March 31, 2009
I’ve heard it before, I’ve read it on this blog. Contrary to what many would say, even atheists, we can and some of us do, hate God. Anyone who says it is impossible for an atheist to hate God because they don’t believe he exists is not looking at things from the right perspective.
I’m an atheist, and I hate God. How is this possible you ask? Am I thus acknowledging the existence of God? The answer to this latter question is a resounding “No!”.
I hate God in much the same way I hate the Teletubbies, the Mighty Morphing Power Rangers, and DragonBallZ. I do not have to believe something is real to hate it. God to me, is as fictional a character as the rest of these, but I hate him the most.
However, this is not to say all atheists hate God. To each his (or her for the ladies) own. But it is not particularly impossible for anyone to have an emotional response, or to love or hate something, simply because they do not believe in it.
March 31, 2009
So, you guys had your experiment, (http://bcs.whfreeman.com/thelifewire/content/chp03/0302001.html) where “you” used methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water to mimic the early earth’s atmosphere, and viola you guys made amino acids! No one disputes that. Although, I am curios as to how these amino acids eventually linked up to make a functional cell, or how they linked at all. These amino acids needed to be in a very specific order, and although T’s will link to C’s, is it? I don’t see how the groups of T-C and A-U (in the case of RNA, which is thought to be before DNA) will join together to make any intelligible (as in, will work) organism.
I will also point out that after the 1950’s, the prehistoric meteorologists rethought their hypothesis of early atmosphere, and changed it to nitrogen, I think oxygen, iron too? The point is, they changed it because the supposed hydrogen would’ve escaped off, and the experiment never showed the amino results in the “new” atmosphere.
But how did aminos link?
March 19, 2009
I’m a high schooler, so I haven’t really met the hierarchy of evolutionists, but every atheist (not that their necessarily the same) I’ve met, including my dad, hasn’t been able to even make an explanation of how the “first reproductive cells” started asexual reproduction and then evolved into sexual reproduction. It would require two voluntary cells, one to somehow know how to play the female role, the other the male, and get that complex reaction to work.
From me: Thanks for the new thread, Xela777!
March 12, 2009
Before the domination of the early Christian sect commonly referred to as the “proto-orthodoxy” (which later became known as the orthodoxy), there were other Christian sects who were also vying for supremacy. Like the proto-orthodoxy, these other sects held an opinion about the nature of Jesus. For example, some sects held that Jesus was a god who only appeared as a man. Others insisted that he was a god but one that was subservient to the God (a.k.a. the Father). Much of what the Church Fathers wrote was intended as a defense of their own particular christology, and as a condemnation of the views held by the competing sects. The proto-orthodoxy view was not merely that Jesus was a god equal to the Father, but that Jesus and the Father are one and the same god.
Yet this seems at odds with various verses in the Bible, such as ones we find in John 5, which make a clear distinction between Jesus and the Father. John 5 quotes Jesus as saying:
(19) …the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.
(20) For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does. Yes, to your amazement he will show him even greater things than these.
(22) …the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son,
(26) For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself.
(27) And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man.
(30) By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me.
How do you suppose the Church Fathers reconciles statements like these and others with their belief the Jesus and the Father are one and the same?