35 PM PST
Searching says:

I really can't comment much because I can't carefully read what you wrote for another hour and 45 min. If there is nothing in the high school books about the Cambrian explosion, then perhaps they are not up to date or are incomplete--because they can't cover everything, or for some other reason--who knows. I have no idea what's in the high school biology books these days.

I have an evolutionary analysis textbook from a college class that was a semester long on--of course--evolutionary analysis. I am not going to say everything can be proven, and I am willing to bet that you listed stuff about evolution that really can't be proven and may well be flat out wrong (as in you would be right)--but that will have to wait for another hour+, if the thread is still here by then.

Can you add to a post that's already here after it is archived?? Probably not.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 18, 2009, 9:21:29 PM PST
Laying (sic) WHAT in bed? An egg?

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 18, 2009, 9:30:07 PM PST
AR says:

I am still saddened by your inability to treat others with kind consideration.

Note to others. Please remember the little Yes and No buttons on the right side of your screen, just above the orange "Track this discussion" bar.

I know I, for one, have had enough of the bigotry and hatred, the ignorance and the ridiculous labels.

Please know, Homun, I do pity you.

How sad and alone you must be to have to behave in this manner.

I hope someday you find peace.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 18, 2009, 9:39:59 PM PST
Homunculus says:

Meanwhile, atheism was "invented" to "avoid the pernicious control of God over the lives of men." (Epicurus circa 300BC). Atheism almost died after the advent of Christ, until the writings of Lucretius resurrected Epicurus' theories (as modified by Lucretius). Then, as science started disproving the "religion" of Roman Catholicism (the earth as the center of the universe, for example, which is not Biblical), atheism started making inroads into academia. The academics were always ready to rid themselves of the "pernicious control of God" over their lives of license, and from thence it grew into the bloated, over-stating and under-delivering wreckage of a paradigm that devastates the souls of so many today.

God is "almost certain." I wrote those words in jest, citing Bertrand Russell's famous discourse of the nihilistic necessity of atheism. He is "almost" certain because He is a God Who insists we live by "faith", not intellect. Yet His faith is certainty when we keep focused on Him. It fails only when we look away from Him. You will not find God by intellect, but by intellect (if you are honest in using it), you can see His necessity. Meanwhile, atheism is counter-intuitive to the intellect. It is impossible when rationally considered.

And why would we expect atheism to be anything else other than irrational? It was invented purely to avoid the "pernicious control of God over the lives of men." Atheism is a religion just as certainly as are the other great "world religions." It just has far fewer adherents. But it is marketing itself hard these days on Amazon through the writings of Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens (the 4 Horsemen(ure) of the Atheist Apocalypse). It's pop atheism all the way; the attack dog on Christianity. But no proofs, evidence or thoughtful philosophy. Just efforts at avoiding the "pernicious control of God over the lives of men."

And if atheism was harmless, other than for the souls of those who make the choice of atheism, then let it live and let die. But in the 20th century atheism spawned dangerous concepts: eugenics, National Socialism (Nazi Party), Communism, the sexual revolution, etc. Life on earth has been degraded greatly by those concepts, which ultimately yield a great price in blood. So atheism is to be taken seriously. The good people caught in it's deception need a hand out.

That is the point of this thread; to offer a hand out. There have been few interested among the participants, but that is no surprise. But there are many who read and never post, and maybe some of those were influenced. Who knows? I do know that the vast majority of people posting regularly here are fine people and I don't think they are communists, Nazis or into eugenics. No, they are the ones that were let down along the way by someone, or some decisions not of their making. I do wish them all well, as I've said earlier. You too Gil. This thread is almost over, you got here for the end.

Thanks for your comment.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 18, 2009, 9:50:19 PM PST
Homunculus says:

I don't know about editing after 10,000. But we will know soon.

Do your homework, girl. I'm always around. And remember what I promised. Just one person here wanting this reposted, and I'll be glad to do it. I do think it's pointless, though. We've done the deal. It has been a blast. And I really, really, really don't want to do any more research on Darwinism's shortcoming, nor should you. Just let it speak for itself, and keep an open mind. When we debate it, we're just trying to win.

I have tried hard to do all my posts "off the top of my head." I guess it shows. It gets very tedious and time consuming to do otherwise. I read much. Most people who are on the Amazon Forums do too. Fishing for a point to refute another point is tedious and a waste of time. I like how this has gone. We make our points as we understand reality. It is not about winning or losing; it is about sharing ideas.

And those who participate are the ones who benefit the most, even if it just enhances our own understanding of what we believe and think. It is like the teaching I do. I have to prepare with excellence to teach that way. The students learn some of it, but I learned it all; I benefited the most. Same with those who share here.

Don't you think?

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 18, 2009, 9:50:21 PM PST
[Deleted by the author on Jan 18, 2009, 9:53:15 PM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 18, 2009, 9:52:39 PM PST
Homunculus says:

I do not know what you're talking about. How about putting some meat to your accusations, please.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 18, 2009, 9:53:50 PM PST
Abuelo says:
Homunculus wrote: "Darwinism is only about a serious faith issue; the atheist faith. There is no evidence or proof for Darwinism being true, or even possible. It's is the stalking horse for those with a prior commitment to atheism."

I don't think this is accurate.

Historically, Darwin's theories had a far more serious problem, "social Darwinism." In the early part of the twentieth century, Darwin's theories did not yet have the benefit of Mendelian genetics. Consequently, "evolution" did not have a sensible understanding of the mechanism for inheritance. (This is somewhat ironic, because Mendel himself wrote to Darwin in 1862, but it is not clear that Darwin ever read or responded to the letter.)

In any event, absent a better understanding, the public became concerned about the ill-effects of "swamping", that is, many slow rabbits would interbreed with a few fast rabbits, and the result would be a whole lot of not very fast rabbits, a sort of "averaging" approach.

This logic in the public mind served as a partial justification for the culturally discriminatory immigration laws in the United States of 1925 (e.g. southern Meditteranean peoples were believed to be of lower quality stock and their immigration quotas were reduced). This general public understanding also supported the infamous Supreme Court case of Terry v. Bell (1927), in which no less a legal luminary than Oliver Wendell Holmes, in a Virginia case challenging the forced sterilization of an institutionalized woman, decreed that "three generations of imbeciles is enough."

Hitler's race based genocide put the final nails in the coffin of this line of common understanding among the public, but the history is sobering. Also by that time, "neo-Darwinism" had incorporated Mendelian genetics into evolutionary theory.

That said, current evolutionary theory (call in Darwinism if you wish, as most people do) remains in the judgment of the vast majority of scientists who are regarded by their peers as competent in the field as the best explanation available of the available data.

And there is no atheism, inherent or otherwise, in this science. It's just science. If some scientists go outside their domain and argue for or against God on the basis of this biology, they are just talking out of school.

The issue of atheism, like the issue of social Darwinism, has its roots not in science but in a less than well informed public understanding.

Another historical footnote. After the Scopes trial in the mid-20s the practical compromise at the level of public schooling, particularly in the Bible belt, was that almost nothing was said in school texts about evolution. This was because textbooks had a national market and could not afford the disapproval of any segment of the country. The result was a dumbing down of topics that were controversial anywhere.

But in 1959, on the 100th anniversary of the publication of Darwin's "Origin of Species", in honor thereof, the Federal Government put forward an advanced placement course in biology that featured evolution in much more prominent way. This undermined the practical compromise that had existed since after the Scopes trial.

It remains true today that about half the country does not "believe" in evolutionary theory. Again, this is not science, but public politics.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 18, 2009, 9:54:08 PM PST
Searching says:

Yes, I do think one learns best by teaching. And I think we have all learned a lot. And whatever else I post until the thread is gone--if there is still time for any more, I will post as edits to this post, as my last one, so that I don't have to add to the ticking away tally.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 18, 2009, 9:55:31 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on May 3, 2009, 1:11:58 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 18, 2009, 10:03:34 PM PST
AR says:

Exactly my point. When someone gives you kindness, you bite his hand. You turn on people like a rabid dog, then use the excuse, "Oh, sorry, I didn't have time to read your words, (but I expect you to read mine)."

Look, Homun, I told you this a long time ago, and I would really like it if you would hear me this time.
You are doing nothing for God. You treat people with derision, with animosity.

You drive people away, because many people fear stupidity as much as they fear insanity.

If you don't believe me, then take time and read the posts in this thread, word for word. Comprehend what others have said and how with a bit of open acceptance, a bit of open-minded conversation, you may have gotten at least a few to hear you, and perhaps, you would have learned something as well.

Take a paper, write down how many people approached you for conversation, opened the door to a dialogue, and then went away in anger, disgust or laughter at you and your positions. COUNT how many you drove away and turned away from God with your attitude and your hate-filled words, your inability to converse, but instead, just lecture with wrong-minded ideas and spite.

Please, do this. Please.

You will see that I am one who walked away, after offering kindness. I am one who was sickened by your short-sighted selfishness and your hatred. Please. Just read what you have done here.
I am ashamed for you.

I hope you find what you seek.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 18, 2009, 10:05:01 PM PST
Joe says:
When man can create life out of that which is non-living and can "cure" death, then I'll stop believing in God.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 18, 2009, 10:13:55 PM PST
Homunculus says:

Nice idea. I'll know where to drop by when I want to put in my two cents worth. By the way, I was under the gun to write my piece on Darwinism as I promised Searching I would do before the sands of the hourglass got away. Then my family wanted to out to dinner at Outback Steakhouse (the kids love it and they don't have school tomorrow), so I haven't had time to revisit your posts. I do find your comments insightful, and I hope I may stop by from time to time at the new thread. This is an interesting and "good" group of people; if you all were not interesting and challenging, I wouldn't have stayed around. IN fact, if some of you may recall, I quit this thread for about 3 months (right around 2000 posts) because the vitriol was so high. When I came back it was still in the low 2000s, and then Ferengi and another Christain (Steve), and it was off to the races.

Yet many have left. AR seems to be still miffed; she was an early player and is just now back to say her peace. I do not believe that speaking "truth" (what I consider truth, as do the vast majority of Americans, at a minimum) about the things I understand and sincerely believe is "hateful." But I'm sure she's a good person too. I've read her posts elsewhere and she can be very funny and charming. And yes, I may have said something insensitive to her. Probably did. But that can be the nature of these threads. Look at the sarcasm implicit in the title of this thread.

I say, make you case, be honest and otherwise wear your chinstrap and helmet in the fray, and have a beer with your opponents after the game is finished. Don't make it personally about each other; everyone is an individual and deserves respect. And don't take it personally. Give grace and pray for it.

Thanks for your good insights and gentle wit. Your prose is good to read. I look forward to reading more of it, and responding.


In reply to an earlier post on Jan 18, 2009, 10:26:03 PM PST
Homunculus says:

Please forgive me for insulting you. I have no excuses, and I am not sure what you mean specifically, but I do understand. One of my dear friends tells me I am "relentless." That is true, yet I do not realize it. And I do like to kid around, and in the beginning of this thread, when you were around, I understood even less how my idea of humor would be insulting to others. And even now, I am not sure that you understand that, nor do I believe that I understand your perspective.

I do know that I apparently said hurtful things to you, and for that I am truly ashamed and sorry. Please forgive my insensitivity. I have one poor excuse, but maybe it will be instructive. Prior to this thread, my only experience of this sort of thing was on debating Darwinism and Intelligent Design. That forum (not on Amazon; it is a nationally known political forum; its director is a commentator on FoxNews these days) was full of professional scientists, including some from "". Some of them were a nasty lot, and the entire debate was "full contact."

That is the way I came to this Forum on Amazon. And I did not consider that many here were not professional political hacks, but instead thoughtful an gentle souls with deeply held beliefs. And you were an early participant, as I recall. So you may have gotten the brunt of my early experiences here. And there are indeed opponents of my cherished beliefs who attack hard as well. Remember, I LEFT this post because of name calling and lack of civil debate.

Do not confuse my derision of certain beliefs (Darwinism, for one) with my feelings for any people here. My desire is to be cordial and have a civil debate. It may be tough; it doesn't have to be nasty.

I do fear I may have been nasty with you. For that I am ashamed. Again, I hope you will forgive me, AR.


In reply to an earlier post on Jan 18, 2009, 10:26:21 PM PST
AR says:

Actually, I was the one who cried with you when your friend died. I tried to be supportive. When you returned, I greeted you, and you called me names.
I am not here to say my peace, but rather, to try once again to reach you, to show you that you have done harm, not in the name of God, but rather, because your "speaking "truth" (what I consider truth" is not what God would ask of you. According to your beliefs, He said to 'spread the Word', not "spread His judgment".

Once again, I have asked you to see where perhaps you may have caused harm, and my words were greeted with denial and judgment.

Even God would apologize for some of the things you have said to people here. Too bad you think you are better than Him.

Think about it. Just for once, try to see what you have created. It is not good.

As far as saying my peace, nope. Just trying to get this thing to end, and conversation was more polite than hitting a punctuation mark over and over until the thing died.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 18, 2009, 10:32:56 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 18, 2009, 10:35:18 PM PST
Homunculus says:

You are correct; you were supportive when George died. I remember that. Please forgive my lack of insight; I truly do not remember what I might have said that you refer to. This is a long thread and very hard to find what you might be talking about. But I would like to know; we have maybe 2 posts left. Would you please tell me something concrete?

What names did I call you? That makes me very distressed that I did such a thing. I just do not recall.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 18, 2009, 10:33:53 PM PST
Mick Collins says:

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 18, 2009, 10:34:14 PM PST
Abuelo says:
Homunculus says: "I do not believe that speaking "truth" (what I consider truth, as do the vast majority of Americans, at a minimum) about the things I understand and sincerely believe is "hateful." But I'm sure she's a good person too. I've read her posts elsewhere and she can be very funny and charming. And yes, I may have said something insensitive to her. Probably did. But that can be the nature of these threads. Look at the sarcasm implicit in the title of this thread."

Oh, you know me already. I'm too old and thick skinned to be offended, even by deliberate insensitivities, although in the two weeks I've been here I don't recall any. People are utterly amazing to me, and I marvel at them. In whatever place they are, I have the most fun engaging them in such a fashion that they return the favor. You have always been cordial to me in that regard, and I appreciate it.

By all means, drop in to the new discussion. Who knows, you might surprise yourself. There may some truth, or at least some insights, outside the box. As I may have implied elsewhere, my experience is that when people of good will disagree about "truth" it is often because they are not talking about what is true or false and, in any event, they are more likely to enjoy their beer together at the pub if they crack a joke or two about the difference between "theory" and "truth", between articulation and that which is articulated.

Best wishes.
‹ Previous 1 ... 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 Next ›
Discussion locked

Recent discussions in the Religion forum


This discussion

Discussion in:  Religion forum
Participants:  576
Total posts:  10000
Initial post:  Jan 26, 2008
Latest post:  Jan 18, 2009

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 35 customers