Recent posts by jjuanksta on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / #Yesallwomen Thoughts?

Basically after a recent shooting by a mentally ill young man, the hash tag “Yesallwomen” went viral. A more detailed explanation with examples can be found here:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/27/living/california-killer-hashtag-yesallwomen/

In all honesty I find this movement a bit disturbing, don’t get me wrong I am absolutely against against the horrors of rape, bullying, assault, and sexual harassment, but I don’t think that this is the way to go about fixing it.
My thesis is that this is an issue for ALL of humanity. Guys in the west (at least in my experience) are taught by men and women alike that they have to be that confident ones that make a first move on girls such as asking them on dates and so forth. We are taught that sex is something to crave and to a large part defines your manhood. Books and movies like “Fifty Shades of Grey” are glorified for their portrayal of BDSM like intimacy scenes. The bottom line is that we live in a ridiculously serialized society, and our biggest problem is that nobody wants to take responsibility.

Are there injustices against women? I contend not. There are injustices against humans, some of which happen to be female, and that stands true for virtually every single human being. I feel that as a collective humanity we need to assume responsibility and empathize. Everyone needs to stop being a victim and do something about it.

I understand that the way a woman dresses doesn’t mean she is asking to be raped, but in today’s society, the way a person portrays them self communicates information. If I dressed like a firefighter and you ran up to me telling me that your house was on fire and i turned around and said, “Just because I dress this way, doesn’t mean I am this way” would confuse you no?
In a perfect world, this wouldn’t be an issue, but unfortunately the way we dress does impact the way we are seen, and that goes for any human.

Well that’s my rant. I have yet to hear solid reasoning why a person is a feminist rather than a humanist. You can objectify what every person or group of people you want, but what is that really solving?

Thoughts on the topic?

PS: I was a bit inflammatory to give people something to talk about and I’m sorry for being a bit scattered.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / IF god was real why dosnt he fix the world we live in now

“I’m telling you that senseless killings based on differences in belief and greed were wrong and there is no universal moral law that reigns supreme. We, as individuals, decide what values and beliefs we wish to hold based on whatever means we go about doing that and try to convince others to hold the same thoughts. That’s civilization. No higher power was necessary for us to arrive where we are today, and you can clearly trace progress of values morals through the ages based on economic situation, area tensions, tradition, and outside influences.”

So according to the above logic, supreme morals are determined by man? That truly is a frightening proposition.
So if the Nazi’s won WW2 it would no longer be wrong to gas 6 million Jews? Morals dictated by the masses is hardly logical. You are going to sit there and tell me that it is not wrong to torture and kill a little baby for the fun of it, as long as I have enough people that agree with me?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Question to atheists

Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

I would argue that Nietzsche’s atheist philosophy was the driving force behind the Holocaust and its justification.

You would argue that because you don’t understand nietzsche and probably have never read him.

PS: Dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible (Job particularly)

References to dragons or winged beasts don’t count. Are you seriously contending that humans and dinosaurs lived in the same time period? Even for creationism that’s idiotic.

This made me laugh. Clearly you have never read Mein Kampf where Hitler frequently summarizes and even quotes Nietzsche. Also when studied together, the anti-Christ and Mein Kamf have several unmistakable parallels.

Oh and don’t think for one minute that I am implying that atheists can’t be good people, because that is not what I am saying. But what I would like to know is what rational reason would he/she chooses to be good?
Another question I have wondered that if man is the product of matter plus time plus chance, then how can he have intrinsic value?

Also as someone who studies Archeology and History at the university, I have been shocked by what is considered “accurate” in terms of “dating”
The further I venture into my studies the more i realize that we understand next to nothing in terms of origin. There is a complete poverty of fossil evidence that supports evolution, contrary what “science” would have you believe. I laugh at the multiple missing links like “Lucy” that are built purely on speculation. I invite you to critically evaluate what we actually know and you will see how much of a deviation macro-evolution is from science. Live dinosaur tissue has also been recently been recovered which I personally find interesting. To be honest I am skeptical of conservative 6 day creationism, but I am just as skeptical of bing-bang macro evolution. My study of archeology has made me question everything I previously believed was a fact.

PS: please forgive me if I have grammatical errors or my manner of expression comes across awkward English was not my first language so I apologize in advance.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / IF god was real why dosnt he fix the world we live in now

In order for this world to be “fixed” or to be made “better” you assume that there is an absolute moral standard by which to judge what a “better” world look like.

You also use the word “fix” which implies that something is wrong with the world, and if there is such a thing as wrong then there is such a thing as “right”. This again leads us to how differentiate what is wrong and what is right , there must be a standard by which to measure (objective moral law). If there is such a thing as an objective moral law, then there must be a transcendent moral law giver. Thus you end up supporting the existence of that which you sought to disprove through the implication that this world could be “better”.

Basically you can’t tell me that the crusades and other christian “atrocities” are wrong unless you admit there is a universal standard by which to differentiate what is wrong and what is right. Which in turn leads to the same conclusion as the argument above. If there are no moral absolutes then there is no right or wrong, if there is no right or wrong it is impossible for something to be made “better” because “better” implies an absolute standard by which to determine what is and what is not “better”.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Question to atheists

Originally posted by Rebellion_Leader:
Originally posted by DrOctaganapus2:

I understand many religious people (I’m generalizing as any religion with a deity can be overzealous believers) can be very close-minded and refuse to listen to others.

My question is where do most atheists consider the line between logical argumentation and simply berating the other persons beliefs simply because they do not know as much as you do of their faith or simply because if it’s an argument with more people you’re on the “winning side”? “Winning” being that your “side” has much more people.

_

For example, obviously arguing against God and just making fun of believers for acting like they are still like they were in Salem, Massachusetts without giving any kind of argument/proof are two different things, but when do the general census of Atheists consider what others say simply insulting the other persons beliefs?


Also, this thread is a question to atheists, not a debate about God’s existence, or about how Religious of said faith people see said line for them.

(Sorry in advance for excessive grammar)

Well i have a friend whos grandparents don’t believe in the dinasores because they aren’t mentioned in the bible. That is illogical. I am half atheist. I believe in a higher power but i don’t believe in many things that the bible says.

Let me just initially point out that it is not just religious people who are closed minded or ignorant, people in general achieve that on their own regardless of religious views.

Secondly this idea that atheism is rooted in science and logic is nothing but good advertizing. The truth of the matter is that there is no evidence that dis-proves the existence of a transcendent being. Also there is a very strong dividing line between scientists, scholars, and multitudes of educated people on this subject, it is not like all the atheists are represented by scientists and all Christians are represented by a couple of ignorant hicks somewhere out in the bible belt. Theism is alive and well in the academic world and is also gaining ground quick as India and other heavily religious countries develop more and more. It is fascinating because amongst the educated scholars of India and many parts of Asia, the majority is overwhelmingly theistic.

My third major point is that many atheists love to point towards Islam, Hinduism, and Christianity and comment how religion has killed millions; however atheism, in my opinion, brings no improvement to this situation. Look at the Stalinist regime in which millions where killed, look at the Holocaust, the killing fields of Cambodia, and many other instances of genocide and you will find what atheism is capable of. The new atheist at this point says, " yes but unlike religious wars, those on the list were not done in the name of atheism", but this is a hollow cop out. Atheism provided the philosophical means of justification for which all of those genocides occurred. If man is merely animal, life ultimately has no meaning, and there are no absolute morals, then how can genocide be condemned? Atheism in a philosophical sense is bankrupt and inconsistent, the only consistent atheist philosopher I have read so far is Friedrich Nietzsche which encourages and supports genocide. I would argue that Nietzsche’s atheist philosophy was the driving force behind the Holocaust and its justification.

PS: Dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible (Job particularly)

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Should we tolerate the intolerant?

Personally I think the whole tolerance vs intolerance thing is stupid. When you label someone “intolerant” you are just calling them a name and contributing absolutely nothing to society. We are all tolerant and intolerant. For example we are all, for the most part, tolerant of acts of charity, the virtues of kindness, love, loyalty, tolerant of ourselves and our loved ones. For the most part we are intolerant of child molestation, abuse of the poor and needy, crimes against us or our loved ones, virtues such as hate, crime, and cruelty.

Applying the law of non contradiction, it makes no sense and is logically contradictory to be intolerant towards intolerance. By definition you are exemplifying the very action that you wish to cease, and thus expanding and prolonging it. It is as logically absurd as hating hate.

What makes a person intolerant? The fact that they think their perspective right and yours is wrong? But by calling them intolerant aren’t you implying that their perspective is wrong and yours is right? doesn’t that make you the intolerant one?

The bottom line is that if society hopes to make intellectual gains, spiritual gains, emotional gains, and increase the quality of life for humanity, we need to stop playing this dumb tolerance game and hold views based on their merit and not who it offends.

PS: I’m a minority in ethnicity, religion, and several other areas and know what it is like to be discriminated against first hand. So please don’t pull out the “You are saying that because you don’t know what it’s like!” argument.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Creation vs. Evolution

Originally posted by NinjaMaster131:

There is an overwhelming amount of scientific evidence that the theory of evolution is true. Bacteria can evolve into different strains that are resistant to antibiotics. The same is probably true for humans, just on a larger scale that isn’t as apparent. I fear the day that in the future scientific evidence will continue to be blatantly ignored because its against personal beliefs. I personally believe that the bible is not written as literal fact, but more of a general moral guideline. Many Christians today eat pork, even though it is outlawed in the Old Testament. In biblical times it was illegal to borrow money, yet credit card companies pocket millions of dollars in profits. If you are going to be a Creationist, you shouldn’t be allowed to pick and choose which things you are going to believe from the Bible, and which you won’t believe. Either be a fundamentalist Christian and follow all of the rules of the Bible, or accept it as a general moral guideline, but don’t pick and choose what you want and don’t want.

This is just an example of microevolution. No matter how many changes it undergoes, it remains bacteria. No new information is being created or added, thus bacteria provide absolutely no support for evolution on a macro scale. See we have the same evidence but different interpretations, while you see evidence for macro evolution, I see a vastly intricate design that is way to complex to be the product of a random and irrational process.

I think it is also noteworthy to point out that wether you believe in macroevolution or creation, you believe it by faith since both are not observable. Being a macro evolutionist is conforming to a belief system that requires faith, just like any religion.

I also find it interesting that we assume that our brains are rational, since macro evolution is an un-guided and basically irrational process.
Think about it. You are using logic and rationalism to state that rationalism and logic are the product of an illogical and irrational process. If I told you that Boeing 747 was the product of mass, gravity, and energy that somehow exploded, you would probably put me into a mental hospitable for speaking non-sense, yet how much more incredible is the human body and all its fine-tuned intricacies as opposed to a Boeing 747?

I also find it ironic that you state the fossil record as proof for evolution. There is a serious poverty of fossils (that support macro evolution) and this is one of my biggest reasons for evolution. JohnRulz posted some good art, but where is the skeleton? the bones? these are just fad links like “Lucy” and “lucys daughter” which both have been exposed and rejected by scientist. The bottom line is that the vast majority of “Proof and missing link fossils” are just good art conceptions of what the missing link “might” or “Could” have looked like. The above picture isn’t science, it’s art. I want proof and accurate, found together bones that form a skeleton, not concept pictures from fragments.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Debate: Is Human Nature Inherently Good Or Evil?

VikaTae-
That is an interesting theory. For the sake of better understanding where you are coming from, if you do not believe there is evil, do you believe in the existence of “good”?
What do you mean by “society”?
What authority does a “society” over the individual to be able to punish them for doing something “undesirable”? where does this authority come from?
Where do we draw the line between responsibility and the excuse, “my genes made me do it”?
And for the sake of curiosity,
Do you believe the assertions and statements you made and answers to the above questions are all absolutely true? Or are they only true for you and not necessarily any one else, and thus invalid to impose on anyone else unless you are “society” and can punish someone for not submitting to it?

Side note: It would be fascinating to compare the Nature Vs. Nurture and to what extent those play a role in the mind as far as decisions and morality go.
And by no means take what I’m saying as a personal attack, I merely want understanding.

Originally posted by simeng:
Originally posted by jjuanksta:
Originally posted by simeng:

We’re really neither, if you consider the facts. We are essentially preprogrammed quasi-automatons who act and react on impulses of instinctual mechanisms. We don’t choose what we want or don’t want; we do not possess authority over the prioritization of our apprehension. reality has always been a naturalistic broil of coincidental variables and our evolutionary integration is the result of our survival. our circuitry has been so routed and wired that what we do is not something of our choice, but occurs owing to external influences. just my 2 cents.

disclaimer: horrible grammar is due to lack of time; will rectify if necessary

This reminds me of Sam Harris’ book “Free Will” where he attempts to prove that free will is self-deception and an illusion, and that people and their actions are nothing but DNA, chemical reactions, and colliding atoms within us. He makes a brutal bifurcation (pg 42 if memory serves right) that we are ether not responsible for our actions, or we are not responsible for our actions (highly logical right?), my huge issue with this view\ your view is that it absolves all responsibility for actions.

If you openly accept that there really is no absolute moral law and that our actions are just chemical reactions inside of us that are unchangeable, then you must openly accept that the Holocaust, Inquisition, and child molestation are all not the least bit evil. After all the responsible forces of the latter are not really responsible since they were doing what their DNA told them too.
And if a man came to your house and killed your family, you have no right to be mad because maybe he thought that it was a good thing for him to do, and it would be mighty intolerant of you to say that he is wrong because ultimately, he did what he thought was right and he had no choice because it’s what the chemicals in his body made him do.

This whole, “you can’t define good or bad” stems from postmodernist relativism, which fails to even meet the most basic logical laws of philosophy (the most serious offense being that disregard of the law of non-contraction).
For example to state that there is no absolute truth is an absolute statement.

To state that that good and evil are completely subjective and cannot be objectively defined is self defeating. Because your assertion is objective in nature. But what if I say that your statement is a lie and that there is an absolute morality caused by a transcendent cause?
Can both conflicting statements be be true at the same time in the same sense?
Some could respond “what’s true for me is true for me, and what’s true for you is true for you”
But what if my truth says your truth is a lie?
If logical integrity is to be preserved then 2 conflicting statements cannot be both true at the same time and in the same sense.

Thinking is a controlled flourishing of chemical reactions. Therefore, although our very nature is determined by the onset and offset of certain chemical reactions, we are nominated to the fulfillment of deontological morality and are therefore to be held culpable for the objects of our responsibilities. Yes, even thinking is materialistic in deposition – I accept that mental processes are merely brain processes and that the machine of the consciousness is a product of physiological mechanisms – but we are not entitled to the absolution of civil obligation simply owing to the tenets of that premise. My point is quite clear and coherent, at least in the sense that I cite my understanding. One could ably paraphrase the dynamics of human rights in terms of naturalistic principles.

Then, you cease hovering over the dashed flares of human morality and transpose the focus of attention to a different locus of philosophical inquiry – the melody of postmodern relativism, as you referred to it. I would concede that the philosophy in question is an imposition of self-forfeiture, given its paradoxical designation.

However, it would seem that you are confused in your conclusion. The statement, “All members of A are (BCD)” is a two-tier entity and cannot be subtly nuanced into a single state without palliation of its logical cardinality. For example, “morality is absolutely subjective” is not a contradiction in terms, but rather a two-tier statement concerning the nature of the absolute and the relative. The beast rears its odious head only to cry out the sorrow of its heartfelt inadequacy. I have tamed your abominable fiend and repelled the stroke of your spry, lithe rebuttal.

Care to support your statement that thinking is a controlled flourishing chemical reaction? I disagree. In Newsweek recently there was an interview with a Harvard scientist with the same view as you… until he died temporarily until he was brought back with a defibrillator. Clinically dead, and yet he had visions and was conscience and aware while in a coma. J.P. Moreland, and even several Atheist believe and argue convincingly that there is an immaterial part of us, and thus your assertion that thinking is strictly a controlled flourishing of chemical reactions is highly contested.

Secondly, you admit relativism is an imposition of self-forfeiture, so my question for you sir is weather you believe in absolute truth?
Because truth and morality are inter-connected.
If there is no truth, then what is good or evil is undecipherable because we have no standard to measure it by.
However if there is absolute truth, than it can be used as a standard by which to measure morality.
The argument evolves here to what is the source of truth?
You cannot separate Truth and morality because they are interconnected.
For example If it is absolutely true that it is wrong to molest children and beat them, then an offender is clearly committing an act of “evil”
The offender has gone against what is true, and thus is the guilty party.
Broken down if absolute truth exists then: truth is good and non-truth is evil by definition.
It is purely an epistemological argument because morality is based on epistemology.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Debate: Is Human Nature Inherently Good Or Evil?

Originally posted by simeng:

We’re really neither, if you consider the facts. We are essentially preprogrammed quasi-automatons who act and react on impulses of instinctual mechanisms. We don’t choose what we want or don’t want; we do not possess authority over the prioritization of our apprehension. reality has always been a naturalistic broil of coincidental variables and our evolutionary integration is the result of our survival. our circuitry has been so routed and wired that what we do is not something of our choice, but occurs owing to external influences. just my 2 cents.

disclaimer: horrible grammar is due to lack of time; will rectify if necessary

This reminds me of Sam Harris’ book “Free Will” where he attempts to prove that free will is self-deception and an illusion, and that people and their actions are nothing but DNA, chemical reactions, and colliding atoms within us. He makes a brutal bifurcation (pg 42 if memory serves right) that we are ether not responsible for our actions, or we are not responsible for our actions (highly logical right?), my huge issue with this view\ your view is that it absolves all responsibility for actions.

If you openly accept that there really is no absolute moral law and that our actions are just chemical reactions inside of us that are unchangeable, then you must openly accept that the Holocaust, Inquisition, and child molestation are all not the least bit evil. After all the responsible forces of the latter are not really responsible since they were doing what their DNA told them too.
And if a man came to your house and killed your family, you have no right to be mad because maybe he thought that it was a good thing for him to do, and it would be mighty intolerant of you to say that he is wrong because ultimately, he did what he thought was right and he had no choice because it’s what the chemicals in his body made him do.

This whole, “you can’t define good or bad” stems from postmodernist relativism, which fails to even meet the most basic logical laws of philosophy (the most serious offense being that disregard of the law of non-contraction).
For example to state that there is no absolute truth is an absolute statement.

To state that that good and evil are completely subjective and cannot be objectively defined is self defeating. Because your assertion is objective in nature. But what if I say that your statement is a lie and that there is an absolute morality caused by a transcendent cause?
Can both conflicting statements be be true at the same time in the same sense?
Some could respond “what’s true for me is true for me, and what’s true for you is true for you”
But what if my truth says your truth is a lie?
If logical integrity is to be preserved then 2 conflicting statements cannot be both true at the same time and in the same sense.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Proof of God

My point is that extreme complexity insinuates a driving intelligent force. It’s basic thermodynamics that things go from order to disorder. To suggest that everything that this world and even the human body is just a product of random chance is just plain absurd.

When I was agnostic I would tell myself that although evolution is highly improbably, that the improbably giving an infinite amount of time becomes the inevitable. But as I began to question evolution more and more I realized that the impossible given enough time remains impossible. Now you could put a mathematical probability to just about anything, for example if I put a napkin on a plate and struck it with lightning for the rest of time in hopes of making it evolve into a cat, I’m sure no matter how tiny that number would be there would be a probability for that napkin becoming a cat.
THE MAJOR PROBLEM with mathematical probabilities is that it assumes that the actual action or event is possible. Thus before you use mathematical probability as an argument, you must first establish that macro evolution as a result of a cosmic explosion that resulted in everything we have today is even possible. That will be especially difficult when modern evolutionary scientist still debate on how it would have actually happened.

Side note: many criticize religion for basing their beliefs on faith, however those who accept the big bang and macro evolution accept that very claim by faith because nobody witnessed what in fact happened in the beginning.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Proof of God

I lol’d at the above posts.

As for the topic at hand, like most things religious and political, people believe what they want to believe regardless what they are exposed to. Even if God, came down and people saw him and knew he was real, I guarantee you there would still be many people who would deny his existence.

As for proof, there is no way of “proving” that God does or doesn’t not exist unless we could know what happens after death. Regardless circumstantial evidence can point us towards the statement which makes the more sense. The way I see it, this universe, this earth, even just the human body is such an undeniably complex thing, that to say it is a product of random chance is completely illogical. Honestly I don’t look at an intricate painting like the " Mona Lisa" and say “man what a great explosion!” or “what a great random mutation!”. That is a lame comparison because the Human body is so incredible and so baffling to modern science the only logical conclusion in my opinion was that there was an intelligence force behind it’s creation. Now where the major debate is, who or what is that force?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Are Martial Arts Cults?

As a practitioner of jj/bjj for a couple years, it is virtually impossible to go far in the martial art with you it changing your perspective on life. Honestly it has made such a positive impact on my perspective and taught me hard work and discipline to a depth I never thought it would. I guess when your caught in some kind of blood restrictive choke and you know the situation is hopeless but you try your best to get out and occasionally succeed, it teaches you that no situation is hopeless. That is just one example of many, and when you roll/spar with someone in JJ it’s so much more than a brute force contest, its like chess with the body because there is so much calculating and thinking its ridiculous. As far as JJ/BJJ being a cult, it depends on how you define your terms, but a martial art like JJ is definitely a way of life for many.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Quote Discussion, Current quote: “Success consists of going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm.”

@ murder machine
Im sorry but I completely with your interpretation of the Bible. The Bible clearly states that both heaven and Hell are real places.

Do you offer any bible verses that support your argument for the nonexistence of a heaven or hell?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Quote Discussion, Current quote: “Success consists of going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm.”

The fundamental problem with Gandhi’s quote is that he puts all Christians on the same boat. Believe it or not we aren’t all the the genocidal,faggot hating, ignorant, bigots that people make us sound like. Although I agree 100% that there have been horrible things done by “Christians”, guess what? no matter what kind of group your in, whether it is Muslim, Atheist, or Hindu, there will always be those idiots that will make the whole group look bad.
Aside from that, the “Christians” (If you can even call them that) that Gandhi was exposed to, were not living out true biblical principles. That is also why it makes me so upset when I hear about groups like westboro baptist church, and personally I believe there is a specifically hot place in hell waiting for them.

Bottom line is I’m Christian, I love gay people (even though i don’t agree with their life style), I love druggies, I love everyone!
If you really look at the character of Christ you see this very divine love, and if Jesus was willing to love everyone, then as a Christian (follower of Christ) it is my duty to love on all peoples because they are beautifully and wonderfully made. It is not my job to criticize other people or condemn them.

So please don’t base your opinion of Christians on a few jerks who claimed to be Christian, but rather look at the Christians who are actually acting Christ-like.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / All non jewish christian religions: Are their followers going to Hell?

Originally posted by JohnnyBeGood:
Originally posted by jjuanksta:

It is clear that Jesus claimed He is in fact God
As far as how sure we are about the Gospels and NT being reliable
you may find the following helpful and enlightening:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2011/03/15/is-new-testament-reliable

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t007.html

I find your links neither Helpful nor Enlightening for anyone who desires Truth.
Perhaps you should try this:
http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

If you truly desire the truth, maybe you should not let you biases keep you from reading my links. I know you did not read it all because several of the issues from your link are refuted in the answers in genesis link. Not to mention that much of your link’s claims are unfounded and unsupported speculation, where as my link (answersingenesis) offer a wealth of contextual and archeological evidence that suggests that the Bible we have to day is at least 99.5% the same as the way it was originally written.
*note it really hits the topic of biblical accuracy towards the middle of the page.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / All non jewish christian religions: Are their followers going to Hell?

Back on the topic of whether or not Jesus claimed to be God:Jesus clearly claimed to be the Messiah and Son of God:

Jesus told the Samaritan woman that he is the Messiah (Jn 4:25-26). Jesus affirmed Peter’s statement that he is the Messiah and Son of God (Mt 16:15-17, see also Mk 8:29-30, Lk 9:20-21). Jesus told the high priest that he is the Messiah and Son of God (Mk 14:61-62, Mt 26:63-64, Lk 22:70).

The Jews understood that this meant Jesus was equating himself with God: “he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God” (Jn 5:17-18).

Other places where Jesus equated himself with God:

Jesus told the Jews, “I and the Father are one.” (Jn 10:24-38). Jesus told the disciples, “You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and rightly so, for that is what I am.” (Jn 13:13). Jesus forgave sins, which only God had the authority to do (Mk 2:5-11, Lk 5:20-24). Jesus said that he had seen Abraham and that he is eternal: “‘I tell you the truth,’ Jesus answered, ‘before Abraham was born, I am!’” (Jn 8:57-58). Jesus said that he had seen God, which no one else could do (Jn 6:46)

( taken from http://www.rationalchristianity.net/jesus_claim.html)

It is clear that Jesus claimed He is in fact God
As far as how sure we are about the Gospels and NT being reliable
you may find the following helpful and enlightening:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2011/03/15/is-new-testament-reliable

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t007.html

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Universal Healthcare

In context or the US, universal health care will never pass because there is too much money at stake. The private health care monster is a 2.4 trillion dollar industry and is 17% of the US’ GDP, what’s even more interesting is that many private health insurance agencies like tennent health pay 0 taxes. Not to mention that they pretty much own Washington and its politicians. It would surprise me if there has ever been a president in the last few elections that hasn’t receive lots of money from private health companies. Yet private health care companies love to deny giving people money when they actually need it. The bottom line is that private healthcare industries are the biggest organized criminals in US history.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Should both Religious people and Atheists believe in Evolution?

Let me begin by saying micro-evolution is a fact (Small mutations within a species)
that being said the Creation vs. Evolution Debate is on whether Macro-Evolution (One species mutating into another) has happened and still is happening.

now as far as Macro evolution being a scientific fact? HAHA that’s funny. when put under speculation it is clear that this theory is not supported by science and must be accepted by faith.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/hasnt-evolution-been-proven

Sorry I don’t have enough faith to believe in evolution.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Any chance of human evolution?

1. Actual scientific evidence suggests that humans are not evolving today. 2. We don’t have any evidence that they were evolving in the past either. 3. But we think that they were!

http://www.evanwiggs.com/articles/reasons.html

In other words, the idea of human evolution is entirely based on faith and storytelling that is typical of Darwinists.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Proof that god is fake

Originally posted by Almanza:

I have a slightly off-currenttopic question.

Can an omnipotent god kill himself? He has the ability to do anything, yet he is immortal.

What if there are two omnipotent beings, can they kill each other?

This is known as a pseudo-question. It’s like asking, “Can God win an arm wrestling match against Himself?” or, “If God beat Himself up, who would win?” or, “Can God’s power defeat His own power?” The question is nonsense because it treats God as if He were two instead of one. The phrase “stronger than” can only be used when two subjects are in view, for example, Bill is stronger than Bob, my left arm is stronger than my right arm, etc. Since God is only one, and since He has no parts, it makes no sense to ask if He is stronger than Himself. That’s why this is a pseudo-question. It proves nothing about any deficiency in God because the question itself is incoherent. This pits one aspect of God’s ability against another—in this case, His creative ability against His ability to lift. The goal is to show that there are some things God can’t do, thus undermining the Christian concept of an omnipotent Creator. This illustration, however, miscasts the biblical notion of omnipotence, and is therefore guilty of the straw man fallacy. Omnipotence doesn’t mean that God can do anything. The concept of omnipotence has to do with power, not ability per se. In fact, there are many things God can’t do. He can’t make square circles. He can’t create a morally free creature who couldn’t choose evil. He can’t instantly create a sixty-year-old man (not one that looks sixty, but one that is sixty). None of these, though, have to do with power. Instead, they are logically contradictory, and therefore contrary to God’s rational nature. The “Can God make a rock so big He can’t lift it?” challenge is no threat to Christian theism (As said by Gregory Koukl of STR)

As for the website link in the beginning of the thread, maybe it would be wise to use some critical thinking skills before just agreeing with everything it says. I found this website rather useful (even though I don’t agree with everything on it, he shows the myriad of logical errors in godisimaginary.com )

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Your opinions of Abortion

Medical science already refers to a spontaneous heart rhythm and the presence of brain waves to determine whether someone is alive at the other spectrum of human existence. In simplistic terms, if an organ donor is in an automobile accident and is on life support in a hospital, the physician cannot “pull the plug” and donate the patient’s organs to others unless the patient is “brain dead” and his heart is not beating on its own. If the medical community maintained consistency with this generally-accepted medical definition of human life, then we would condemn every abortion after the time when the average woman discovers she is pregnant. Every abortion, by the generally-accepted standards of medical science, aborts an innocent human life.
science is rather inconsistent on this subject.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Your opinions of Abortion

Well the way I see it, our value has been given to us by God. All human life is equally precious in His eyes so I should do my best to value other humans and do my best to preserve their lives and make it as enjoyable as possible.

But than again, when you don’t believe in God that question becomes nearly impossible to answer. I don’t mean to bring religion into the topic, but this is truly how I feel. We should love everybody and value them because each of us is unique and makes our own unique impact on the world around us.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Your opinions of Abortion

There is a tremendous consensus in the scientific community about when life begins. This is hardly controversial. If the claim were made that life was discovered on another planet, for example, there are well-defined criteria to which we could refer to conclusively determine whether the claim was accurate. How do scientists distinguish between life and non-life?
A scientific textbook called “Basics of Biology” gives five characteristics of living things; these five criteria are found in all modern elementary scientific textbooks:

1. Living things are highly organized. 2. All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy. 3. All living things have an ability to respond to their environment. 4. All living things have an ability to reproduce. 5. All living things have an ability to adapt.

According to this elementary definition of life, life begins at fertilization, when a sperm unites with an oocyte. From this moment, the being is highly organized, has the ability to acquire materials and energy, has the ability to respond to his or her environment, has the ability to adapt, and has the ability to reproduce (the cells divide, then divide again, etc., and barring pathology and pending reproductive maturity has the potential to reproduce other members of the species). Non-living things do not do these things. Even before the mother is aware that she is pregnant, a distinct, unique life has begun his or her existence inside her.

Furthermore, that life is unquestionably human. A human being is a member of the species homo sapiens. Human beings are products of conception, which is when a human male sperm unites with a human female oocyte (egg). When humans procreate, they don’t make non-humans like slugs, monkeys, cactuses, bacteria, or any such thing. Emperically-verifiable proof is as close as your nearest abortion clinic: send a sample of an aborted fetus to a laboratory and have them test the DNA to see if its human or not. Genetically, a new human being comes into existence from the earliest moment of conception.

Biologically, from the moment of conception this new human being is not a part of the mother’s body. Since when does a mother’s body have male genitals, two brains, four kidneys? The preborn human being may be dependent upon the mother for nutrition, however, this does not diminish his or her humanity, but proves it. Moreover, dependence upon a parent for survival is not a capital crime.

Medical science already refers to a spontaneous heart rhythm and the presence of brain waves to determine whether someone is alive at the other spectrum of human existence. In simplistic terms, if an organ donor is in an automobile accident and is on life support in a hospital, the physician cannot “pull the plug” and donate the patient’s organs to others unless the patient is “brain dead” and his heart is not beating on its own. If the medical community maintained consistency with this generally-accepted medical definition of human life, then we would condemn every abortion after the time when the average woman discovers she is pregnant. Every abortion, by the generally-accepted standards of medical science, aborts an innocent human life.

sorry I know it’s long but please read all :D

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Your opinions of Abortion

It’s easy to be for abortion when you yourself have already been born.

As for the other 42 million (equivalent of 7 holocausts) that die each year from abortion. Oops oh-well for them, they aren’t important enough to be born.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Evolution - true or not?

Originally posted by EPR89:

Maybe, just maybe because it takes quite some time. It’s not like a bird crawling out of a lizard’s egg.

It is funny how “really slow” looks a lot like “not happening”

Originally posted by JohnRulz:

Macro has never actually been seen or recorded in history.

Yes, it has. Here is a nifty list of examples
Sorry it is a blog, but everything he says is cited by legitimate scientific studies and papers.

EDIT: Alternate source

I looked at your link and these “proof for macro evolution” are all example of microevolution. I dont care if a fly turns into a different kind of fly or if corn turn into a different kind of corn. Show me a fish that turn into a tree or bird or a bacteria that turns into a fly.
I appreciate taking the time to link me tho.