Ok...I am saying the same thing you are that science isn't a matter of faith. And I don't believe in deities because I don't operate on faith, but its fine if others do.
Hal Lindsey? Really? Didn't he keep changing his prophecies when they didn't happen? Let's see, he prophesied the Antichrist would head up a revived Roman Empire comprised of the European community, the Jewish Temple would be rebuilt, an Arab-African confederacy will assault Palestine followed by the even larger invasion of the region by Russia. Then the European alliance, after having defeated the Russians, would be attacked by an army of 200 million Asians. In this Armageddon battle, a nuclear exchange would kill a third of the world's population. But just as the battle reaches its peak, Christ would suddenly appear, halting the hostilities and protecting believers from total destruction. All of this was based on the founding of Israel and a 40 year generation from Matthew 24. He predicted the return of Christ in 1988 and the rapture of the church seven years earlier. My memory may be failing me, but I can't recall that happening. Of course by 1997 he changed his prediction (which isn't exactly a first for rapture predictions). He actually thinks John was shown the future and then taken back to the 1st century to write his eyewitness account via encoded symbols and only ''a Christian guided by the Spirit of God'' to be able to interpret them. That being him, of course. The decline and fall of communism presented Lindsey with a bit of a problem since he said identified Russia with Gog and Magog, and especially the ''Rosh'' mentioned in Ezekiel 38. We're still waiting, I guess?
Durvasa didn't do it, but I'll mess with these prophecies for you. Now, to keep things fair, I decided to randomly pick 8 of them, as 10% of a population is generally good enough for a sample. The 8 I got were in numerical order: 2, 4, 5, 28, 32, 47, 50, 61. So, let's begin! #2: Uh, no ****. How many cities can you name that have lasted over the last 2000 years that HAVEN'T gotten destroyed at one point or another? Hell, how many cities can you name that have lasted over the last 200 years that haven't? #4: Uh, see #2. #5: Once again. Name somewhere on this globe which hasn't been devastated by foreign invaders at one point or another. I guess Antarctica. #28: ... ... ... Moving right along. #32 Tying into #5, which basically pointed that everywhere humans have lived has been devastated by foreign invaders at one point or another, let's now find a place where they were devastated and didn't in fact, rebuild. For crying out loud, Hiroshima was hit with a nuke and you would never know it if you went there aside from the memorials. #47 Uh, once again, meaningless, because there are plenty of other examples of this. Countries get conquered. Countries' old borders are not the same as the new one, which means that the country did get partitioned. Aka. the Germans. The Koreans. Colonial Africa in a nutshell, and I can easily dredge up examples from 2000 years ago if I cared to. #50 You know what? I'll chalk up this one to you, even obviously once again it's really vague, not to mention the Bible actually wasn't written by Jesus. So, yay. One sorta kinda right. #61 Holy mother of God, the vagueness. And to top it off? Your site shows they came true by listing four empires that didn't even exist at the same time: Babylonia, Persia, Greece, and Rome. That's something like 500 years between the rise of the first empire, Neo-Babylon, and Rome. Four empires would show up in 500 years? No ****, again. I can count four empires in this last century, with the United States, the Nazis, the Soviets, and the British. There, I've reinterpreted your biblical prophecy to mean something in the present day. This is not a good sign if you want to tell me your prophecy isn't vague. So, in short? Yes, these prophecies are vague, or predict stuff which is incredibly easy to fortell like "A kingdom/city will be destroyed in the next 2000 years." There's nothing special here at all.
Hal Lindsey may have predicted a date which was a mistake because the Bible makes it clear no man knows the time but I can assure all the things he predicted will happen at some time in the future. I am sure you do not believe and will make some fun of it but I really could care less. These events are prophesied and WILL HAPPEN but nobody knows when expect God himself. Your memory is not failing and so far you are correct. If you think they will not happen in the future then you are dead wrong.
You can chose to believe any way you want to. These prophecies were specific to Israel, not just any nation and have been fulfilled. You can call them vague if you like but they were specific to Israel and they did happen. You have already made up your mind so I will not waste time trying to convince you. I pray you see the light before it is too late but that is your choice. I know the truth and the truth has set me free!
And you have made up your mind and no amount of evidence will change your stance. It's really simple for us atheists who need more evidence to believe. God with his unlimited power and capability just needs to show itself to us. Or is it a test from God to see how much blind faith a human can have with little to no evidence? O GOD OF ABRAHAM WHY YOU MAKE ME SO NOT GULLIBLE AND DAMN ME TO ETERNAL HELL FIRE!!!
Here is my proof that a god does not exist. http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2012/12/us/sandy-hook-timeline/index.html You also can't claim free will when something bad happens and then claim gods miracles when something good happens.
Wow, man. Really, I have repeatedly told you that I am NOT trying to convince anyone of that. Like, over and over again. Whatever floats your boat, believe what you want. For the what, 8th or 9th time, I am merely trying to get you to admit that you don't know for certain whether or not God exists, which you finally did in a qualified way. To express absolute certainty either way is extremist, and that is what you did for the first 7 or so pages. All I did was point that out. I think you just have a caricature of Christianity and Christians stuck in your head that says that we are always trying to convert you. Relax, your caricature is not remotely accurate.
“All I say is that I think it is damned unlikely that anything like a central cosmic will, a spirit world, or an eternal survival of personality exist. They are the most preposterous and unjustified of all the guesses which can be made about the universe, and I am not enough of a hair-splitter to pretend that I don't regard them as arrant and negligible moonshine. In theory I am an agnostic, but pending the appearance of radical evidence I must be classed, practically and provisionally, as an atheist.” ― H.P. Lovecraft
If he's your go to source for all of these true prophecies and he's been wrong (a LOT) then I'm not sure he's a good source to cite. And honestly, most of these prophecies read like horoscopes and fortune cookies. People fit meaning into them and find how they apply to their lives and the world due to vagueness and plain old hoping for something bigger. The only fortune cookie fortune I hope was dead wrong was the one that said, "That wasn't chicken."
Yes you are saying that but you are also saying with certainty that there is no God(s). You are free to say that but I don't agree with that and intellectually agree with Treeman and others that there is no way of knowing that with any certainty. As I said the existence of God isn't a scientific question and trying to argue for empirical proof is trying to pound a round peg into a square hole. At the same time I disagree with Treeman's view of scientific knowledge, that it has aspects of faith, and think he is confusing the two.
Is god going to bring back Nebuchadnezzar so he can finally destroy Tyre too? From Ezekial 26:7-14, "For thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will bring upon Tyrus Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, a king of kings, from the north, with horses, and with chariots, and with horsemen, and companies, and much people. He shall slay with the sword thy daughters in the field: and he shall make a fort against thee, and cast a mount against thee, and lift up the buckler against thee. And he shall set engines of war against thy walls, and with his axes he shall break down thy towers. By reason of the abundance of his horses their dust shall cover thee: thy walls shall shake at the noise of the horsemen, and of the wheels, and of the chariots, when he shall enter into thy gates, as men enter into a city wherein is made a breach. With the hoofs of his horses shall he tread down all thy streets: he shall slay thy people by the sword, and thy strong garrisons shall go down to the ground. And they shall make a spoil of thy riches, and make a prey of thy merchandise: and they shall break down thy walls, and destroy thy pleasant houses: and they shall lay thy stones and thy timber and thy dust in the midst of the water. And I will cause the noise of thy songs to cease; and the sound of thy harps shall be no more heard. And I will make thee like the top of a rock: thou shalt be a place to spread nets upon; thou shalt be built no more: for I the LORD have spoken it, saith the Lord GOD." Old Nebuchadrezzar gave up after 13 years or so and it's still standing. What's up with that? Ezekial also says Nebuchadrezzar will lay waste to Egypt: "Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will bring a sword upon thee, and cut off man and beast out of thee. And the land of Egypt shall be desolate and waste; and they shall know that I am the LORD: because he hath said, The river is mine, and I have made it. Behold, therefore I am against thee, and against thy rivers, and I will make the land of Egypt utterly waste and desolate, from the tower of Syene even unto the border of Ethiopia. No foot of man shall pass through it, nor foot of beast shall pass through it, neither shall it be inhabited forty years. And I will make the land of Egypt desolate in the midst of the countries that are desolate, and her cities among the cities that are laid waste shall be desolate forty years: and I will scatter the Egyptians among the nations, and will disperse them through the countries." But he was defeated in his attempt. Is this one still going to happen? How?
assuming jesus is the son of god and he died for our sins, it is a dangerous gambit to believe you are going to heaven because you believe in him. it simply isn't your choice.
Yep. That's not my intended meaning, perhaps I just explained it poorly. The scientific method is simply a tool that we use to increase our knowledge. It generally does not, however, tell us absolutely definitive answers. It because we cannot use the entire universe as a sample we necessarily must use smaller samples, and therefore we do not find absolute certainty but only increasing degrees of certainty. So while we may use the scientific method to increase our certainty of something to 99.99999%, there is still always going to be some degree of uncertainty. Until we find a way to sample all of existence, that is unavoidable. My point her is really a logical and philosophical one - that our knowledge is always going to be incomplete, and in the absence of complete knowledge something else has to fill that knowledge gap, no matter how miniscule it may be. If you don't like the word "faith" then use the word "belief", it's the same concept. I am just arguing against absolutes here really, nothing more.
What do you mean by "God" here? Just an abstract entity that isn't specific to any particular faith? Do you think that "Jesus = God" is also a proposition that falls completely outside of scientific inquiry?
This quote seems to fit well with the topic question. Though the topic question itself will always trend towards ad-infinitum. I don't think a cosmic entity's too preposterous a guess though. Maybe it's not the debate itself but the consequences. There seems to be debate on what the implications are from whatever viewpoint you're standing on. A) there's a God 1) then we can be greater than we think we perceive we are through God: The measure of excellence 2) or...then our lives are predestined and we're limited by rules, and meaning through a perceived sense of freedom and choice is stifled. B) there's no God 1) then we're a small insignificant spec in an infinitesimal-like universe with no particular purpose possibly determined by chaos or random chance 2) or...we could possibly be a rare once-in-a-moment occurrence, random's not so bad if it's possibly rare (though the infinite or mega mega scale in size and time, let alone dimension, blows up the rarity aspect) There's definitely more ways to skin the implications, but either viewpoint still skews back to inherent biases in personality, ie whether or not you think you have a purpose or identity. Which is fair because religion and science are merely tools and constructs that although they can provide definition, it can't provide context, similarly to a tool more tangible like fire can be used to either create or destroy...If you live a meaningful and rich life as an atheist, a purposeful "believer" will see that in his God-centered lens. Likewise, the atheist will just accept that you were a good human being. Vice versa with the evil bits, except with the evil bits you disassociate the common human weaknesses and deflect blame towards the tools for its own failures. In any way, all of us are struggling with our definition of what makes us human or even spiritual (in any sense of the word). Interesting in the sense that our relatively rare (in both time and location) Western lifestyle allows us the "luxury" to either pause and think about this or shrug it off as an antiquated vestige of our past. Being materialistic and self absorbed isn't a modern invention. Modernity just brought that up to scale. Back to your regularly scheduled program....
