Seeing Mountains in Starry Clouds of Creation

NY Times ^ | November 15, 2005 | DENNIS OVERBYE

[crghill]

I said

"In order for you to see that, God would have to remove the blinders that are on your eyes in the same way he removed mine. You can't remove them and I can't remove them. Only He can remove them and that's why when He does, He gets the Glory for it."

I should have stated it this way, you won't remove them. You don't want to acknowledge God because then you might have to come to grips of having some sort of responsibility to Him. Check your own heart and mind, you don't want God. You don't want to see God, hear from God, do anything he asks, etc. You hate him and you hate him so much that you choose to even deny his existence. while I believe God finds this tragic, I won't try to entice you with the common Christian rhetoric, painting a picture of a needy God, which He isn't. Yes, God is grieved you choose to deny him and yes he wants you to come to Him so that he may forgive you and love you. Yes He wants you, but He isn't in need of you. He is sovereign and He sits enthroned above all your arguments. Those that don't want God are eventually given what they want. Hell is the only place where God does not exist. Your atheism will come true there, in that place there will be no God.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I should have stated it this way, you won't remove them."

But you didn't, you said God won't remove them and there was nothing I could do about it.

"You don't want to acknowledge God because then you might have to come to grips of having some sort of responsibility to Him."

I don't want to acknowledge YOUR God you mean, the one that keeps me in the dark to further his own Glory.

"You hate him and you hate him so much that you choose to even deny his existence."

Horse Manure. I don't believe in Santa Claus either, does that mean I hate him too? You really need to stop projecting your own fears and anxieties on others and come to grips with the fact that maybe, just maybe, some people just don't give a second thought to things you care about.

[crghill]

I don't want to acknowledge YOUR God you mean, the one that keeps me in the dark to further his own Glory.

So, you now acknowledge there is a God? If so, that's progress! Or, have you now moved from Atheism to Agnosticism? If so, that's progress!

I don't believe in Santa Claus either, does that mean I hate him too?

Comparing your belief in something that is indisputably untrue (Santa) versus something that is undeniably true (God) is like comparing apples to minefields.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"So, you now acknowledge there is a God? If so, that's progress! Or, have you now moved from Atheism to Agnosticism? If so, that's progress!"

Why do you think that isn't where I have been all along? You creos love to assume things.

"Comparing your belief in something that is indisputably untrue (Santa) versus something that is undeniably true (God) is like comparing apples to minefields."

To my 5 year old niece, Santa is *undeniably true too*. In a few years that will change. She will grow up.

[crghill]

To my 5 year old niece, Santa is *undeniably true too*. In a few years that will change. She will grow up.

Then she will know the truth. That is good.

Hey, can I just say that I've appreciated the civility with which this conversation has been conducted? I've got to run to work, but I'll try to write a more in-depth reply later today. Regards!

[RightWhale]

choice without consequences

Not at all. As far as choosing an option that isn't available, I could choose to win the PowerBall every day, but shouldn't bet everything on it, because if I choose that, I should expect to have no choices at all tomorrow. Choosing which menu to select today when there is actually nothing in the pantry is also not a real choice. Choosing to enjoy the fellowship of family and community in shantytown even while all are starving may increase future choices and future happiness as they attempt to make do for themselves, or not, but choosing to feel miserable will almost certainly reduce future choices.

[taxesareforever]

You bring back memories of "I was against the war before I was for the war." :)

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"You bring back memories of "I was against the war before I was for the war." :)"

You bring back memories of you saying slavery was not immoral.
As to this thread, you said that the Constitution says we are all equal. It says no such thing. I pointed this out to you; the correct document that says that we are all created equal is the Declaration of Independence. Then you said, *Well, the XIV amendment says we all have equal rights,". That is not the same as saying we are equals. And you know it. You were shown to be in error so you moved the goalposts. Instead of showing that that Constitution says we are all equals, which was your original, erroneous contention, you showed that the XIV amendment assures we all have equal protection of the law. It says nothing about our abilities and weaknesses. Your trying to weasel out of what you said only further demonstrates the fine character displayed by creationists on these threads.

It's ironic that you, of all people, should talk about equal rights when you have publicly advocated the morality of slavery. Were you for equal rights before you were against them? :)

[taxesareforever]

you showed that the XIV amendment assures we all have equal protection of the law. It says nothing about our abilities and weaknesses.

Spoken like a true liberal. When I talk about equality it certainly doesn't ring the same bell with you. In your definition being taller or shorter shows that there is no equality. I never heard such a definition of equality in regards to humans, but hey, to each his own.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Spoken like a true liberal. When I talk about equality it certainly doesn't ring the same bell with you."

Spoken like a man who was caught in a lie and is too much of a coward to back down. You said that the Constitution says we are all equal, that is false. Deal with it. Especially in light of the conversation we were having, your claim is ridiculous. You made the moronic statement that I said I was superior to everybody, which is in itself a lie, as I said no such thing. Then I said I was superior to you, if not to everybody. Then you made the egregious error of confusing the Constitution, which doesn't say we are all equal, with the Declaration of Independence, which does. Another example of your inferiority. When I showed you your error, you showed your character by acting like Clinton and moving the goalposts and pretending that we were talking about equality before the law, which is absurd.

"In your definition being taller or shorter shows that there is no equality. I never heard such a definition of equality in regards to humans, but hey, to each his own."

And being smarter, or in your case, dumber, is another example of inequality. I don't care if you have never heard of the definition of equality, that is your problem. Someone like you who thinks slavery is moral has no business talking about equality before the law. Shame on you.

[taxesareforever]

And being smarter, or in your case, dumber, is another example of inequality. I don't care if you have never heard of the definition of equality, that is your problem.

And drivel like this is exactly what the conservatives are trying to keep off the Supreme Court.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"And drivel like this is exactly what the conservatives are trying to keep off the Supreme Court."

Are you going to say you don't know what equal means? We were talking about equality of ability, when you screwed up and confused the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence. Instead of being a man and admitting your mistake, you lied and said we were talking about equality before the law, which is ludicrous. I can't help it if you are too much of a coward to admit your mistakes. It's slavery loving (and you know we have proof of that), anti-science morons like you that give conservatism a bad name. The kind of people who have no business lecturing ANYBODY about equal rights and the rule of law.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Those unable to create anything worthwhile tend to project their inadequacy upon others.

[taxesareforever]

Are you going to say you don't know what equal means?

Using your logic I can say it means anything I want it to mean. Hey remember, I am the so-called liar. You cannot win a debate with a liar so suck it up.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Using your logic I can say it means anything I want it to mean. Hey remember, I am the so-called liar. You cannot win a debate with a liar so suck it up."

No, I have used the term equal consistently. It means the same. We are demonstrably NOT the same. Equality before the law is a very different thing, and was NOT what we were talking about. YOU brought that up when you made the laughable mistake of confusing the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence.

And you are right about one thing, there is no way to win a debate with someone like you who will lie when cornered with a mistake.

So go bother someone else on a different thread.

[taxesareforever]

So go bother someone else on a different thread.

Most gladly.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Nice post!