-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Science has been known at times to steer away a priori from any evidence or reasoning that leads towards God.
Sorry. I could have been clearer. My point is along these lines:
If some evidence points toward rapid deposition of water-borne sediments in Grand Canyon Arizona USA and other evidence points toward slow deposition, then the rapid deposition arguments get less attention from conventional scientists because they might support concepts of Noah and a global flood.
If some evidence points toward a sediment dam breaking and rapid erosion of sediments in Grand Canyon Arizona USA and other evidence points toward slow, uniformitarian erosion over a long period of time, then the attention of conventional science steers naturally away from the conclusion of the catastrophic event in favor of the non-catastrophic event taking long ages of time.
Look at the Grand Canyon. Notice how it snakes around. If it was carved out from a single flood, it would form a fairly straight line.
It's not that science leads away from God because scientists don't want to admit or accidentally prove his existence, it's that science legitimately does NOT prove a great flood. Sure, we have people who claim to have scientific evidence of a great flood, but such claims are easily pulled a part by science - not apologetics, but facts that have already been verified and remain consistent with the rest of the known world.
If a scientist could prove the existence of a great flood, or even God, they would WANT to be the ones to uncover evidence for such claims! Believe it or not, scientists aren't rewarded for keeping the status quo, they are rewarded for breaking ground while remaining consistent with the rest of what we observe.
PS. After reading your response I went looking for more Tyson videos and came across one I had never seen. It's an interview by Larry King. Note also that Larry didn't ask him a single God question so there really isn't anything that relates to this thread; but again Neil DeGrasse Tyson entertains. 
Messages that I heard included:
We have iron in our blood like meteorites have iron in them. We are part of the universe.
It sounded a bit like Joni Mitchell's song, Woodstock, that was also recorded by Crosby, Still, Nash, Young. Lyrics in the song include: We are Stardust (we are golden).
The message sounded to me to be not atheism but pantheism. Under pantheism, we are part of God. Pantheism is not a humble religion. You might reason under pantheism that if God is to be worshiped, then we are to be worshiped also.
+++
Pantheism. Pantheism means all (“pan”) is God (“theism”). It is the worldview held by most Hindus, many Buddhists, and other New Age religions. It is also the worldview of Christian Science, Unity, and Scientology. According to pantheism, God “is all in all.” God pervades all things, contains all things, subsumes all things, and is found within all things. Nothing exists apart from God, and all things are in some way identified with God. The world is God, and God is the world. But more precisely, in pantheism all is God, and God is all. Source: Geisler, N. L. (1999). In Baker encyclopedia of Christian apologetics. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
I don't disagree with your statement, but in general who decides what is or is not beneficial to the promotion of happiness, well being and health? Some cultures may say one thing and some may say another. Which culture is correct? Which is superior? Who decides? It's simply moral relativism. I maintain that people of every culture already share a common, God-given moral standard that's wired right into their conscience. If everyone would simply follow it the world would be a much better place IMHO.
Are you asking who comes up with the definitions for what these words mean specific? Usually the definitions start out a bit vague, but become more specific as a better understanding of the systems are developed based on demonstrable data. We see this in the medical field when it comes to what is healthy. Generally the term is used differently than how it is used colloquially, as it is not only more specifically defined but it is also more skeptical in coming specificity. The definitions are, to some extent, based on consensus but only after the ideas had been heavily tested against both the objective world and the intent of the previous definitions. The process here is very important because it makes it so it is pretty much impossible for anyone to control for their own personal gain.
It is probably best to look at it as which culture is less wrong rather than which is correct. It would be determined by seeing which of the ideas would better promote happiness, well being and health while also minimizing unnecessary harm and suffering. The definitions we are using now might not be the best definitions for describing these concepts, so it is impossible to say for sure if we are ever completely in the right. However, we could still show objectively that one is less wrong than another given the definitions.
I do not see a preprogrammed moral standard when I look around the world and read about some of the difficult cultures that have existed. How did you come to idea? How can someone, like me, test if this really is the case?
It is probably best to look at it as which culture is less wrong rather than which is correct. It would be determined by seeing which of the ideas would better promote happiness, well being and health while also minimizing unnecessary harm and suffering. The definitions we are using now might not be the best definitions for describing these concepts, so it is impossible to say for sure if we are ever completely in the right. However, we could still show objectively that one is less wrong than another given the definitions.
I do not see a preprogrammed moral standard when I look around the world and read about some of the difficult cultures that have existed. How did you come to idea? How can someone, like me, test if this really is the case?
I'm really more interested in knowing who is deciding on my behalf, and by what authority. Some policy wonks might suggest that religion is the bane of civilization and must be eradicated for the sake of world peace. That to me would be akin to an athiest version of the Dark Ages. Other militant theocracies might decide we all must convert to religion X or die. For them, that would be for the benenfit of all. Are they wrong? Which one? Who decides?
Every political system in the world is rife with corruption. Can we really count on these people (or their hand-selected policy wonks) to NOT put their own interests ahead of ours? I think not.
It's a simple one-question test: Have you ever in your life felt remorse, regret or guilt for deliberately hurting someone else by your words or actions? If you answer "yes" then you've not only passed the test of being human, but also have proven that you have a fully operational conscience (provided by God) guiding you through life.
Every political system in the world is rife with corruption. Can we really count on these people (or their hand-selected policy wonks) to NOT put their own interests ahead of ours? I think not.
It's a simple one-question test: Have you ever in your life felt remorse, regret or guilt for deliberately hurting someone else by your words or actions? If you answer "yes" then you've not only passed the test of being human, but also have proven that you have a fully operational conscience (provided by God) guiding you through life.
Nobody needs to be an absolute authority who is deciding on your behalf. However, there is a general consensus on what "health" is in a medical sciences which is based on demonstrable data. I am just claiming that morality can work in the same manner. I am not talking about using force to make sure people are acting morally. I am not talking about using force to make sure people are acting morally. Although I think that moral intent should be promoted as much as possible. However, trying to legally, and physically, enforce people to make moral actions is, ironically enough, most likely a very immoral act.
Yes. All of them. There is no real who here that decides.
This isn't really a big issue since it is not being legally enforced. However it could use a model that is very similar to scientific discovery. Which is in a way based off of a consensus but all the information needs to go through so many checks and balances that it is hardly to notice that is the case. There are problems with using a system like this, for instance it is a fairly slow process, but it has been shown to be an extremely effective tool for the advancement of human knowledge on many subjects. I would assume it could work for fine tuning morality, however it would not be able to let us come to the basic definitions that we initial decide upon.
I would argue that this test isn't specific enough to be able to determine if this really is a moral standard. There are a great many explanations I can think of for this that don't involve having a built-in moral standard set for all people.
My experience with the feeling of regret, guilt and remorse is actually usually quite a bit different. Yes, I often regret my past decision, but rarely is it over deliberately hurting someone. I more often regret not paying a cost what is easily argued to be necessary harm in order to fix a situation that ended up going out of control because I did not get involved. I've always been a passive person and a bit of a doormat and I feel a lot more guilt for being that way than anything else.
Do you think some people lack this?
Somehow I think that if this was a different discussion you would quickly drop this as the test that shows that something is a human.
Yes. All of them. There is no real who here that decides.
This isn't really a big issue since it is not being legally enforced. However it could use a model that is very similar to scientific discovery. Which is in a way based off of a consensus but all the information needs to go through so many checks and balances that it is hardly to notice that is the case. There are problems with using a system like this, for instance it is a fairly slow process, but it has been shown to be an extremely effective tool for the advancement of human knowledge on many subjects. I would assume it could work for fine tuning morality, however it would not be able to let us come to the basic definitions that we initial decide upon.
I would argue that this test isn't specific enough to be able to determine if this really is a moral standard. There are a great many explanations I can think of for this that don't involve having a built-in moral standard set for all people.
My experience with the feeling of regret, guilt and remorse is actually usually quite a bit different. Yes, I often regret my past decision, but rarely is it over deliberately hurting someone. I more often regret not paying a cost what is easily argued to be necessary harm in order to fix a situation that ended up going out of control because I did not get involved. I've always been a passive person and a bit of a doormat and I feel a lot more guilt for being that way than anything else.
Do you think some people lack this?
Somehow I think that if this was a different discussion you would quickly drop this as the test that shows that something is a human.
I don't agree with this statement.
I know something's wrong because I feel it. I know hitting someone is wrong because I've been hit, and it hurt. I know being nasty to someone is wrong because I've had others be nasty to me, and it hurt. I know murder is wrong because when I hit someone once, I felt awful and guilty afterwards. I know stealing is wrong because some things don't belong to me.
I know anything else is wrong by imagining how I might feel if someone were to do or say such thing to/about me. That's a simple premise and it goes back a long, long way in humanity's history.
The simple thing is this; if a person's gonna have no empathy and not care about anyone, ya can't make em. But empathy is where morality really begins.
I know something's wrong because I feel it. I know hitting someone is wrong because I've been hit, and it hurt. I know being nasty to someone is wrong because I've had others be nasty to me, and it hurt. I know murder is wrong because when I hit someone once, I felt awful and guilty afterwards. I know stealing is wrong because some things don't belong to me.
I know anything else is wrong by imagining how I might feel if someone were to do or say such thing to/about me. That's a simple premise and it goes back a long, long way in humanity's history.
The simple thing is this; if a person's gonna have no empathy and not care about anyone, ya can't make em. But empathy is where morality really begins.
Last edited:
K
To the original post, no there is no such thing as an atheist. We are given two choices. God or Satan, there is no in between, you are for Him or against Him. There is no grey area and no what ifs, and's or buts. You either believe or you don't.
To be an atheist as it is defined is to serve Satan. Blunt, to the point but the truth. I care too much to lie. To be a Buddhist is to serve Satan. To be a an Islamist is to serve Satan. But, even some so called Christians serve Satan and don't even realize it. The same is for atheist, they think they are serving themselves, but spiritually and in reality they are serving their father Satan.
I know this is strong, but it is the truth.
To be an atheist as it is defined is to serve Satan. Blunt, to the point but the truth. I care too much to lie. To be a Buddhist is to serve Satan. To be a an Islamist is to serve Satan. But, even some so called Christians serve Satan and don't even realize it. The same is for atheist, they think they are serving themselves, but spiritually and in reality they are serving their father Satan.
I know this is strong, but it is the truth.
If Satan casts out Satan, then how can his kingdom stand? I grow tired of the gangbanger (If you are not with us then to hell with you) mentality. Again all religion is false if it takes money. Money breeds corruption and plus they only sell death and hell. The gift of God is free.
But to answer the question, no there are no such thing as an atheist. That is simply a name given to people who do not see God as the religious types do. The bible says that the earnest expectation (belief) of EVERY CREATURE is the manifestation of the sons of God.
But to answer the question, no there are no such thing as an atheist. That is simply a name given to people who do not see God as the religious types do. The bible says that the earnest expectation (belief) of EVERY CREATURE is the manifestation of the sons of God.
I wish that they may awake from their blindness. I find it funny how most believe in a God who is ALMIGHTY and created all there is, then state that He needs money from that creation to spread His word.
God don't pay no bills, and neither do His children. And when this economy falls and the true Sabbath begins, we will see how much any religion of this earth helps.
God has shown me the way to life, but I am afraid I will be another prophet killed by his own people. Everything from war and prison, to religion is a scam in which corporations get rich off of the sweat and labor of the people.
God don't pay no bills, and neither do His children. And when this economy falls and the true Sabbath begins, we will see how much any religion of this earth helps.
God has shown me the way to life, but I am afraid I will be another prophet killed by his own people. Everything from war and prison, to religion is a scam in which corporations get rich off of the sweat and labor of the people.
K
So disagree and get angry. The truth is the truth. There is one God and not many. You and I are not Him. Read your bible carefully, He is a jealous God and to serve something else, He calls it adultery. You are either serving God or Satan. It's your choice. He will not force you, He will tug at your heart. But, He will respect your will.
Love is tuff and tender. Think of your children (if you have them). You love them and yet at times are tuff and at times are tender.
It is God's way or Satan's way. We choose.
Look it, if you catch your ten year old daughter smoking pot. What would you do? You love her, but hate what she is doing. It is the same with God. Even though you are serving Satan, He loved you enough to provide for your salvation and didn't stop there. He pulls at your heart and woo's you. You decide to love Him or hate Him. it is your choice.
Well this and that. Science say's this and my buddy said that. What doe's God say. Will take a mans word over God's. Search yourself and I pray He pricks your heart. God said in the Psalms " a fool has said in his heart, there is no God". I didn't say that, God did.
I'm not going to try and prove God to anyone. Ask Him yourself and He will prove Himself.
It is God or Satan your choice.
Love is tuff and tender. Think of your children (if you have them). You love them and yet at times are tuff and at times are tender.
It is God's way or Satan's way. We choose.
Look it, if you catch your ten year old daughter smoking pot. What would you do? You love her, but hate what she is doing. It is the same with God. Even though you are serving Satan, He loved you enough to provide for your salvation and didn't stop there. He pulls at your heart and woo's you. You decide to love Him or hate Him. it is your choice.
Well this and that. Science say's this and my buddy said that. What doe's God say. Will take a mans word over God's. Search yourself and I pray He pricks your heart. God said in the Psalms " a fool has said in his heart, there is no God". I didn't say that, God did.
I'm not going to try and prove God to anyone. Ask Him yourself and He will prove Himself.
It is God or Satan your choice.
We can thank our banking system for that. I agree with you. Fiat money is a bond and a chain. Our economy is set to strip the working man and make the rich richer. Religion is becoming narrow.
But the light's free if anyone looks hard enough for it. I still have to find it in spades but I think I see a little bit.
But the light's free if anyone looks hard enough for it. I still have to find it in spades but I think I see a little bit.
Jesus has risen to never die again and promised to give that to anyone who believes. If we are still dying in the midst of this RISEN SAVIOR, then are we not the ones committing adultery. Even Daniel upon realizing this included himself along with sinful Israel.
Love is NOT tuff and tender, but kind and patient. And do you believe that God would condemn someone for smoking a plant???? What a man eats does not defile him. It is what comes out as all things are lawful to me, though not expedient (profitable).
Love is NOT tuff and tender, but kind and patient. And do you believe that God would condemn someone for smoking a plant???? What a man eats does not defile him. It is what comes out as all things are lawful to me, though not expedient (profitable).