100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: the christian god ... loving or evil ?? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
by theory then, isnt anything that has more than ONE possible explanation,,,,a catalyst for delusional people who will decide on personal critera which Explanation makes the MOST sense to them and relate to it, therefore , as truth? so arent those who believe in evolution, although a theory(the bible) alternative to it exists, likewise, 'delusional' will we really define 'delusional' with such a broad brush that only those beliefs that have some ABSOLUTE proof would not be 'delusional' beliefs i didn't define anything. i offered how psychiatry defines "delusional." nobody "believes" in a theory, not evolution, the big bang or any other scientific theory. anybody who tells you that they believe evolution to be fact is indeed delusional. you brought up evolution, a theory in the science discipline, biology, so let's stay with what science accepts as a theory. a good theory can be tested to produce predictable and repeatable results. so long as the results continue to support the theory the theory stands plausible and accepted but that means it's merely withstood the latest test. it can never be proved. if that is how a theory is defined, and it is as far as i'm concerned, then the bible is anything but theory. a hypothesis at best but more or less a postulate as i see it. I wonder why all the studies exist pretty much 'laughing' at people for 'not believing' evolution then,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder why all the studies exist pretty much 'laughing' at people for 'not believing' evolution then,,,, MsHarmony, do you believe that humans did not descend from non-human primates? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by theory then, isnt anything that has more than ONE possible explanation,,,,a catalyst for delusional people who will decide on personal critera which Explanation makes the MOST sense to them and relate to it, therefore , as truth? so arent those who believe in evolution, although a theory(the bible) alternative to it exists, likewise, 'delusional' will we really define 'delusional' with such a broad brush that only those beliefs that have some ABSOLUTE proof would not be 'delusional' beliefs i didn't define anything. i offered how psychiatry defines "delusional." nobody "believes" in a theory, not evolution, the big bang or any other scientific theory. anybody who tells you that they believe evolution to be fact is indeed delusional. you brought up evolution, a theory in the science discipline, biology, so let's stay with what science accepts as a theory. a good theory can be tested to produce predictable and repeatable results. so long as the results continue to support the theory the theory stands plausible and accepted but that means it's merely withstood the latest test. it can never be proved. if that is how a theory is defined, and it is as far as i'm concerned, then the bible is anything but theory. a hypothesis at best but more or less a postulate as i see it. I wonder why all the studies exist pretty much 'laughing' at people for 'not believing' evolution then,,,, ok, i'll bite. which studies exist that laugh at people for not "believing" in evolution. or, if you wish, which studies exist that show people actually do "believe" in evolution??? the word "believe" here is key now. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder why all the studies exist pretty much 'laughing' at people for 'not believing' evolution then,,,, MsHarmony, do you believe that humans did not descend from non-human primates? I do |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Fri 06/24/11 11:38 AM
|
|
by theory then, isnt anything that has more than ONE possible explanation,,,,a catalyst for delusional people who will decide on personal critera which Explanation makes the MOST sense to them and relate to it, therefore , as truth? so arent those who believe in evolution, although a theory(the bible) alternative to it exists, likewise, 'delusional' will we really define 'delusional' with such a broad brush that only those beliefs that have some ABSOLUTE proof would not be 'delusional' beliefs i didn't define anything. i offered how psychiatry defines "delusional." nobody "believes" in a theory, not evolution, the big bang or any other scientific theory. anybody who tells you that they believe evolution to be fact is indeed delusional. you brought up evolution, a theory in the science discipline, biology, so let's stay with what science accepts as a theory. a good theory can be tested to produce predictable and repeatable results. so long as the results continue to support the theory the theory stands plausible and accepted but that means it's merely withstood the latest test. it can never be proved. if that is how a theory is defined, and it is as far as i'm concerned, then the bible is anything but theory. a hypothesis at best but more or less a postulate as i see it. I wonder why all the studies exist pretty much 'laughing' at people for 'not believing' evolution then,,,, ok, i'll bite. which studies exist that laugh at people for not "believing" in evolution. or, if you wish, which studies exist that show people actually do "believe" in evolution??? the word "believe" here is key now. http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/god-and-country/2009/02/11/gallup-darwins-birthday-poll-fewer-than-four-in-ten-believe-in-evolution for sake of clarity, I will state this is a 'poll' , which is a type of study, but I just want to clarify anyway of course studies and polls dont make fun, they are numerical data, but the implications of such polls and studies certainly bring about ridicule and divisiveness amongst those receiving the data ,,,and there are plenty of jokes going around regarding how 'unbelievable' it is that some people actually dont believe they changed over the course of time from non human to human... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
then we agree. poles are not studies and studies do not laugh at people. if there are jokes about people who believe in evolution then that i can understand. i'd laugh if someone told me they believe in evolution. believing in the big bang would get an even bigger chuckle out of me and yet i find both theories highly plausible when compared to genesis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder why all the studies exist pretty much 'laughing' at people for 'not believing' evolution then,,,, MsHarmony, do you believe that humans did not descend from non-human primates? I do from your posts i take it that you do not accept the psychiatric definition of "delusion" as a belief in a concept in spite of evidence for an alternative concept. if that is so, how do you define the word "delusion"??? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
then we agree. poles are not studies and studies do not laugh at people. if there are jokes about people who believe in evolution then that i can understand. i'd laugh if someone told me they believe in evolution. believing in the big bang would get an even bigger chuckle out of me and yet i find both theories highly plausible when compared to genesis. that was the reason for clarification although I believe a poll is a type of study like a peach is a type of fruit but all fruit is not a peach and all studies are not polls, so I decided to be more specific,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Spidercmb
on
Fri 06/24/11 12:31 PM
|
|
from your posts i take it that you do not accept the psychiatric definition of "delusion" as a belief in a concept in spite of evidence for an alternative concept. if that is so, how do you define the word "delusion"??? Delusion A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everybody else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture. 1) There is no incontrovertible evidence for Evolution. http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4023134/the_sheer_lack_of_evidence_for_macro_evolution_william_lane_craig/ 2) MsHarmony's disbelief in Evolution is very common among Christians. Those two taken together prove that she is not delusional about Evolution, she might be WRONG, but she's not delusional (at least about Evolution). But since you have your panties in a wad about MsHarmony's beliefs, it might interest you to know there are people in these forums who are convinced that reptilian aliens are raising humans as livestock and others who believe that 9/11 was an inside job. Those are real delusions and you should go badger and brow beat the people who believe those things. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
then we agree. poles are not studies and studies do not laugh at people. if there are jokes about people who believe in evolution then that i can understand. i'd laugh if someone told me they believe in evolution. believing in the big bang would get an even bigger chuckle out of me and yet i find both theories highly plausible when compared to genesis. that was the reason for clarification although I believe a poll is a type of study like a peach is a type of fruit but all fruit is not a peach and all studies are not polls, so I decided to be more specific,,, just one more disagreement then. polls are not studies. studies have control groups for instance, polls do not. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder why all the studies exist pretty much 'laughing' at people for 'not believing' evolution then,,,, MsHarmony, do you believe that humans did not descend from non-human primates? I do from your posts i take it that you do not accept the psychiatric definition of "delusion" as a belief in a concept in spite of evidence for an alternative concept. if that is so, how do you define the word "delusion"??? I accept it as one definition if it is written that way, I just would find it a pretty all encompassing description my reference for delusion has more to do with being contrary to fact as in, a human being believing he is a dog,,,would be delusional a person believing that in every situation someone wishes them harm,, is delusional ,,delusion, to me, is determined from a foundation of what is 'fact' or at least 'accepted as fact' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
then we agree. poles are not studies and studies do not laugh at people. if there are jokes about people who believe in evolution then that i can understand. i'd laugh if someone told me they believe in evolution. believing in the big bang would get an even bigger chuckle out of me and yet i find both theories highly plausible when compared to genesis. that was the reason for clarification although I believe a poll is a type of study like a peach is a type of fruit but all fruit is not a peach and all studies are not polls, so I decided to be more specific,,, just one more disagreement then. polls are not studies. studies have control groups for instance, polls do not. right off the bat there is a study comes to mind that doesnt involve control groups,, a Case STUDY , is still a study, without a control group at least, from my understanding, study , in its simplest form, is review of information,,,that information can include 'controls' but it doesnt have to include control groups,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Delusion A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everybody else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture. 1) There is no incontrovertible evidence for Evolution. this definition differs with that of phsychiatry. likely because there is no such thing as "incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence." evolution is a theory meaning it has not been proved yet there is plenty of physical evidence that when tested continues to produce predictable and repeatable results. but of course only when applied by scientific methodology. if you consider genesis to be a theory supported by the bible as evidence then you would be applying something other than the scientific method. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
then we agree. poles are not studies and studies do not laugh at people. if there are jokes about people who believe in evolution then that i can understand. i'd laugh if someone told me they believe in evolution. believing in the big bang would get an even bigger chuckle out of me and yet i find both theories highly plausible when compared to genesis. that was the reason for clarification although I believe a poll is a type of study like a peach is a type of fruit but all fruit is not a peach and all studies are not polls, so I decided to be more specific,,, just one more disagreement then. polls are not studies. studies have control groups for instance, polls do not. right off the bat there is a study comes to mind that doesnt involve control groups,, a Case STUDY , is still a study, without a control group at least, from my understanding, study , in its simplest form, is review of information,,,that information can include 'controls' but it doesnt have to include control groups,,, a case study does not a poll make either. but we're going nowhere here. i think we understand each other and simply disagree. somebody already thinks i have my panties in a wad over your beliefs and i'd just assume not upset him further. lol. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Spidercmb
on
Fri 06/24/11 12:56 PM
|
|
Delusion A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everybody else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture. 1) There is no incontrovertible evidence for Evolution. this definition differs with that of phsychiatry. likely because there is no such thing as "incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence." evolution is a theory meaning it has not been proved yet there is plenty of physical evidence that when tested continues to produce predictable and repeatable results. but of course only when applied by scientific methodology. if you consider genesis to be a theory supported by the bible as evidence then you would be applying something other than the scientific method. What I posted is the definition of delusion from the latest version of "Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-IV-TR", which is published by the American Psychiatric Association. Where did your definition come from? |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Kleisto
on
Fri 06/24/11 01:10 PM
|
|
You are right though, we cannot be more pure, good or know more than God. Having said that however, it's that very fact that automatically rules out a God doing the things the Bible says He does. Reason being, if he was that pure, holy, knowing and good, moreso than we are, then He would not stoop to our levels being above them. If He did, than He's no better than we are, which would mean He's not as divine as is said. You can't have it both ways, He's either all holy, acting the part, or He's not. You still don't get it. If God is perfect, then how can you as an imperfect being question his actions? Perhaps the way God has handled things is the best way? Your limited human mind does not know. There could be incredibly important facts that are beyond your understanding made God's treatment of the Midianites the most good actions possible. You can't second guess God. Once you have accepted (even for arguments sake) that God exists, you cannot LOGICALLY OR RATIONALLY question his actions. And you still don't get, that a just God is not gonna say: "Obey me or die". That does not a divine being make, I don't care how you try to twist it. It flat does not work. There is no way that a being who is supposedly better than we are, is going to act like us in effect. That the best he can do to settle things is through bloodshed and death. No way, no how. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You are right though, we cannot be more pure, good or know more than God. Having said that however, it's that very fact that automatically rules out a God doing the things the Bible says He does. Reason being, if he was that pure, holy, knowing and good, moreso than we are, then He would not stoop to our levels being above them. If He did, than He's no better than we are, which would mean He's not as divine as is said. You can't have it both ways, He's either all holy, acting the part, or He's not. You still don't get it. If God is perfect, then how can you as an imperfect being question his actions? Perhaps the way God has handled things is the best way? Your limited human mind does not know. There could be incredibly important facts that are beyond your understanding made God's treatment of the Midianites the most good actions possible. You can't second guess God. Once you have accepted (even for arguments sake) that God exists, you cannot LOGICALLY OR RATIONALLY question his actions. And you still don't get, that a just God is not gonna say: "Obey me or die". That does not a divine being make, I don't care how you try to twist it. It flat does not work. You have it all twisted. God says "Your going to die, let me save you." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You are right though, we cannot be more pure, good or know more than God. Having said that however, it's that very fact that automatically rules out a God doing the things the Bible says He does. Reason being, if he was that pure, holy, knowing and good, moreso than we are, then He would not stoop to our levels being above them. If He did, than He's no better than we are, which would mean He's not as divine as is said. You can't have it both ways, He's either all holy, acting the part, or He's not. You still don't get it. If God is perfect, then how can you as an imperfect being question his actions? Perhaps the way God has handled things is the best way? Your limited human mind does not know. There could be incredibly important facts that are beyond your understanding made God's treatment of the Midianites the most good actions possible. You can't second guess God. Once you have accepted (even for arguments sake) that God exists, you cannot LOGICALLY OR RATIONALLY question his actions. And you still don't get, that a just God is not gonna say: "Obey me or die". That does not a divine being make, I don't care how you try to twist it. It flat does not work. You have it all twisted. God says "Your going to die, let me save you." Oh give me a damn break. He's the one that goes through with allowing the torture in the first place. He could save everyone if he wanted to. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Delusion A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everybody else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture. 1) There is no incontrovertible evidence for Evolution. this definition differs with that of phsychiatry. likely because there is no such thing as "incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence." evolution is a theory meaning it has not been proved yet there is plenty of physical evidence that when tested continues to produce predictable and repeatable results. but of course only when applied by scientific methodology. if you consider genesis to be a theory supported by the bible as evidence then you would be applying something other than the scientific method. What I posted is the definition of delusion from the latest version of "Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-IV-TR", which is published by the American Psychiatric Association. Where did your definition come from? Karl Jaspers. General Psychopathology. Can't copy paste as i'm reading out of a real book believe it or not but here's the exact text. "A delusion is a belief that is either mistaken or not substantiated and is held with very strong feelings or opinions and expressed forcefully." so even evidence to the contrary, incontrovertable or otherwise, is not required to be deluded. obviously a believe in god cannot be a mistake since god cannot be known but it sure is not substantiated. but my guess is that now we'll be getting into the definition of the word "substantiated" huh? |
|
|
|
|
