Brother Bob wrote:Too much proof that a God wired our DNA to act this way

That is not proof of anything. It is a failure of logic. Just because people believe something and turn to it for help doesn’t make it true outside of their heads. People often turned to animal sacrifice across history. That doesn’t mean sacrifice has an effect. People have often turned to drug-induced hallucinatory divinations, in sweat tents or bath houses. People have often turned to esoteric mediumship, talking with the dead. People have often turned to the reading of bones or guts or palms or irises or flowers or leaves or… whatever. These palliatives help us cope, but are based on fantasy. You pick the fantasy of a god. No argument resuscitates this point. The most popular fantasy amongst the set is not more true because it is more popular. This is another example of poor reasoning.

But I’m confused. Have you abandoned your attempt to defend the story of Adam and Eve? Should I assume you agree with me that it’s contradictory?

1) Genesis is a 100% account of accurate statements. We have documents from as far back to of 3,000 years. The accuracy of the document is 99.7% to these documents.

2) Yes, people seek other devices that are not appropriate. (human sacrifice, astrology, talking to the dead, using bones as interpretation.

I am pointing out that men that have no belief in God, but "run" to him in their moment of desperation and last resort.

3) Quote " It is a failure of logic.'

You fail to understand true logic. Logic is based on and supported by emotional actions. Men do this is time of need. I do not claim that 100% do that, but I would assume that being a good father, if my child was in deathly danger, and I new or had any means to effect their benefit, I would silicate God for his aid!

Are you telling me that if you had a child in a life and death encounter you would not silicate God's help? If you did not, I would question your humanity and likely concern for your child as a logical father. I wonder when the world struggles through difficult times, world trade center, earthquakes, shootings or other tragic deaths were no one is vehemently upset that they are praying to God. I guess the praying crowd are all of the same faith - baloney. No possible way. Why not the up rage for such public events. Because they are logically right to do. No one in the crowds are so dismayed to call for the immediate cessation of prayer a God.

You point to sweat tents, drug hallucinations, animal sacrifices, etc. On what scale does this take place? It seems so miniscule to the example I gave. Porous logic on your part.

As the famous quote goes "there are no atheist in the foxholes of war!"

Sadly, Your statement is an illogical assessment in correlation to the historical facts of life.

Brother Bob wrote:1) Genesis is a 100% account of accurate statements. We have documents from as far back to of 3,000 years. The accuracy of the document is 99.7% to these documents.

Good luck trying to support that figure.

I am pointing out that men that have no belief in God, but "run" to him in their moment of desperation and last resort.

Some do, many don't. Yet for those that do, you honestly believe it reflects something truthful other than that men want comfort in death. The fantasy story gives comfort. That does not mean it is true.

You fail to understand true logic. Logic is based on upon emotional actions.

Are you telling me that if you had a child in a life and death encounter you would not silicate God's help? If you did not, I would question your humanity and likely concern for your child as a logical father.

I would not solicit god, because gods are fantasy entities. I would try to help my child, somehow, anyhow. The last thing I would do is stop and pray to a fictitious entity, wasting precious time. What on Earth would that do for my child but increase his odds of being injured or killed? This is absurdity.

And you would question my humanity? That makes you a bigot. You have no right to question my humanity.

brother bob wrote:1) Genesis is a 100% account of accurate statements. We have documents from as far back to of 3,000 years. The accuracy of the document is 99.7% to these documents.

2) Yes, people seek other devices that are not appropriate. (human sacrifice, astrology, talking to the dead, using bones as interpretation.

I am pointing out that men that have no belief in God, but "run" to him in their moment of desperation and last resort.

3) Quote " It is a failure of logic.'

You fail to understand true logic. Logic is based on upon emotional actions. Men do this is time of need. I do not claim that 100% do that, but I would assume that being a good father, if my child was in deathly danger, and I new or had any means to effect their benefit, I would silicate God for his aid!

Are you telling me that if you had a child in a life and death encounter you would not silicate God's help? If you did not, I would question your humanity and likely concern for your child as a logical father. I wonder when the world struggles through difficult times, world trade center, earthquakes, shootings or other tragic deaths were no one is vehemently upset that they are praying to God. I guess the praying crowd are all of the same faith - baloney. No possible way. Why not the up rage for such public events. Because they are logically right to do. No one in the crowds are so dismayed to call for the immediate cessation of prayer a God.

You point to sweat tents, drug hallucinations, animal sacrifices, etc. On what scale does this take place? It seems so miniscule to the example I gave. Porous logic on your part.

As the famous quote goes "there are no atheist in the foxholes of war!"

Sadly, Your statement is an illogical assessment in correlation to the historical facts of life.

Unrelated, but I have to say it:

You deserve a trophy for the longest book promo ever on Booktalk.

Well any good father would give anything to secure their child's well being. Sometimes even when the source may be questionable desperate men seek any alternative. People resort to hypnosis, Chinese pin therapy and other doubtful methods when left to no other sources.

I am just saying I would not want to be a child of a father that would not resort to doing anything for my best interest. That is not my definition or example of a good father. Just like giving an organ of mine would not come into any question, ever.

You do what so many men do when losing an argument. DIVERT and DISTRACT.

I am just saying I would not want to be a child of a father that would not resort to doing anything for my best interest. That is not my definition or example of a good father. Just like giving an organ of mine would not come into any question, ever.

On the other hand, I would not want to be the child of a father who prays instead of taking action.

http://www.alternet.org/belief/shocking ... ed-healing

Here's the thing bob. Praying doesn't help. It's no more useful than whistling. I would not whistle in an attempt to help my children, and I would not pray in an attempt to help my children. Because these things do not help in those circumstances. I would do ANYTHING to help my kids, as long as it was actually helpful. Prayer is not. It is a palliative to those who worry, but for a placebo effect to take hold you need to be ignorant.

You do what so many men do when losing an argument. DIVERT and DISTRACT.

You're living in an alternate reality! I mean, you're half right.

The discussion between us started with your statement: "Atheist and Agnostics want to put the blame on God for not intervening in such egregious events such as war, rape, pestilence or famine?

First, we must ask, "Why do all of these events take place?" Is it the fault of man or God."

You've diverted from the topic of the fall of man to four separate topics since then. I've done my best to bring you back, but I think you might have ADD.

Tks for the tongue, rather cute.

Just about finished two additional chapters proving PRAYER and a chapter named "SOUL Proof."

Maybe spurred on by the discussions from this site.

Actually I have stated 5 reasons to prove why God does not intervene in times of war, rape, pestilence and famine.

If you remember, about your statement half right, I have concluded that truth is like a roof and someone stands on the peak, one side is right, and the other wrong. Both sides ultimately, possibly unknowing whether they are correct, think they are right. You just have a perspective that is not correct. I have done exactly the same thing.

I have a specific chapter to deal with this "You may be in need of an epiphany!"

People can have so much knowledge, and yet, look at things so wrong. As the statement goes "he is so heavenly minded, he is no earthly good."

Bob wrote:People can have so much knowledge, and yet, look at things so wrong. As the statement goes "he is so heavenly minded, he is no earthly good."

Repeat that to yourself as you read Harrison's book. Knowledge and intelligence aren't enough. You need to be a good thinker as well. You've proven you aren't, Bob. How many times have you committed the exact faults of good thinking that Harrison mentions? Over a dozen, and that's just from memory.

Bob wrote:If you remember, about your statement half right, I have concluded that truth is like a roof and someone stands on the peak, one side is right, and the other wrong. Both sides ultimately, possibly unknowing whether they are correct, think they are right. You just have a perspective that is not correct. I have done exactly the same thing.

If the only thing we had to tell the difference were our perspectives, we'd be doomed. But there is a way to know you're right. That way is following proper method. Avoiding fallacies, controlling biases, controlling emotional thinking. One of the two sides on the house is the correct path, the appeal to method. You're like a child spewing out simple addition to a college trig professor here Bob. You're so far from where you need to be, you can't even see the disparity.

Faulty thinking interbane, I would always choose KNOWLEDGE and INTELLIGENCE over a "good thinker."

I would also claim that if one has true KNOWLEDGE and INTELLIGENCE they are a good thinker.

Now Harrison may be a good thinker, but his intelligence and knowledge is wrong! Pure Fodder!


I did not say that "all we have is our perspectives." I said that people's perspectives often impede them from understanding whether they are right or wrong. Let's say the guy that is a druggie and the whole world knows the guys is a loser and destroying his life. He thinks he is livin' the life. But after rehab or cleaning himself up says "what in the world was I doing?" The light turns on for him, just like all the other right people.

That is what I am talkin' 'bout.

@brother bob - Interbane is right. If you insist on omnipotence, then God must take responsibility for it all. Because a world without disease is a conceivable alternative creation. You believe that these happened because humanity sinned, but that is a horrible idea. God so loved us that God created hydrocephalia and guinea worm as punishment for one act of disobedience?

It is a nasty, punishing fable. You have to put yourself into an Iron Age mindset to even tolerate it. And then the main effect is to make you glad you don't live in the Iron Age, and to resent fundamentalists who want to drag us back to that.

There is a line of thought saying that God made the best world that could be made subject to the constraints of logic. I don't know how anyone can find that appealing except as apologetics for the problem of theodicy. There is another one saying that God tolerates evil as a necessary consequence of allowing human free will, and I can make sense of that one but it still doesn't explain suffering.

I long ago gave up on omnipotence. I cannot even make sense of what it means, but neither can I affirm the basic proposition as defined negatively (no limits). It is an unholy alliance, a bastard child, of ancient monarchical absolutism with Greek philosophical efforts to maintain consistency.

@LanDroid:
New evangelism sounds relatively innocent to me. Evangel means good news, as I am sure you have heard. Bringing the good news anew is a worthy effort. The limitations of ancient language and concepts can easily obscure the good news that meaning is found in relationship, that fundamental ordering principles of the universe favor moral living and nurturance, and that human efforts to dominate others for their own vain glory cannot ultimately defeat the bonds of human caring.

I must say I don't think this bunch took the trouble to get their heads on straight before going at it, though. Mary's Immaculate Conception? Last I heard it took place in a pig's eye.
@