Shaken Atheism: A Look at the Fine-Tuned Universe

[cormac mac airt]

22 minutes ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

"Scientific" evidence of this is sketchy. Theories from our flawed, limited, finite human minds. The Bible on the other hand, was given by the Spirit of God. “All scripture is given by inspiration of God" "holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”  But you have no experience with these things to know for yourself that they are so. A person can come to the point of knowing beyond a shadow of a doubt that they these things are true. But not with a closed off mind. Spirits operate a certain way. And the Spirit of God does not push Himself on people who reject Him. 

You know nothing verifiable about God or spirits. As to science being sketchy, that’s BS. Genetics alone has shown definitively that non-Sub-Saharan humans (ie. Homo sapiens sapiens) share a sizable portion of their DNA with both Neanderthals and Denisovans from prior to 40,000 BP. Your belief can’t explain that. 
 

cormac

[Antigonos]

15 minutes ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

I don't always read what people say these days 

So you admit you came here to a public forum in order to preach and not listen to what others have to say.

As we thought.

This thread should be closed.

Edited September 20, 2023 by Antigonos

[+joc]

2 hours ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

What, you don't think the 'aliens' (amalgamations made in an underground lab) are out there? This is not from a Bible verse, no.  

What 'amalgamations'would that be?  I haven't a clue what you mean.

[+Sherapy]

46 minutes ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

"Scientific" evidence of this is sketchy. Theories from our flawed, limited, finite human minds. The Bible on the other hand, was given by the Spirit of God. “All scripture is given by inspiration of God" "holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”  But you have no experience with these things to know for yourself that they are so. A person can come to the point of knowing beyond a shadow of a doubt that they these things are true. But not with a closed off mind. Spirits operate a certain way. And the Spirit of God does not push Himself on people who reject Him. 

It is also worth noting that personal experiences and feelings  vary greatly from person to person and cannot be used as universal evidence to support any claims. Spiritual experiences and religious beliefs are deeply personal and subjective, and they are not  universally applicable or verifiable at this time. You are at best sharing your own god construct made up by you and influenced by EGW and SDA based on your own needs and wants, while this is what floats your boat it speaks for noone else but you. 

Edited September 20, 2023 by Sherapy

[XenoFish]

Oddly, I think Read has done a good job for anti-religion.  

[lightly]

5 hours ago, Piney said:

More like the first case of welfare for undocumented immigrants. 

Sweet potatoes might have been introduced by Polynesians into South America. 

I seem to recall that point being held up as a piece of possible evidence the Americas were settled from the west.???  That and chickens??        But there are no wild varieties of sweet potatoes in the pacific islands…while there are in S America.  ..so, some say the Polynesian varieties were brought there from S. America !?       I dunno,  & I’m not even sure sweet potatoes & yams are always the same thing.   Anyway, I don’t think sweet potatoes have anything to do with shaking Atheism, so I’d better drop it..like a hot sweet potato.      
   https://www.wm.edu/news/stories/2019/the-ancient-anthropocene,-the-mystery-of-the-sweet-potato,-and-how-bananas-became-seedless.php#:~:text=But there is at least,Pacific Islands%2C” Kahn said.

       “Wild forms of sweet potato are not found in the Pacific Islands naturally, hence it was always likely that the origin spot for this plant’s domestication was going to be outside the Pacific Islands,” Kahn said. She added that the Polynesian word for sweet potato does not have any pre-Polynesian precursors, another clue that the plant came from somewhere else.

“But it’s always been a mystery, because pieces of charred sweet potatoes have been found in archaeological sites pre-dating the arrival of Europeans,” she said. “They date back to around AD 1300, and European contact in most places was not until the 1700s. Right now, we think that some Polynesians, who were excellent voyagers, probably got caught in a storm and ended up in South America.”

Wild forms of the sweet potato are found in South America, and the natives had already domesticated the plant there, she said. The new arrivals were eager to adopt the sweet potato because it was similar to their familiar yams. The same theory suggests that the Polynesians had some poultry aboard.

Leave the chicken; take the sweet potato

 “When the Polynesians wanted to go back to the islands, it seems they left the chicken for the South Americans and took the sweet potato,” Kahn said. “Sweet potato then got introduced into the Pacific Islands and became a very important crop, outstripping yams, likely because it is easier to grow and can be grown in a wider range of environments.”

      

Yams are starchy and have a rough, brown exterior. They can grow up to 45 feet long and are eaten in parts of Latin America, West Africa, the Caribbean, and Asia. Sweet potatoes are a New World root vegetable and have a softer, reddish skin and a creamier, often darker interior.Oct 10, 2022

 

The Difference Between Yams and Sweet Potatoes Is ...

Edited September 20, 2023 by lightly

[XenoFish]

3 minutes ago, lightly said:

Anyway, I don’t think sweet potatoes have anything to do with shaking Atheism

Fun fact, never drink sweet potato juice. Especially two cups of it. Yeah.....listen for the rumble and you'll be clean as a whistle. 

[cormac mac airt]

1 hour ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

I don't always read what people say these days (I used to). It depends on the overall tone of their comments. I do remember, however, you or someone saying something about this - good and evil being the same so they can't destroy each other. And I do remember responding as well that good and evil are never the same. Good is the absence of evil. You cannot be both good and evil. The evil negates the good. And they have no communion - no harmony. So when you say, they can't destroy each other without destroying themselves, what do you mean? Did I misunderstand you?   

Sounds like an open admission that you’re only here to preach. No one is interested. 
 

cormac

[Piney]

1 hour ago, joc said:

What 'amalgamations'would that be?  I haven't a clue what you mean.

EGW wrote the "amalgamations of man and beast" are to be avoided and would appear at the End Times. She was talking about racially mixed marriages but some of the SDA moved the goalposts saying they are "Illuminati Deep State" genetic experiments and demon hybrids. 

@Antigonos knows more that I do. He's a Master Mason and is privy to those beings constructed by pure evil. 

 

 

[psyche101]

4 hours ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

And it's never one with God included in the mix. No one can disagree with me when I say that, "Scientific theory," if anything at all, is full of atheistic narratives. The truth that God created the world is never included in scientific theory, but instead, something utterly impossible to believe  - the world created itself. I'm sorry but, for me, it takes more faith to believe in science than it takes to believe in God. I'm not the only one who thinks this way either. 

Bet lets face it. You're not exactly an intellectual giant are you. 

You should stop pretending that you understand science. You don't. You need to revise your understanding. Scientific theory, facts and hypotheses are based on observations. Science is only that which we have seen tested and verified. Nothing beyond that. Observations aren't atheistic narratives. They are observations.

That's why BS constantly tries to demean science but fails. Look at the impact you have had here, you're laughed at. Do you think any god would be proud of the bad representation you offer? You're not exactly drawing crowds for the flock are you. You just make religion look uniformed and mindless. Not a great look and if there was a god, I can't see it being impressed with you. 

Edited September 20, 2023 by psyche101

[jmccr8]

1 hour ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

I don't always read what people say these days (I used to). It depends on the overall tone of their comments. I do remember, however, you or someone saying something about this - good and evil being the same so they can't destroy each other. And I do remember responding as well that good and evil are never the same. Good is the absence of evil. You cannot be both good and evil. The evil negates the good. And they have no communion - no harmony. So when you say, they can't destroy each other without destroying themselves, what do you mean? Did I misunderstand you?   

Hi Read

It's quite simple really if there is no evil there is no good as they are a part of each other and exist only as the duality of both extremes. That said good and evil are subjective  for you science is evil and yet everyday you enjoy the benefits of science.

[+Sherapy]

2 hours ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

I don't always read what people say these days (I used to). It depends on the overall tone of their comments. I do remember, however, you or someone saying something about this - good and evil being the same so they can't destroy each other. And I do remember responding as well that good and evil are never the same. Good is the absence of evil. You cannot be both good and evil. The evil negates the good. And they have no communion - no harmony. So when you say, they can't destroy each other without destroying themselves, what do you mean? Did I misunderstand you?   

 

Regarding the statement about good and evil being the same and not able to destroy each other, it's important to note that perspectives on this topic vary and there are many. It doesn’t sound like you have put much thought into this. The idea behind your statement is that good and evil are concepts that exist in relation to one another. They are interdependent, with one defining the other. This implies that in attempting to eradicate the idea of evil entirely, one risks losing the concept of good as well.

Regarding the importance of reading everyone in a discussion, it is indeed “crucial” to consider different perspectives. Engaging in conversations and being open to various viewpoints promotes understanding, empathy, and the exchange of ideas. By seeking to comprehend different opinions, Read, you could gain valuable insights and possibly challenge your own beliefs something that you need to do. Reading everyone's contributions helps nurture an inclusive and well-rounded discussion. You have gotta put on your big boy pants and not take everything so literal and seriously. 

 

 

Edited September 21, 2023 by Sherapy

[Antigonos]

1 hour ago, Piney said:

EGW wrote the "amalgamations of man and beast" are to be avoided and would appear at the End Times. She was talking about racially mixed marriages but some of the SDA moved the goalposts saying they are "Illuminati Deep State" genetic experiments and demon hybrids. 

@Antigonos knows more that I do. He's a Master Mason and is privy to those beings constructed by pure evil. 

 

 

I conjured up a djinn that’s just itching to possess Read.

[+Sherapy]

4 minutes ago, Antigonos said:

I conjured up a djinn that’s just itching to possess Read.

Ahahahahahahaha

 

 

[ReadTheGreatControversyEGW]

2 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

It's quite simple really if there is no evil there is no good as they are a part of each other and exist only as the duality of both extremes. That said good and evil are subjective 

This is what happens when one relegates good and evil to being no more than 'concepts.' Good and evil are much more than 'concepts.' They are a reality. If they were mere 'concepts,' then maybe you would have a good argument. Someone taking a gun and shooting you because they want your money - this act is evil, wrong. Nothing subjective about that. Nothing ideological or theoretical about it either. Just a fact. Plain and simple. Do not think that because good and evil are words, that they have no real meaning or definite place in reality. These words are used to describe that which is real and objective. The better thought or question I would say is, what is considered good and what is considered evil in our world? Are those things truly good/evil? What makes them good or evil? 

Quote

for you science is evil and yet everyday you enjoy the benefits of science.

Science is evil? I have no problem with truth. Only lies. The study of the natural world is sensible and wise, the way God intended - but the godless atheistic explanations attached to natural phenomenon is only lies. I am not speaking about people. I am speaking about those ideologies. 

[ReadTheGreatControversyEGW]

4 hours ago, joc said:

What 'amalgamations'would that be?  I haven't a clue what you mean.

We shall all see when disclosure happens as it most likely will. The problem is that people always go with the mainstream narrative and won't understand what's really happening, even if they are told. Easy pickings for deception. I'm incensed at the state of things. Not the people, of course. 

[ReadTheGreatControversyEGW]

Thanks for chatting folks. I wish we could have a more constructive discussion without all the personal jabs. Will never get anywhere with those in the picture. I have no problems with you guys personally. It's not personal. I wanted to discuss different ideas and views. Want to hear what you guys have to say about these ideas. No interest whatsoever in personal attacks on anyone. I like discussing different thoughts. Testing them to see, do they make sense. The idea that the world came about all by itself is not possible. When I say to share what you think, I really do want to see your evidence so I can look at it and think on it to see if it makes sense to me. I'm pretty skeptical myself and would probably not have a firm belief in God if He had not connected with me on a personal level.  

[cormac mac airt]

19 minutes ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

Thanks for chatting folks. I wish we could have a more constructive discussion without all the personal jabs. Will never get anywhere with those in the picture. I have no problems with you guys personally. It's not personal. I wanted to discuss different ideas and views. Want to hear what you guys have to say about these ideas. No interest whatsoever in personal attacks on anyone. I like discussing different thoughts. Testing them to see, do they make sense. The idea that the world came about all by itself is not possible. When I say to share what you think, I really do want to see your evidence so I can look at it and think on it to see if it makes sense to me. I'm pretty skeptical myself and would probably not have a firm belief in God if He had not connected with me on a personal level.  

You’ve proven to pretty much everyone here that you’re not interested in doing anything but preaching your beliefs as fact, which they’re not, while ignoring everything else except to tell everyone they’re wrong. As preaching is against Forum Rules you’d be better served taking your sermon elsewhere. 
 

cormac

[ReadTheGreatControversyEGW]

23 hours ago, joc said:

On 9/19/2023 at 8:51 PM, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

Can you prove that?

Can you prove that also? Provide the scientific evidence. No one can prove that an asteroid 65 millions years ago destroyed the dinosaurs. 

Currently watching this. I did notice that a lot of what he is saying are our interpretations of old world relics. There are other ways to interpret the observations. Other factors that may not now be present. Especially if it was 65000000 years ago. Can't prove that timeline either - 65 million years. These men are operating under a preexisting theory. So their thoughts will only be in that direction. Evolution. If what he is saying is true about the disappearing of fossils from the rocks after a certain point, it could be that something else in the world moved them or pushed them upwards out of the water (the rocks). It could be anything. A powerful earthquake or something else. In the book of Genesis it describes water bursting up from underneath the earth in the ocean ('fountains of the great deep [ocean] breaking up') during the flood. It is clear that water was coming up from beneath the earth and also from above... We do not know all the changes that happened at that time. But it said for the first in the Bible, there would be different seasons. The earth changed dramatically. Also, the flood covered the mountains for a while. It would not be unusual for the fossils of sea creatures to be found on them. 

Edited September 21, 2023 by ReadTheGreatControversyEGW

[+Hammerclaw]

11 minutes ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

Currently watching this. I did notice that a lot of what he is saying are our interpretations of old world relics. There are other ways to interpret the observations. Other factors that may not now be present. Especially if it was 65000000 years ago. Can't prove that timeline either - 65 million years. These men are operating under a preexisting theory. So their thoughts will only be in that direction. Evolution. 

God created evolution so, just deal with it. The crazy old woman you worship didn't know much of anything. 

[jmccr8]

2 hours ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

This is what happens when one relegates good and evil to being no more than 'concepts.' Good and evil are much more than 'concepts.' They are a reality. If they were mere 'concepts,' then maybe you would have a good argument. Someone taking a gun and shooting you because they want your money - this act is evil, wrong. Nothing subjective about that. Nothing ideological or theoretical about it either. Just a fact. Plain and simple. Do not think that because good and evil are words, that they have no real meaning or definite place in reality. These words are used to describe that which is real and objective. The better thought or question I would say is, what is considered good and what is considered evil in our world? Are those things truly good/evil? What makes them good or evil

Hi Read

When god commanded the Jews to kill every man, woman and child for the purpose of giving them the land of milk and honey was that not murder and robbery? In my book it is especially given he created all men.

I didn't say good and evil are just words I said that they have to co-exist because they are one root and cannot exist independent of each other. All things exist and it is the intent of use that is good or evil.

2 hours ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

Science is evil? I have no problem with truth. Only lies. The study of the natural world is sensible and wise, the way God intended - but the godless atheistic explanations attached to natural phenomenon is only lies. I am not speaking about people. I am speaking about those ideologies. 

That is not what you were claiming earlier and was likening science to Satan and magic so keep your story straight. Again atheitism is not the driving force behind science as 90% of scientist are believers in one religion or another. You have a tendency to overstate the significance of your perceptions as they are weak and ill informed which is why several members have encouraged you to step out of your mentally restrictive biases and look at things objectively which very much is what Christian scientists do.

Edited September 21, 2023 by jmccr8

[jmccr8]

1 hour ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

Thanks for chatting folks. I wish we could have a more constructive discussion without all the personal jabs. Will never get anywhere with those in the picture. I have no problems with you guys personally. It's not personal. I wanted to discuss different ideas and views. Want to hear what you guys have to say about these ideas. No interest whatsoever in personal attacks on anyone. I like discussing different thoughts. Testing them to see, do they make sense. The idea that the world came about all by itself is not possible. When I say to share what you think, I really do want to see your evidence so I can look at it and think on it to see if it makes sense to me. I'm pretty skeptical myself and would probably not have a firm belief in God if He had not connected with me on a personal level.  

Hi Read 

Unfortunately you are not interested in an open and objective discussion, if you were you would discuss your positions like evolution or humans living in caves for hundreds of thousands of years by showing how the multi-disipline observations are wrong using the data collected by those disiplines. The bible is not a history book nor does it entail science and promotes magic as a cause of why things exist.

Please do show how genetics is shared between several hominid groups over the last half a million years is a lie or how they can exist before god was created by man.

You trust the science that makes your life easy, safe, entertaining so why do you distrust science that shows how we evolved, they use the same scientific method?

[cormac mac airt]

28 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Read 

Unfortunately you are not interested in an open and objective discussion, if you were you would discuss your positions like evolution or humans living in caves for hundreds of thousands of years by showing how the multi-disipline observations are wrong using the data collected by those disiplines. The bible is not a history book nor does it entail science and promotes magic as a cause of why things exist.

Please do show how genetics is shared between several hominid groups over the last half a million years is a lie or how they can exist before god was created by man.

You trust the science that makes your life easy, safe, entertaining so why do you distrust science that shows how we evolved, they use the same scientific method?

It all comes down to “Religious book written 2000+ years ago by shepherds and goat herders GOOD, science that disproves much of it BAD!” Go figure. 
 

cormac

[Saru]

Thread cleaned

Enough with the derogatory personal remarks please folks.

@ReadTheGreatControversyEGW - you asked me a couple of days ago how your posts constituted 'preaching' - I would say that 3 consecutive posts containing nothing but copied+pasted scripture more than fits the bill, please avoid doing this.

Thank you.

[XenoFish]

7 hours ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

This is what happens when one relegates good and evil to being no more than 'concepts.' Good and evil are much more than 'concepts.' They are a reality. If they were mere 'concepts,' then maybe you would have a good argument. Someone taking a gun and shooting you because they want your money - this act is evil, wrong. Nothing subjective about that. Nothing ideological or theoretical about it either. Just a fact. Plain and simple. Do not think that because good and evil are words, that they have no real meaning or definite place in reality. These words are used to describe that which is real and objective. The better thought or question I would say is, what is considered good and what is considered evil in our world? Are those things truly good/evil? What makes them good or evil? 

It would be just as easy for me to define the harsh judgment of those like myself who do not follow your path as evil. When we are considered such. Accused (falsely) of trafficking with demons and demonic forces. A cruel judgment placed upon us for no other reason than self righteousness.

Quote

Science is evil? I have no problem with truth. Only lies. The study of the natural world is sensible and wise, the way God intended - but the godless atheistic explanations attached to natural phenomenon is only lies. I am not speaking about people. I am speaking about those ideologies. 

If you are going to see nature as god intended, then you need to accept the harsh reality that life is harmful to life. Because one lifeform is food for another. Life isn't good by default, it is harsh. 

Edited September 21, 2023 by XenoFish