Only for Mark Russell and the curious (Allergy warning, may contain God, prepared in a place where g

Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.

I'm really not offended by that comment but you might consider the following

The mega census for year 2000 shows from a world population of 6.1 billion about 3.3 billion people believe in the one God (Jews 18million, Christians 2.16 billion and 1.18billion Muslim.) People who have faith in other gods total about 2 billion and people who declare no faith in any god (except perhaps the god of self determination) 770million. Many census today show that around 1 million Chinese people find Jesus every year despite real and prevalent violent persecution (including death) of Christians in that country. About 10,000 people across the world per day become Christian, again fighting against the odds stacked against them in many countries, Christians in India for instance are regularly accused of blasphemy and put in jail and then killed there without further investigation by authorities.

So if normal is indicated by the norm i.e. what is usual in and for most people then my friend you are by far the minority. It is easy to stand up for nothing or everything (which is the same). Standing on your faith or principle takes real courage and faith.

God is God and Mark Russell's opinion or preferences has not one jot of influence over that and so you do not have a choice about eternal life, just a choice about who you spend it with. I pass you this choice as a gift, I'm not forcing anything on you, you can choose whatever you like, that's the whole point that you seem to miss. (Not just you obviously) To force you to change would negate any faith and faith is what it is all about.

At Christmas I wrapped money in Christmas paper and went around town randomly handing the small parcels to people and walking on. Some were thankful to receive them, even before knowing what was inside but the gift was free to explore, some were suspicious but curious and took them anyway and some blatantly and demonstrably did not want to take the gift. Each chose and some were rewarded and others were not, it’s like that with Jesus.

I sometimes just tried giving money to ordinary people on the street they very often turn it down, assuming I suppose there must be some trick or catch, there wasn’t. I always give cash to homeless types as I pass by, they never refuse. The needy (who recognise their need) are always happy receive something without obligation, the better off want assurances first, they want proof. Unfortunately but necessarily faith does not come with proof to the intellect. Jesus offers a gift of New Life and many turn it down, they believe they are rich and safe when in fact they are poor and homeless and do not recognise they are so in need of this gift.

Mark, be a beggar and live with God.

Dave

 

What an interesting concept. Faith as a gaussian distribution curve. Standard deviations of belief. There's a paper there!

Love the Christmas presents Idea Dave.

Oh and on the subject of presents, Thanks for the calender again Mark! That really is a rare talent you have there!

 

Robert, They did also contain Luke's Gospel, so a a gift for the body and a gift for the Soul. At the end of the Folkestone Winter Shelter I gave the guests a pack containing foot care products and a small leaflet explaining the Good News. I said it was a gift for the feet and a gift for the Sole (soul) see what I did there! The podiatry service went down very well this year, the guys eagerly sought me out each week. I heard I was attending the feet of kings, amazing!

Yes I got one of those calendars too, generous sort that Mark eh! I particularly like tomorrows new photo.

All the best Dave

 

Warning, may contain "Bob"
http://www.subgenius.com/

 

David:

Thank you for your concerns and kind wishes; it is always a pleasure to receive such and of course, you have my own in return. Whilst I admire your enthusiasm, I am of the opinion that Podiatry Arena is not the best environment to discuss theology, as entertaining as it may be for you or I and I think I detect a similar flavour from other contributors in a number of threads in recent days. As such, after this reply, I will leave you to continue further discourse with the likes of JR Dodds, with whom I'm certain you will find an affinity.

As regards beliefs, I don't believe in a god or a saviour or any such like. That may be your prerogative, but not mine. On that, we must agree to disagree. What I do have an affection towards is the view proposed by the likes of Professor James Lovelock (try the Gaia thesis or his views on our immediate future: http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8594000/8594561.stm ) and many other eminent scientists, where we are part of a much bigger organism - the earth. We exist by chance - not design. A happening - not a miracle. Probably by events and mechanisms we still don't fully understand - perhaps by cooling gasses or interstellar dust - life as we know it exists in a period of time on this planet by a combination of factors that are random and chaotic - not calculated or organised; it is simply by chance that we are as we are. To be honest, I find religious views restrictive and inhibitive. I much prefer to keep an open and free mind wherever possible. To be tied into a particular mindset seems fruitless to me. But the best of luck in your quest, whatever it may be.

When we die our carcass deteriorates and returns to the organic state. That's it. Perhaps in time part of us returns into the "living world" maybe through the soil into plants or vegetables and then consumed by a living creature. Who knows? Of course, those of us fortunate enough to have borne children can argue that part of them is already in an afterlife - just as part of us carries the genes of our forefathers. Why worry about it? Que Sera Sera - what will be , will be. What is important to me is what I do with my time on this planet right here and now; how I can lead a "good" life which rewards me with the only currency that is important - with pleasure and happiness. If you want to do it through someone/thing else that may or may not exist or have existed, that's up to you, David. I'm quite content taking that path on my own.

At Christmas, I slept for two days, went climbing, got drunk and wrote two songs before playing them in my local pub in front of some good friends. Twas a good time.

Always a pleasure,

Mark

PS I think your eye needs a bit of colour.

 

Mark

Fair enough, it's good though to have civil didactic intercourse over disparate ideology ooerr missus! But I bet we wouldn't be seen doing the same on christianarena.com because one of us would have no interest on going there. Similarly you wouldn't see me on meltingpotworld/coexist.org

Regard Dave

 

David:

If you have a passion for mathematics and philosophy and have a basic grasp of quantum physics, then you may find this 60 minutes of entertainment somewhat helpful in respect of the previous discussion.

Kind regards

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00zwndy/Everything_and_Nothing_Nothing/

 

Dear J R Dobbs

Thank you for your posting. Although I am resident in 'Merry Warwickshire, England' - and I think that I am the only regular poster on PodArena who is such, I much regret to infirm you that I am not the Rancid Rev Error.

I was, however, very interested in the way the featured lady smokes a pipe; despite travelling the world, (including Paris) I have never seen this before.

Kind regards

Bill Liggins

 

Strangely enough Mark, I've ltealy been reading relativity and quantum physics and the latest book God and the New Physics by Paul Davies (strict atheist with a strange perversion for God) (http://www.amazon.co.uk/God-New-Phy...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1301662228&sr=1-1) is a very similar wander through those concepts as that program 'Everything and Nothing' that I have just watched thru.

From what I have read the particle that appears from nowhere is not created out of nothing but comes from an undetermined place. That is because at the level of observation that they talk of it is impossible to both predict velocity and position of a particle at the same time. So you can say where a particle is or you can say what its velocity is but not both. Therefore that particle can be anywhere at any time and so if you observe a small enough space the probability is that a particle will appear there as if created from nothing. Since you now know where it is you cannot simultaneously predict its velocity so it will disappear a quickly as it appeared.

The ether - the energy that controls and creates everything including humans, Hmmm! I do believe I've read that description somewhere else, had a different name tho, now if only I could recall

"The finger that points the way to the moon is not the moon itself but some fix their gaze upon it".


Regards Dave

 

You obviously don`t remember The Institutes Dinner Dance at Stratford

Dobbs is great, eh?

 

I think the question is whether this is matter/antimatter rather than a newly created particle which appears from nothing - but it is an interesting concept that the multiverse was formed at a microscopic level and may collapse again to a similar size at its end. Makes sense to me and to Moby.

 

Another possibility is that the particle is part or the whole of a body moving through our 3 dimensional space from a 4th dimension of space (which is not time), which is why we cannot visualise or measure the position and velocity together. The 4th dimension may also be where most the lost matter resides.

I Watched 'were all made of stars' a few days ago, interesting stuff!

Dave

 

At last a supporter, I knew I wasn't the only nut in this delicious fruit cake.

Luv you Mej :dizzy:

Dave

 

Dear Dave,

There is but one truth in this .

The reality of a deity cannot be proven nor disproved.

Those who have a faith believe that there is a deity. This is what faith is, a belief in the unproveable.

The trouble is is that one has to die to find out. The other problem is when you get there and there is nothing there.

What then.

Also if being with God is so great why waste 75 years on this planet?

Get on the bus and go now!

I also wonder why you are making such an effort to promote your chosen faith on this forum. To what purpose, we are all adults here and as you have found some share your belief in a deity and others do not.

I am pleased that it is proposed to teach Aetheism in schools along with the teaching of Faith. This will give the students the opportunity to make up their own minds. But i feel that the various religions will fight this tooth and nail as it will offer a different opinion to theirs and choice to the student.

i went to a religious school (church of england and have a divinity 'O' level for my sins) and used to give readings in chapel etc etc. And never believed a word of what i was reading. I considered the readings to be mostly nice stories with a reasonable moral code included. Some of the stories had far too hate and prejudice for my taste. Far too much cruelty and abhorrent behaviour for my delicate sensibilities.

I suppose one of my favourite stories is the one about the good Samaritan basically you do not have to be of the faith to be a good and kind human being.

So i would appreciate less preaching please.

many thanks David

 

What is wrong with those that believe in THEIR GOD.

Just heard on the news that 12 people have been killed due to the burning of the koran by another religious bigot in America.

How can it be justified to commit murder over the burning of a book.

It is against all faiths to kill your fellow man.

So why do the religious bigots practice murder in the defence of their faith:butcher:

So when they get to god, God will ask and what did you do in your life.

I killed many other men who did not follow my path to you!!!!:deadhorse:


God replies


GOING DOWN TO HADES

But as i do not believe the above scenario cannot happen

David

 

Happened at a United nations building in Afghanistan.

At least 12 people killed.

Some shot

Some stabbed

Some BEHEADED:butcher:

This is Totally Obscene

All in the name of GOD

David

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_KWlNTAW7A
Jesus Loves Amerika (fundamental)- The Shamen
"So infiltrate, indoctrinate
Inflict their lunacy
Intolerance and ignorance
Upon humanity
May the hand of God, please cut me down
Should I sing I'm true to thee
For couragenous lies and dollar signs
Are just fascist fallacies
They offer to you salvation by the nation
Keep that money coming forth
Make heaven your destination"

"So I'm back in my hotel room
With John Coltrane and A Love Supreme
In the next room I hear some woman scream out
That her lover's turning off, turning on the television
And I can't tell the difference between ABC News, Hill Street Blues
And a preacher on the old time gospel hour
Stealing money from the sick and the old
Well the God I believe in isn't short of cash, mister!"- Bono.

Just an observation.

 

Simon your'e enigmatic and mischievous

Others, if you want to put some perspective on Bono's lyrics then Go here and read a bit. http://usliberals.about.com/od/faithinpubliclife/a/BonoSermon.htm

Dave

 

Dear All,

Just heard on the 3 pm news radio 2 that there are increasing incidents of NO GO ZONES here in the UK for NON MUSLIMS.

people complaining that if they go to certain parts of towns they are openly abused and verbally threatened as they are not Muslim.

Funny isnt it that if you discriminate against a Muslim you will have the full weight of the law against you.

But if a muslim discriminates against you then you should understand that they have different values and to not antagonise them.

Also there are currently moves to close the loophole on Stamp Duty whereby if you are muslim you have a legal loophole so that you buy a house, then sell it to an offshore buyer and avoid stamp duty.

This is currently denied to NON MUSLIMS in this country.

HHHMMMMMM religion seems to have many adverse impacts on ordinary lives.:deadhorse:

david

 

David

First, did you notice the title of this thread, you didn't have to enter the house of the evil tax collector, but you chose to honour me by doing so, thankyou.

Did you know that dead horse your'e flogging is yours? You've thrashed the life out of it and now all that you can beat out of it is dung. You stand high on a pile of dung and complain about the awful stench that seems to plague you're nostril. You stay fully focused on the horse and can't see that, even in its lifeless state, it is wearing the life out of you.
At the same time you hate the person who offers to take your stick, shovel away the dung and bury your horse. You are convinced of your own sweetness and so it must be them that offends your senses with a foul odour. Here's the News! You can swap your burden for a lighter yoke and it will only cost you your prejudice. Your choice, thrash away standing on a pile of stinking dung till the end of life or rest and be refreshed with a friend.

Read Bono's speech to the US National prayer Breakfast. You might see that Not all people of faith can be tarred with the same brush and God's purposes are not synonymous with religion or the egotistic plans of rich nations.

If it's too much here's a few of my favourite excerpts,

Not bad for a Rock star is it?

Regards Dave

 

Not bad for a Rock star - it's positively inspiring

 

this is ment to lighten the mood a little and not too off subject.....

Great film...........

and I´ve seen him live James Brown that is.

 

Hey that's Cheriton Baptist Church on a quiet day, Brilliant Cheers Mike

Dave

 

Dear David

I am not sure what you were trying to say to me.

Just look around the world and you will see many millions at war with each other over the concept of a deity and usually that thier version is more valid than anothers.

David

 

.

Dave, I know I said I wouldn`t, but.....nail on the head there

Orange whip, anyone?

Cheers,
Bel

 

Dave, for some it's a long journey (your not alone) but the spirit of endurance and patience is with me and, even though you hate me the more for it, I will travel the road with you my friend.:empathy:

Dave

 

Regards Dave

 

David,

I found it interesting that you believe that i HATE you.

I do not know how you came to that conclusion.:wacko:

Hatred is a very strong emotion, and as i have said on this series of posts, hatred is usually shown by people of faith against those who disagree with them.

I do not know you personally, so how could i hate you.

I might feel pity for you, but hatred certainly not.

Also how could i be on a journey to faith, when i do not believe in the concept of a Deity.

So please do believe me when i say that i do not hate you.

I also find it interesting that you use the VICTIM scenario as to how you think i feel about you.

Regards David

 

Not sure if Hitchens has featured so one of my favourites,

 

Interesting thread David Smith; albeit I’m in the dark on what I presume has been a history regarding issues of this nature (theological/non-theism??) on the forum (particularly it would seem with Mark Russell) in the past. I haven’t come across any of these threads & thus the nature of dialogue or positions taken. However, what I have seen so far on this thread would indicate that you support the existence of the God of the Bible/Torah & Mark does not; hence I would presume it accurate to say that Mark is an atheist (belief in no God entity)?

Let’s all be aware that atheism is just as much an assertion as theism. Therefore the burden of proof falls equally - & a fairer discussion question would be “Does God exist?” It also should be known that atheists assert many affirmative statements without proof – as will be discussed...

I too am interested in metaphysics & subsequently Biblical theology (as opposed to religious theology) as a result of my interests in the origins of life. I find this topic interesting as the implications of where we initially come from can have a varying degree of conscious & subconscious impact (pending on the person) on how we see the world, the lives of life forms within it & most importantly our own life. Hence, whether one likes it or not, the issue of Origins is important to mankind – period. Unfortunately however, there are associated issues which attract a lot of unsavoury baggage (i.e. general religion – as has surfaced already on this thread); whilst as well having somewhat neutral issues (i.e. science & philosophy).

Putting aside this philosophical perspective for a while; I am interested in the science involved in this vast & controversial topic & where the developing evidence tends to point to. However, the boundaries of philosophy & science (general use of the word) can be hazy... as I have mentioned before on this forum when discussing topics related solely to evolution i.e. the evolutionary aspect added in the barefoot running debate (Barefoot Running Debate thread) & the specific Evolution thread (which is now closed) on this forum. Hence my metaphysical input so far on this forum has been related to discussing previous expressed views relating to the belief of evolution, the problems associated with it & the evidence available which points to a worthy/creditable alternative (albeit, somewhat ostracized for consideration in academia)...

Thus why I question the following points made by Mark. Mark’s response to you has points associated with the Origins topic – why... because it really is the crux of the discussion. That is, if one can prove to themselves that there is no intelligent input (i.e. order & design) into the workings of the universe & within this biosphere, then one can reasonably say that God doesn’t exist – which is comforting for some (albeit, on a superficial level) as their lives are free of accountability to this God... in part made worse by the history of judgemental religious types all to happy to point the sin finger & criticize another’s way of living (& I too get annoyed by this).

I could not play the above video in that link but from what I presume, Professor James Lovelock is correct, that is... we cannot save this planet. I think he (& all here) will agree that man’s character (i.e. greed, selfishness, apathy) has contributed to the Earth’s poor health (as well as our own). I find it interesting Prof. Lovelock states... “'We can't save the planet'”. The word “save” has many implications & “we” do not have the power to do so alone. All we can do is change our behaviour (towards fellow man & the planet)... other forces as well as the inbuilt mechanisms within the biosphere, which Prof. Lovelock knows all about (i.e. his Gaia hypothesis) will get us by for a determined period. Your “affection” to Lovelock’s Gaia hypothesis/theory has all the hallmarks of an intelligent source giver sympathetic to design attributes to enable a biosphere to support life & also withstand a lot of manmade induced harm... maybe another aspect of the anthropic principle worth considering (??)... in any ways, the very nature of which very much contradicts your following view...

Let’s stop right here. Others of you apparent ilk will disagree with you thus far... it is a miracle – miraculous, regardless of your persuasion (world view on the topic)... even more of a miracle if you believe it is solely the “happening” of naturalism/materialism (will clarify later).

Hmmm... but we shouldn’t use the term “miracle” apparently... after all, the term could invoke an unsavoury religious tone (which I can understand why non-theists shy away from). But let’s get real here; putting aside any religious connotations with the use of the word – life here on this planet does qualify as a miracle!... then I suppose that’s rather subjective (depending on your view on/of life & comprehension on what’s involved).

Now that we have left the use of the word “miracle” behind us. Let’s now get to the nitty gritty of your view & investigate the evidence & subsequent logic of your position. Do you Mark have any evidence to support the above view? Does it even fall in line with the nature of Lovelock’s Hypothesis (i.e. regulation of: ocean salinity, oxygen in atmosphere & surface temperature etc...) ... it doesn’t, hence why Richard Dawkins (& others) has issues with Lovelock’s Gaia hypothesis (which I can understand based on Dawkins’s position). You see Mark, you can’t have it both ways... it goes beyond subjectivity here. Your use of the words... “random and chaotic - not calculated or organised” are pretty self explanatory in the subject matter. That is, in using just two of the many fields associated with this topic (with Biology aside); you are stating that what is evident in the elements of Physics (i.e. Quantum Mechanics) & Chemistry (the equations formulated etc...) is chaotic & has no organisation. Equations speaking volumes of the workings of the universe as well as some fascinatingly making predictions as to its nature/secrets – is hardly the “random and chaotic - not calculated or organised” nature you state. I realize why you state it because of the probable implications of the opposite traits are potentially quite profound. However, let’s just look at the basis of your premise...

Based on the non-theist position, the universe is either eternal or came into existence uncaused... non-living matter evolved into living cells by pure undirected chemistry, complex specified information arose without intelligence, design features arose without a designer, moral sensibilities arose out of amoral matter etc... Do you believe Mark that the universe has a starting point? I can only presume you do based on your statement... “perhaps by cooling gasses or interstellar dust...” (which is an element of Big Bang cosmology). Putting aside the position of an eternal universe (which doesn’t seem to be your stand anyway & has scientific & philosophical fallacies associated with it), let’s focus on the starting point, the beginning of it all... a notion which troubled Einstein (yet reinforced by Sir Edwin Hubble) due to the implications a starting point, which logically invokes... a beginning... hence a beginner:

1. Everything which has a beginning has a cause... an ultimate cause (fact).
2. The universe has a beginning (scientific & philosophical established hypothesis). An eternal universe has other issues (i.e. can one traverse into/through eternity?) which I won’t go into now.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause (thus reaffirming the principle of causation). Even based on the hypotheses discussed in Quantum Field Theory there still needs a trigger... an energy source... then ultimately to get inanimate matter to become animated we need information... an information source.

​

To say the least, the above analysis is worthy of consideration – providing you have the freedom to do so (which is another issue in itself – of which you ironically touch on in the next quote of yours). However with this aside, let’s follow this line of analysis & apply it to life forms within this established caused universe...

1. Complex specified information always requires an intelligent message sender (fact; after all this is the criteria used for the SETI project).
2. All living organisms have complex specified information (fact, just check the latest physiology text book).
3. Therefore the complex specified information in living organisms requires an intelligent message sender (a Creationist &/or Intelligent Design stand [used the word “or” as Creationism & I.D can be vastly different – big topic in itself, thus leave it now]).

​

Therefore the difference between the theist axioms & the atheist’s is that those who believe in a Creator God are self-consistent, make good sense of the evidence, & are consistent with the arguments proposed above. Conversely, the atheist’s axioms are ultimately self-refuting - perhaps the greatest form of irrationality is to believe in rationality when that rationality was supposedly ultimately produced by non-rational random combinations of chemicals (evolution) which ultimately came from who knows where & was caused by nothing. One must be free to go (or at least consider) where the evidence leads, which brings me to my next point/your point...

I can understand why one would feel that religious views may be “restrictive & inhibitive” (which is historically riddled with man-made traditions, conspiracies & misconceptions). However, please let’s put your views of religion aside for a while. I had an agnostic/atheist upbringing (much I’m sure to the bewilderment of Prof. Dawkins with his brainwashed children views). I started looking carefully into topics of this nature in my early 20’s when I was studying science at university as well as the science element in my Podiatry studies. The evolutionary explanation of origins & life didn’t add up & I found this belief system (paradigm) to be very similar to that of your views of religion that is... “restrictive & inhibitive”... the confines of which somewhat “fruitless”.

With every increasing year of increasing technological advancement, knowledge & subsequent understanding of the contents within our own biosphere & solar system, one must wonder why those with an evolutionary premise have more difficulty & explaining to do than ever before to make the newly discovered data fit the evolution paradigm. In other words, there is not one theory of evolution (as generally proposed), but a body of opinions, speculations & methods for interpretation of observational facts so that they fit into the philosophy of naturalism. As seen on numerous occasions relating to this topic... picking the evidence to fit your theory is not good science... as Professor Richard Lewontin admitted...

“It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

Probably will discuss more relating to the confines of materialism/naturalism & humanism later. Thus it is one who is open to a creator perspective who has the freedom to be free thinkers – not those stuck within the confines of the materialism/evolution paradigm. I am a sceptic – hence why I am a Creationist. I need evidence... I go where the evidence leads – hence why I am a Biblical based Creationist.

Hmmm, I understand the natural consequence of your position. Professor Dawkins puts it like this...
"Life has no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference."
Thus there apparently is little hope, there is no future, there is no afterlife, no concept of a heaven, nothing. If this is what materialism/humanism & evolution offers, can there be any other result but despair? Particularly considering when there is an alternative position that offers far more. David Smith & myself (however, I do not know David) have no financial or political interest to gain from ones consideration &/or uptake of this gift of immortality provided to all of us. I state this because you have expressed your position on ultimate reality (death - what happens when we die?), whereas I have an alternative position which not only better fits the science & philosophy before us but has a far more uplifting consequence during life & after it. Albeit, the position of which has been greatly tarnished throughout history by the behaviour of mankind in their words & actions (i.e. killing in the name of a god). This inevitably always surfaces on discussions of this nature...

Unfortunately, people are quite willing to point the finger at God when atrocities are apparently committed in His name... by ignorant, deceived, cowardly men & women. Frankly, I don’t blame people getting annoyed (putting it mildly) by this – as I do also (i.e. outrages killings of U.N staff members – article here). Hence ‘DAVOhorn’ I understand your frustration on these matters. However, what usually is not understood is the fact there is another entity at work here – it hardly ever gets mentioned, blamed or discussed when discussions go down this path (as cited in at least a few of posts thus far) – yet this entity is one of the two central figures in this controversy.

I just don’t think it at all wise to allow the actions of these ignorant, deceived, cowardly men & women representing their own agenda or that of some religion (false religion) affects one’s personal view on (or search of) God, or deters you from being open to the possibilities other than the confines of materialism/humanism & subsequently evolution. I feel this topic deserves far more in depth analysis than that... the result of which being quite interesting & possibly enlightening on many fields of study & life i.e. does everything we know to exist in this universe (which involves the field of Quantum Mechanics/Quantum Field Theory & the apparent weirdness of unseen matter) fall into the realms of the solely naturalistic/materialist universe of the non-theist?... maybe it is here where some answers lie for those with an analytical mind... providing one is open in allowing the freedom to go there.

 

Orange whip? Orange whip? Three orange whips.:drinks

 

Matthew:

As you have addressed me directly and have obviously taken some considerable time to offer your thoughts, then a short reply in good faith is warranted. Whilst I thank you for your concerns, I also have to say I am at a loss to understand your points. As with religious beliefs, you make assumptions and follow a particular train of thought which you are comfortable with, but there is little credible evidence to support. As with David, that is your right, but it is not something with holds much water with me and others too. I don't even recognise the labels - thesist/atheist in the same way as I discount the label of infidel - as some other peoples of different faiths may attach to me.

Just as there are people who believe in Clingons and other Sci-Fi characters (who I think are equally deluded) there will always be people who believe in a god or deity or creationism or Jesus or Mohammad as long as we fear death or have a superstitious nature. That's ok. There are many things on this planet that hold no interest for me - and that's how it is for most. But please don't force your views on others - whether it be patients or colleagues. I happen to enjoy David's submissions on Arena I don't think there is any place to accompany them with a religious sub-text.

Whilst I have an affection for the likes of Lovelock et al., I am no expert nor profess to have any insightful views. I don't know what happened at the beginning of time nor how the universe came into being or how man really evolved from the suggested newt-like sea creature (although there is a distinct resemblance in some people!) or how it's going to end. I have more questions than answers - what was before the beginning, and what was before that? What is beyond the universe? The Multiverse? What killed the dinosaurs? What will kill the humans? I don't know. Just as you don't - or anyone else. So why bother about it? You can have a good moral code to live by without a belief in a supernatural being. I would rather have "belief" in my fellow man - although that concept is being sorely tested in recent times. Best just get on with living now and enjoying the beauty of this place and live a "good life" and try to understand yourself and your fellow man without worrying about the unknown, unseen and unproven.

Thank you again for your submission, Matthew.

Mark

 

Mark

More to the point

Where's MY bloody calender ( and this years please):craig:

Dave

There are theology sites that welcome this input.

This is a site about PODIATRY .

Please.......

Leave it alone my friend it aint the place for this type and content of posting :empathy:

I love you to death buddy coz you are a mate...

Enjoy your life together, be happy, be well, stay safe

AND

Appreciate the fact not everyone holds the same beliefs as you and to find having them thrust in their face on here is...frankly offensive .

Cheers my friend

Best wishes
D

 

What Del, like is this the type of PODIATRY related subjects (as listed below) your so keen to keep separate from my offensive drivel? What if I'm offended by arguments that propose climate change is man made? What if I hate meatballs? What if some ladies were offended by silly degrading wife jokes? There is no law that says we have the right to be free from offence at all times, because we could be offended by anything. Here's an idea, next time you read something that offends you, stop reading it!


Climate change anyone?
The Chinese Govt and 'Top Gun
The best airline safety video
Weird News from MSNBC
SWEDISH MEATBALLS
Jokes
Upgrading to a wife

 

Hi Mark,

Thank you for your response...

As I mentioned in my previous post; I am unaware of the history or background to recent discussions of this nature. It would seem David & yourself have been through this type of dialogue before as you were the subject of the thread. I personally don’t think it should be allowed that an individual be the focus of a thread subject – it isn’t allowed on an athletics forum I belong to (however, I feel the intentions were sincere here). This, the fact you provided a sincere response in return, whilst raising some interesting points is the reason I addressed your views.

That's fair enough... but I do not know this until I at least express my views & you then provide your feedback. We should both be aware that there is some degree of assumptions being made by both those on both sides of the fence i.e. the theist/ non-theist position & the Creation/evolution position.

I also understand the difficulty in conveying the intended message in the right context via a writing medium such as this. However, it is because the other side has little in the way of credible evidence why I feel I should put up an alternative view (only when the issue has already been raised – I don’t initiate it). There is always a chance that I may add something which no one has thought of or considered before. Hence I feel it is worth putting my opinion forward for consideration as you sure as likely are not going to get this type of information (& interpretation) via mainstream media as we a constantly being bombarded with naturalism/evolutionary inspired views in magazines, T.V, movies, education etc... Whilst you say my position & alternative interpretation of the evidence doesn't hold much water with you, others may at least find it interesting & possibly look at issues surrounding this topic a bit differently.

I understand, although a description of one’s position via a word or two on discussions such as this is helpful / convenient at times. I don't particularly like to use the term "atheist" much, hence I try to use the term "non-theist"... only because "atheist" can attract negative baggage which I don't want to convey (it shouldn't, but it does due to its history). After all, you did state that you didn't believe in a... "god or a saviour " hence the description relating to theism. I find "infidel" a more derogative term... & I too would be labelled with this by some in a faith or two (particularly one). Hence I will be more mindful of perceived labelling in the future.

Just for the record, I do not fear death... I prefer not to die just yet, but if & when it happens, I do not fear it. I feel my position does provide clues as to why this is, which probably best not to go into right now. I also feel my position has more philosophical & science credibility than those of Trekkers (Star Trek enthusiasts), the Jedi faith (Star Wars enthusiasts) & dare I say Mohammad (in fact I'm just itching to say more on Islam at the moment, particularly in light of current events - but I'll refrain).

Please don't interpret my expressed alternative opinion as an attempt to "force" my views on you or any other. Issues of this nature should never be forced (which some in Islam should take serious note of!). As you can probably gather, I have an interest primarily in the area of Origins/Abiogenesis which naturally leads to or attracts theological/philosophical issues... which then attracts other baggage (unfortunately this is hard to avoid). It would seem that people will always take a higher degree of exception to this type of content (i.e. spiritual) than other non-related Podiatry content.

Well, I feel I do have some credible answers to some of those above topics... I'll admit some of these answers may contain some element of speculation - naturally, because I wasn't there when the event unfolded... but guess what, neither was any other human (i.e. a scientist) who also feel the need to put his/her view across in accordance with his/her world view or philosophy (providing it is allowed by academia). However, this doesn't mean we shouldn't bother with these topics - some of which I feel are extremely important. After all, we have got to where we are in 2011 via men & women tackling what were once very difficult issues, which at the time looked to be impossible to solve - yet they eventually were - why? ... because the passion & subsequent effort was put in to find answers. Hence, I think it important to at least ponder on these topics... & maybe once in a while on a secular academic related forum where a broad range of opinions may be expressed.

Let me assure you Mark, there are many non-theists out there who live by a “good moral code” (as I’m sure you do)... & those who are apparently religious who are not so good in its expression. I know of many kind & caring people who do not belong to a faith of some sort, or do not attend church. The interesting thing is that I feel we all have a moral code wired within us (interesting fact in itself). We all innately tend to know what is right & wrong... it is just life's experiences can alter its expression (or warp it) to varying degrees. Let's face it... there are even some claimed (G)god following faiths which can adversely alter (warp) its expression as seen recently in the repercussions of the burning of some pieces of paper! (& I do not condone the burning of paper which has been formed into a book). Hence I fully sympathise with your statement... ""belief" in my fellow man - although that concept is being sorely tested in recent times."

The last thing I want is to be perceived as is “religious” on this forum & subsequently lumped into the religious bandwagon with all the other “religious nuts” & “hypocrites”. I totally understand why society on the whole has had a gutful of religion; but as I stated in my previous post, I don’t think it wise to allow these nuts to sway my persuasion or interest in areas which unfortunately attract religious baggage. I feel there is a reason why religion & subsequently anything relating to a god or God is so sour for so many... & the foreseen plan is working quite well.

We are living in interesting times (i.e. relating to world events) & this rift between theism & non-theism will only get larger & more sour... however, the greatest threat will unfortunately lie within the theism camp itself (a counterfeit theist group)... I’ll stop here.

Anyway, now that I have probably ostracised myself from both the theist & non-theist camps, I’ll leave it at that.

Thank you again Mark for your courteous response. All the best.

Matt.

 

...and admit to being a gullible twat like a few others here...

 

Good call

Bye

D

 

markjohconley:

It has now been over 48 hours since your above view was posted, & being that no one else has questioned its content - I will.

The above "t" word (of which I have edited the middle two letters with "xx") in your post can apparently be taken a couple of ways in the nature in which you had used it (derogatory in nature). I generally only knew of one... as described in the main Wikipedia profile of the word - here (i.e. a vulgar derogatory synonym). If this is the case I certainly take offence to its use on a public forum & being the nature of this thread... also, particularly that it was directed to fellow colleagues (due to your use of the phrase... "a few others here") of whom you do not know on a personal level. The other meaning of that word is still a derogatory term yet not vulgar... hence I feel its use is not appropriate on a public forum regardless (as has also been cased in the above Wiki link).

I fail to see why you need to stoop to this level just because some (at least two) have a differing opinion to you. You & I have encountered each other on the Evolution thread, hence I know your persuasion on a theist related topic... as this one clearly is; as outlined in the very descriptive thread heading i.e. "Only for Mark Russell and the curious (Allergy warning, may contain God, prepared in a place where god is often mentioned)."

Maybe it's just the influence of Christopher Hitchens' insecurities rubbing off on you :empathy:.

 

Matt, I certainly meant TWAT as in "fool", as in "a person having poor judgment".
I have no problem with words, I often have used the words "vagina", "vulva" and "clitoris", they are only groups of letters and these particular words pertain to real objects.
How well does one know someone else (let alone oneself). My perceptions have been based on the material in their posts. I think that's fair enough.
If David had meant the thread as for Mark only a Private Message would have been more appropriate.
Many people 'influence' me. And I certainly don't agree with all Hitchens has to say.
So VAGINA, VULVA AND CLITORIS to you Matt

 

Hmmm, on that note...



All the best & may you continually aspire to reach your full Created potential in life!