For the board atheists.... (page 8)

EntirelyPossible

"Time dialation would make it possible for passengers in a fast moving vehicle to travel further into the future while aging very little

We ALL travel through time. That's why clocks move forward. Time dilation makes them move at difference rates due to distorted local space time properties relative to body suffering the effects of the local distortion due to speed or gravity. Notice the paragraph you quote doesn't use the phrase "time travel" which you keep desperately trying to equate to "time travel". As I said, we ALL travel through time, hopwever, time dilation is exactly the term for traveling through time at different rates, not "time travel" as it is meaningless and already happening to all of us.

You were wrong, you continue to be wrong.

Jack C.

EntirelyPossible : Time dialation is the effect that gravity or speed has on the rate of time experienced by a person or object. The greater the effect of gravitation or the greater the speed that an object or person experiences slows down the rate of time experienced by said object or person and speeds up the rate of time for remote objects or persons observed by said object or person. If you leave the planet in a space ship in 2010 and travel near the speed of light for a week and return to earth, time on the earth will have passed at a rate such that it will be near the date 2900. Eveything you knew will have changed or disappeared and everyone you know will be dead. You will have traveled nearly 900+- years into the future. You can call it what you like if it makes you feel better but it's still time travel. Like you said everyone passes through time but when you travel through time at a different rate than eveyone else you have traveled through time. Traveling in a car at different speeds (or a different rate) still equals traveling in a car. Traveling through a tunnel at different rates or speed still equals traveling through a tunnel does it not? To travel through time means you must travel through time at a rate that is different from another given time. Perhaps you are stuck on semantics. It (the effect of time travel) has been proven as I said in my original statement.

Jack

EntirelyPossible

Pehaps you are stuck on semantics. It (the effect of time travel) has been proven as I said in my original statement.

Not at all. You simply do not grasp that time dilation is called time dilation becase it is simply a change in the rate at which time travel occurs. You can't seem to grasp that dilation is not in an of itself time travel, but simply a different rate.

You can call it time travel to your hearts content, but your original premise, that time travel had been proven, was simply wrong. It was dilation, a change in the rate. That's why it's called dilation and not travel.

You can write all you want, but it will not change that fact.

Fundies and science. You never fail to fail.

Traveling in a car at different speeds (or a different rate) still equals traveling in a car does it not?

Exactly, that's why time dilation was proven, not time travel. It's still called traveling in a car whether you are moving 1 KMH or 100. It's still car travel no matter how fast you go. Thanks for providing me with the example to show you are wrong to call time dilation something else, like time travel.

gubberningbody

I'm not an atheist, but I am an agnostic as would be any supposed deity who has half a brain.

It's not logically possible to know what you don't know and what any sentient being can't know is if he/she/it is being hoodwinked in the same manner as the supposed creation.

I will argue that any representation of deity by any religion invariably has an exception clause as regards the questionable morality of its own deity.

EntirelyPossible

Okay. But if you dismiss what the NT says about God being as Christ showed Him, then why would you think not dismiss that the OT accurately describes God?

I do, I dismiss it all. But if you accept the parts about Jesus, shouldnt you accept the parts about how horrific God is?

If everything was right in the written law (as they had it), then why did Christ come to show the Truth?

Because the scribes handled the law falsely; they didn't understand it; they misapplied it; and amendments were made to make allowance for the hardness of the people, or perhaps even the greed of people.

Then was he telling the truth when he said he didn't come to change the Law?

Just because something got written down does NOT mean that it was meant to be that way, or that it was from God, or even that it was from Moses (considering how many scribes there have been between Moses and the oldest manuscripts we have).

If you understand why you reject the OT, then you should understand why I reject all of it.

You do? Well... thanks :)

While we disagree, you are smart and insightful and often funny. I respect all of that.

tec

But if you accept the parts about Jesus, shouldnt you accept the parts about how horrific God is?

Impossible. Because if you accept the parts about Jesus, then you must accept that Christ is the Truth. Christ shows us God. Because that's what the parts 'about Jesus' say.

Then was he telling the truth when he said he didn't come to change the Law?

But what IS the law?

"Love God with all your heart and soul, and love your neighbor as yourself. All of the prophets and the law hang on these two commandments." or again, "Do to others whatever you would like them to do to you. This is the essence of all that is taught in the law and the prophets."

So there is nothing wrong with the law. Just in the misunderstanding and 'amendments' made. He came and cleared that up... but for the people who would prefer to hang onto the old laws/rules/misunderstandings. There were a lot of dietary laws too, but Christ showed that nothing that a man ate made him unclean.

Then there is also Christ saying that not one letter of the law would be erased until all had been accomplished. But all of what? All the work He had to complete here? His obedience to the law unto his death? Something to think about. (not just you, but me as well)

If you understand why you reject the OT, then you should understand why I reject all of it.

I would understand if you rejected all of it. But you don't. You reject Christ and the NT, in favor of the OT version of God.

While we disagree, you are smart and insightful and often funny. I respect all of that.

Well... thank you again. I think you hit hard when you debate, but I also think you temper that with me, and I've noticed you attempting to do the same with some others. I've quite admired that, and your honesty. I'm glad to know you and count you as a friend.

Peace,

Tammy

EntirelyPossible

I would understand if you rejected all of it. But you don't. You reject Christ and the NT, in favor of the OT version of God.

Ah, maybe that is the crux of the misunderstanding. I will write more on this tomorrow, working right now. I think I can clarify.Later, though.

I'm glad to know you and count you as a friend.

You too. You really do seem to be a lovely person.

tec

G'night, EP. Talk to you more tomorrow :)

Peace,

Tammy

nateb

Atheism counts on the non existence of deity and feeds on the existence of religion.

With this statement you reveal a lack of understanding of the term. The label atheist was originally applied to the Christians living under the Romans- they were "without the gods" in that they refused to recognize the pantheon of gods revered by the pagans. More modern atheists follow the example of the early Christians but add one more(or two or three depending on what brand of Christianity) deity to those they they do not acknowledge- the Christian god(s). Atheism doesn't count on anything. Nor does it feed on anything. It's the simple lack of belief in a given deity.

Religion feeds on the belief in deity and exploits the existence of atheism.

A more thorough familiarity with religion and its origins would be helpful in clearing up this assertion. Religions are constantly morphing and feed on the very human need for community and a yearning for answers to the unanswered- accuracy be damned. I haven't seen any evidence to support the notion that religion has benefited from the fact that there are non-believers.

Deism depends, counts and feeds on the existence of deity, debates with atheism while painfully aware of the existence of religion.

How does a deist differ from an atheist in their worldview? Neither acknowledges a deity that would have any effect whatsoever in human existence.

The Deity is aware of the existence of deism, atheism and religion but depends on none of them to exist.

Which deity are you referring to? How are you personally familiar with what said deity is aware of or dependent upon?

whereami

I rarely get a chance to debate with religious people face to face :( if I did however, I'd meet them on whatever ground they built their idols and batter them there be it bible cherry pickings or mystic philosophy babbling.

All religious belief distills down to faith in utterly unprovable stories. Whether they paint themselves into a corner by biblical literalism or attempt to avoid critical skepticism by hiding in subjective delusion it matters not. The religious thinker fails to understand the most basic rule of reality, evidence.

No matter how convinced, how sold, how blindly loyal they are they never, ever produce evidence, just words, just stories, just fairytales. It matters not whether they write them in fancy leather bound books or merely spout them on Internet forums it's all just make believe.

The further I get from my own indoctrination and religious brainwashing the more gutted I am that I didn't have the character strength to make peace with my logical and rational side earlier and accept that I had to grow up.

For the board atheists....

Share this