If You're a Christian, Muslim or Jew - You are Wrong (1 Viewer)

[SashatheMan]

http://www.christusrex.org/www1/apparitions/pr00011.htm

Just the source makes this story highly unbelievable. I would love to hear news groups or less bias sources report on this. Since the only place i heard this was from some christian site, its hardly believable. unless you can give me a less bias source i would dissmiss it straight away.

The miracle occured with the sun. All could stare perfectly at the sun without blinking, or even hurting heir eyes. While all were watching the sun, it rotated, got large and small, got close to the people, and got far away from them. The sun " danced ". Every single person who was there testified to seeing the sun dance, even non- believers who immediately dropped onto their knees and begged for forgiveness.

this sounds like observation of an eclips with added religion crap to make it seem more a mircale. Why would marry even bother to rotate and resize the sun? how does that benefit human kind?
Watching the sun rotate? umm, watching the sun rotate would me impossible, not only physicly, but it would be impossible to observe such a rotation with a naked human eye.
70,000 people witnessed it? hmm, so the sun only appears to 70,000 people? and the other half of the earth didnt see anytihng? if its even true that there were 70,000 people reporting seeing this, they were all fundemental chritians.

i love the sentence

even non- believers who immediately dropped onto their knees and begged for forgiveness.

makes it sound like all non-believers truely are scared of god, even though they dont believe in him. if a person was a non-believer and the sun going crazy stuff, they most likely wouldnt get on their kneees to prey, but rather have enough common sence to take cover. After all they think logicly and dont try to link everything to god. they dont think like this " shit a spinning sun, it must be god"

 

[Liberator]

God is laughing as you simpletons for arguing in his name. He purposely allowed a division of belief to divide the human race and stagnate its progress.
Believing in misguided writing of mere mortals who have a claim of higher being is laughable. Let the beliefs of all of you slowly allow the damnation of the great civilizations.
Now join I and others, who are wise enough to deny gods involvement in helping of humanity and liberate yourself to enjoy the delights that Satan has to offer.

 

[AsyLum]

Religion is based on 'faith'. Religion itself has very little to do with logic. If it was logical you wouldn't have faith would you?

You'd be surprised how much religion involves logical discussions from non-theists and theists alike.

The problem with many arguments are they appear as X and Y, with either side unwilling to take a "even if you are right...you're still wrong because.." stance which is necessary when dealing with something as loaded as religion and faith belief systems.

What moonlight has tried to offer is this very tact, and so the onus, and has always been, on the theist to offer a defense which counters the objections levelled against it.

In the end, religious values are personal and belief, faith and the application of reason and logic to arguments are just as fickle in their nature as the religious discussions which have plagued mankind since he found out he could think. Personally, i really don't have a problem with beliefs at all. I know quite a few atheists who act in a much more 'christian' way than many christian friends. The question that should be looked at is whether a belief in God is illogical or rationally unconsistent, the difficulty here is trying to delve past the obvious bias between the two, and separating the rhetoric from the reason. (and this doesn't even cover the belief of the unknown and the 'filler' God explanation).

*rambles and returns to his essay*

 

[erawamai]

What moonlight has tried to offer is this very tact, and so the onus, and has always been, on the theist to offer a defense which counters the objections levelled against it.

The onus is on religious people to prove it. The assumption is that people are born without believeing in a god. A child is not born as religious. Beliefs are shaped by what the child does, what the child sees and what is told to the child. Unless of course you can find the christian gene which shows that people are genetically born christian or muslim or whatever. If a child was born christian then the onus would be on the non believers.

But, like everything, belief largely a construct of the society in which you live. I don't think religious beliefs are much different from any other beliefs. I mean I wasn't born center left, I wasn't born to be a law student, I wasn't born to think Steve Waugh was a good player. All these things were learnt from interaction with the society I exist in and the people I interacted with. And all in all I believe that religion is vital for society and plays an important part in many peoples lives. However the creation of gods and such is simply for helping the millions of people that get up everyday, work, sleep and then die accept the harshness and unfairness of life.

 

[AsyLum]

Err thats exactly what i said?

theist = someone who believes in a theology

 

[MoonlightSonata]

...belief, faith and reason and logic are just as fickle in their nature as the religious discussions which have plagued mankind since he found out he could think.

I just have an obvious qualm with that -- logic is not fickle. People may have applied it inconsistently from time to time (with observable results indicating how they were right or wrong), but there is no indication that there is not a core base of objective logic.

 

[AsyLum]

Haha forgive me, i was posting around 5am but i agree with you, what i meant was the application of logic rather than logic itself (kinda a self-incoherent problem if logic is inconsistent isnt it )

 

[erawamai]

Err thats exactly what i said?

theist = someone who believes in a theology

oops...Sorry bout that.

 

[AsyLum]

oops...Sorry bout that.

Its all good

 

[veterandoggy]

Just the source makes this story highly unbelievable. I would love to hear news groups or less bias sources report on this. Since the only place i heard this was from some christian site, its hardly believable. unless you can give me a less bias source i would dissmiss it straight away.

i would understand if you would want an unbias reporting, but i dont think the media is exactly unbias. unbias in the sense "report anything that will get a big bunch of viewers", bias in the sense "people think this, so let us find these stuff, so they'll watch us more", not always doing their best to prove themselves wrong, in order to get a more unbias approach.

it did happen and there were thousands to prove it.

http://www.christusrex.org/www1/apparitions/pr00011.htm

the sun being less of a strain on the eyes sounds like an eclipse, but i doubt the sun moving closer/further. i am pretty sure that even scientists agree that it the earth was to move a bit forward/backward then we will fry/freeze

 

[ice_wind]

the guy had no base...i mean, what physical evidence has he brought up to prove what he's said, its all a conspiracy theory. i'm catholic and pissed off with the way my religion has been debased by this...

anyone heard of tolerance? it doesnt matter wat u believe in as long as ure a good person then its fine...

 

[veterandoggy]

what are you referring to? im pretty sure youve lost a few people.

everyone tolerates. the one that don't are hiding in caves.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

i would understand if you would want an unbias reporting, but i dont think the media is exactly unbias. unbias in the sense "report anything that will get a big bunch of viewers", bias in the sense "people think this, so let us find these stuff, so they'll watch us more", not always doing their best to prove themselves wrong, in order to get a more unbias approach.

He means a news source that isn't a religious group.

 

[veterandoggy]

He means a news source that isn't a religious group.

heh, i was kinda referring to the traditional news on free-to-air, since they have done it many times before.

 

[SashatheMan]

i would understand if you would want an unbias reporting, but i dont think the media is exactly unbias. unbias in the sense "report anything that will get a big bunch of viewers", bias in the sense "people think this, so let us find these stuff, so they'll watch us more", not always doing their best to prove themselves wrong, in order to get a more unbias approach.

ok i dont want extremist reporting

the sun being less of a strain on the eyes sounds like an eclipse, but i doubt the sun moving closer/further. i am pretty sure that even scientists agree that it the earth was to move a bit forward/backward then we will fry/freeze

glas we are using some sence and agree on something.
this article would interest Kangaroo.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

"report anything that will get a big bunch of viewers"

Yes, and if media source is constantly found to be bias it will lose viewers and not be taken seriously... ala your religious tripe.

 

[veterandoggy]

ok i dont want extremist reporting


glas we are using some sence and agree on something.
this article would interest Kangaroo.

why would that be extremist reporting? arent they meant to give both sides od an argument, hence "interviews"?

were those typos? that is the sense that has always present in me, and i just remembered something, probably a verse, which says something along the lines of "they will never be satisfied with you until you follow what they follow." it isnt the exact wording, but if it was, i would use my sense to agree with that too.

 

[veterandoggy]

Yes, and if media source is constantly found to be bias it will lose viewers and not be taken seriously... ala your religious tripe.

if the viewers are bias too they will not notice...

i had a question which was in the terror raids thread and it didnt get answered, since it is about terror raids, not evolution. but i am still curious, and because of that i am willing to give the responder the last word. ill go find it

 

[veterandoggy]

found it.

UV light was continous as you might figure.
And earth wasnt like it is at present time, as the article states there was much more electrical strom activity.

Given the fact he produced organic components and amino acids, in a week, and earth had billions of earth. (think about this number billions) its so much larger then a week and the chance of this occuring is very likely.
Anyway this basicly answers your question on how life is formed. So there is absolutely no justification for god creating it.

sorry, out of context (but so is all this babbling), but are amino acids and such able to stay without decaying on their ownselves? if so, how long will it take before it decays? i dont know, and am hoping someone posts the life span of organic materials as such, but from what i can guess, even if earth had billions of years to create a cell, its components wouldnt have been able to build up over these years. and according to the pre atmospheric environment, wouldnt the cell have been destroyed before it had a chance to live (UV rays)? and if this holds true, then when the atmosphere formed, how could this environment be upheld to make more cells, with the removal of alot of UV light? just out of my mind, so dont ask for a quoting, but now that i read over it, it makes sense, and isnt gibberish, before any of you say so.

 

[SashatheMan]

why would that be extremist reporting? arent they meant to give both sides od an argument, hence "interviews"?

were those typos? that is the sense that has always present in me, and i just remembered something, probably a verse, which says something along the lines of "they will never be satisfied with you until you follow what they follow." it isnt the exact wording, but if it was, i would use my sense to agree with that too.

thier side of the arguments , involves presenting a hardly believable story, that i already proved in many ways not possible. I would have to say their side of the argument is backed up my a big lie. without any sodin evidence to pack it up.

i know what your saying with that "until they follow what you agree with", but this is an discussion , with people trying to prove their argument, i dont think i should change my mind when something so blatantly false is presented to me and expect me to believe. it actually makes me more certain i am correct .