Shitty bastardized Ray Comfort arguments about faith in history. [YOU RESPOND]

RationalRespons...
Moderator
RationalResponseSquad's picture
Posts: 556
Joined: 2006-08-17
User is offlineOffline
Shitty bastardized Ray Comfort arguments about faith in history. [YOU RESPOND]

From: v.own_b@yahoo.com
Subject: [General Question] a simple question

Vanessa sent a message using the contact form at
http://www.rationalresponders.com/contact.

Your organization argues that science is concrete and provable.  That
theism is obscure and inconclusive.  You use Darwin as one of the
scientists who proved that evolution is the explanation of our existance.
My question to you is, "Do you know Darwin personally?  Have you spoken to
him and seen his scientific experiments and works with your own eyes or are
you just basing your arguement on recorded history?"  As far as I can tell,
you are putting your faith of no existance of God on historical events
recorded in time.  There is also recorded history of Jesus Christ.  This
recorded history is some of the very first historical record, long before
Darwin.  According to history, Jesus was born of a virgin for the sole
purpose of redeeming and reconciling humanity with God, our Creator.  These
events of history were not recorded by one specific culture or geographical
area but were recorded by many different people of many different cultures,
beliefs and backgrounds spanning thousands of years.  Kings who ruled and
reigned over more people than you will encounter in your lifetime who
renounced the gods of their cultures after seeing, before their very eyes,
the miracles in work at God's hands.  What are you basing your proof on?
History?  There is more documention in history of God's and Jesus'
existance than you will ever find on Darwin.  Exponential amounts of
recorded history that speak of Jesus and the teachings of His Father and
His role in our existance.  You claim that science in itself opposes the
idea that there can be a Creator and that science and theism cannot not
exist together.  There are scientists who have come to believe in God
through their scientific research.  Just what is your degree in science?
Self study or a college degree?  Do you have a Bachelor's Degree, a
Master's, a PhD?  Look up Hugh Ross, PhD.  He is a PhD Astrophysicist who
argues the existance of a supernatural, omniscient, omnipresent God and
Creator through his findings as a scientist.  Look up his web site.  You
just might learn something.  By the way, he is a living, breathing human
being that you can actually see and touch if that is of concern to you (it
apparently is an issue with your belief in a God).  I would be very
interested to see a debate between you and Hugh but beware, his knowledge
and intellect may be a little over your head.  Your renounce of God and
Jesus is as rediculous as me renouncing the existance of Charles Darwin
since I can't see him or touch him today.  Please pardon my sarcasm, that
is my nature coming out in me.  My ultimate hope and prayer is that God
will touch your heart and your life in a way that needs no explanation or
physical evidence, so that you may know Him more and have eternal life.  My
purpose is to intrigue you to look deeper, beyond the physical and into the
spiritual, for that is where you will experience the realness of our
Heavenly Father and His will for your life, mortal and eternal.  May God
bless you and use you for His purpose and will. 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
The Bible is not history.

The Bible is not history. It's a poorly plagiarized collection of myths stolen from other cultures. Ross probably doesn't believe in a lot of stuff that you hold to (he believes Noah's flood to be a local event not a global one).

Eternal life sounds awfully boring. I'd rather be useful with the time that I have.

Thanks for playing.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2375
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Dear misguided Vanessa

From:
Subject: [General Question] a simple question

Vanessa sent a message using the contact form at
http://www.rationalresponders.com/contact.

Your organization argues that science is concrete and provable.  That
theism is obscure and inconclusive.                                                     
 
 
 
   The definition is provable and repeatable.  There is nothing obscure about religion and they all claim the ultimate truth.
 
 
 
 
You use Darwin as one of the
scientists who proved that evolution is the explanation of our existance.
My question to you is, "Do you know Darwin personally? 
 Have you spoken to
him and seen his scientific experiments and works with your own eyes or are
you just basing your arguement on recorded history?"
 
 
 
    Never met the man, I simply didn't live  in his time.  Darwin did not have experiments as you know them. He had copious notes and published papers and books. All based on his observations and studies of the natural world around him. He was a botonist btw not a genetisist.  He was aware of Gregor Mendals gene studies but he did not have the technology to look into microscopic genomes.  Modern DNA, RNA and genome studies have verified Darwin's studies, Darwin and his evolutionary explanations just keep getting stronger with each new generation of scientists. Paleontologists & archaeologists keep adding more verification to Darwins break through with each new bone they  dig up.
 
 
 
 
 
  As far as I can tell,
you are putting your faith of no existance of God on historical events
recorded in time.  There is also recorded history of Jesus Christ.  This
recorded history is some of the very first historical record, long before
Darwin.
 
 
 
    It is impropper to accuse atheists of haveing FAITH in anything,  we believe what we see.  The first historical recodings date back to (circa) 3000 BCE, a real loooong time before Joshua Bar Joseph.  Some archaeologists reguard the wall paintings at Lascaux Cave France dated to 35,000 BCE as a written history.   There is no written history,   even St.Paul of Tarsus, Christianitys first PR agent did NOT believe there was a real person named Jesus. He wrote of a Christ the annointed one! NOT a REAL one.   Everything written about  J.C. since were nothing more then religious tracts being written on and about earlier religious tracts.
 
 
 
 
 
 
According to history, Jesus was born of a virgin for the sole
purpose of redeeming and reconciling humanity with God, our Creator.  These
events of history were not recorded by one specific culture or geographical
area but were recorded by many different people of many different cultures,
beliefs and backgrounds spanning thousands of  years.
 
    You got most of that part right.  Other god/creators had the same attributes as your mythical charactor, they were born of virgins,mostly at the winter soltice of Dec.25, they had deciples, they had cults of worship and temples &  priests, Jesus was carbon copy of previous gods & their cults. I'll name a few. Horus Mithra, Osirus, Isis, Vishnu, Rama, Baal, Dagon, Kabaa...etc.
 
 
 
 
 
Kings who ruled and
reigned over more people than you will encounter in your lifetime who
renounced the gods of their cultures after seeing, before their very eyes,
the miracles in work at God's hands.  What are you basing your proof on?
History? 
 
 
 
 
    Those kings and cultures simply traded in the old cults for new and improved versions of the same thing.  Let me tell you about Lord Mithras, he was a god of Rome and highly popular with Roman soldiers untill the early 4th century CE. He was born on Dec.25th, he had 12 desciples and feasted with them before major events.  He  died during the furtillity festival of Eoster but rose again on the third day.  His main temple was on Vatican hill in Rome and the cheif priest was called the Papa.    Constantine worshipped Mithras , he allowed Christianity Parity with Mithras'Zorastrian cult for political reasons and because his Mommy told him to.  He was converted on his death bed because he was too weak to say NO.
 
 
 
 
 
There is more documention in history of God's and Jesus'
existance than you will ever find on Darwin.  Exponential amounts of
recorded history that speak of Jesus and the teachings of His Father and
His role in our existance. 
 
 
 
   You are wrong, you are simply wrong. Theological tracts are NOT history, they are not ment to be history,  they are  ment to be religious directives.
 
 
 
 
 
 
You claim that science in itself opposes the
idea that there can be a Creator and that science and theism cannot not
exist together. 
 
 
 
 
   Science does not oppose anything,  science studies any and all questions. The results of such studies are published, we don't build  churches to science. Science never stops, studies continue  so as to prove, debunk or improve what ever the current standard is.   The greatest scientist of all will be the one who can prove Darwin or Einstien or Hubble are wrong.  Your god hypothathist has no standing in science.
 
 
 
 
 
There are scientists who have come to believe in God
through their scientific research.  Just what is your degree in science?
Self study or a college degree?  Do you have a Bachelor's Degree, a
Master's, a PhD?  Look up Hugh Ross, PhD.  He is a PhD Astrophysicist who
argues the existance of a supernatural, omniscient, omnipresent God and
Creator through his findings as a scientist.  Look up his web site.  You
just might learn something.  By the way, he is a living, breathing human
being that you can actually see and touch if that is of concern to you (it
apparently is an issue with your belief in a God).  I would be very
interested to see a debate between you and Hugh but beware, his knowledge
and intellect may be a little over your head. 
 
 
 
 
 
    You know of a Phd who is religious,  he was religious before he went to pre-school, he was still religious after picking up his PhD.  That is NOT scientific proof of god, that IS proof that one PhD has a religion. Hugh Ross is welcome to post here anytime.
 
 
 
 
 
 
Your renounce of God and
Jesus is as rediculous as me renouncing the existance of Charles Darwin
since I can't see him or touch him today.  Please pardon my sarcasm, that
is my nature coming out in me.  My ultimate hope and prayer is that God
will touch your heart and your life in a way that needs no explanation or
physical evidence, so that you may know Him more and have eternal life.  My
purpose is to intrigue you to look deeper, beyond the physical and into the
spiritual, for that is where you will experience the realness of our
Heavenly Father and His will for your life, mortal and eternal.  May God
bless you and use you for His purpose and will. 
 
 
 
 
 
      A logical person can not renounce something that does not exist,   You can renounce Charles Darwin all you wish. Yet be warned even meny  religions : The Pope's for one , find Darwin and science compatable with their Dogma.  
The rest of your post is nothing but filler and pap,  you are  most welcome to it.

 

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2375
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
MODERATORS HELP!!!

 

 

 

     IS there a mod who could straighten out that blotch of a post into the format I actually tried to write it in.

 You veterns all know I've done this before, apologies all around for doing it again.   Otherwise send it off to Air head Vanessa as is.

 

 

 

   edit&nbspEye-wink Thanks to who ever pulled off the miricle in the above post.

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Cant top jeffricks post. 

Cant top jeffricks post.  This is crazyoverload for me, head... EXPLODING!!!   it speaks for itself.  Im out!!! 


NoDeity
Bronze Member
NoDeity's picture
Posts: 268
Joined: 2009-10-13
User is offlineOffline
RationalResponseSquad wrote:

Quote:
Your organization argues that science is concrete and provable.  That theism is obscure and inconclusive. 

Science is inherently testable.  If it ain't testable, it ain't science.  Theism is untestable and, therefore, it must be accepted on faith alone.

 

Quote:
  You use Darwin as one of the scientists who proved that evolution is the explanation of our existance.

Evolution doesn't disprove God's existence -- it merely makes God unnecessary as an explanation for the existence of humans and the amazing variety of life on this planet.


Quote:
  My question to you is, "Do you know Darwin personally?  Have you spoken to him and seen his scientific experiments and works with your own eyes or are you just basing your arguement on recorded history?" 

Darwin's theories have been tested and retested over and over.  His theories have been modified where necessary where the results of those tests made such revisions necessary.  Evolutionary theory has grown beyond Darwin as a consequence of 150 years of research and testing of Darwin's theories and the theories spawned by his work. 

In the long run, I trust science.  Why?  I trust it because I understand the safeguards built into the scientific process.  For example, every scientific study submitted for publication is examined by other scientists who examine it closely for problems.  If they miss something, their reputations will suffer for it, which gives them an incentive to be careful.  After it is published, it is studied by other scientists who would love to be able to prove that the original study was flawed.  Finding someone else's errors and finding that which is closer to the truth is one way for an up and coming scientist to make a name for him or herself, which provides incentive for them to not let shoddy work get past them.

Scientific methods of investigation have sophisticated means of catching errors and dishonesty.  Sure, errors are made and some scientists are dishonest but they get found out and exposed.  The same is quite obviously not true of theologians.

 

Quote:
As far as I can tell, you are putting your faith of no existance of God on historical events recorded in time.  There is also recorded history of Jesus Christ. 

That's a really, really bad analogy. 

First, I don't reject belief in the existence of God because of evolution and I doubt that there are many who do.  I reject belief in the existence of God primarily because of a complete lack of testable evidence supporting the claim that God exists.

Second, as I already explained, the nature of scientific investigation means that scientific theories and discoveries are subjected to intense scrutiny, criticism and, where necessary, revision or even rejection.  The records of all these studies are available to anyone who is serious about examining them.

Third, the recorded "history" of Jesus is rather shaky.  Many biblical literalists claim that the gospels are eye-witness accounts.  There are at least two problems with this. 

The first is that eye witnesses are notoriously unreliable.   The human memory is "plastic", meaning that it changes due to suggestions, expectations, desires, etc.  The gospels were written decades or more after the events that they supposedly depict.  It is simply unreasonable to expect that anyone's recollection of events would be accurate and fair after so long an interval. 

The second is that the gospels simply do not qualify as eye witness accounts.  For one thing, we don't know who wrote them; the names attached to the gospels are there because of tradition, not because there are good reasons to think that someone named Mark actually wrote the book of Mark.  Annonymous testimony is not acceptable as evidence in any rational forum.  In the case of scientific papers, we know who wrote them and we know who is to be held accountable for them.

 

Quote:
This recorded history is some of the very first historical record, long before Darwin.

Even if that is true, it tells us exactly nothing about the reliability of that "history". 

 

Quote:
According to history, Jesus was born of a virgin for the sole purpose of redeeming and reconciling humanity with God, our Creator. 

Incorrect.  That is according to the gospels, not according to history.  Most biblical scholars understand that the gospels were not written with the intention of recording history but, rather, for the purpose of refuting what the authors considered to be heresy and promoting what the authors considered to be correct doctrine.

Quote:
  These events of history were not recorded by one specific culture or geographical area but were recorded by many different people of many different cultures, beliefs and backgrounds spanning thousands of years.  Kings who ruled and reigned over more people than you will encounter in your lifetime who
renounced the gods of their cultures after seeing, before their very eyes, the miracles in work at God's hands. 

Sorry, but your fantasy about what the Bible actually is does not correspond well with reality.

 

Quote:
  What are you basing your proof on?

My denial of the existence of God is based primarily on the complete lack of testable evidence support the existence of God and secondarily on logical issues such as the many ways in which the Bible contradicts itself and contradicts reality and reason.

 

Quote:
  History?  There is more documention in history of God's and Jesus' existance than you will ever find on Darwin. 

LOL!  Oh, my.  You are quite deluded.  Either that or you've swallowed whole what some preacher spewed at you without bothering to think about it for yourself.  Quite sad, really.  And funny, too, of course.

 

Quote:
  Look up Hugh Ross, PhD.  He is a PhD Astrophysicist who argues the existance of a supernatural, omniscient, omnipresent God and Creator through his findings as a scientist. 

I'm quite familiar with the work of Hugh Ross.  He has indeed done some legitimate science.  However, I can strongly refute his primary argument for God very, very simply.  Basically, he presents a version of the argument from design.  Essentially, he claims that the odds of conditions in the universe and on the Earth being suitable for life are so small that God must necessarily have intervened to make it happen. 

Such claims suffer from a fatal flaw: to calculate the odds against something happening, you have to know how many possibilities there are.  Unfortunately, for Ross, there is no way to know how many possible configurations there are for the universe and its physical laws.  Maybe the possibilities are nearly endless or maybe it was only possible for it to turn out the way it did -- there's no way to know. 

That alone is enough to sink Ross.  He'll never admit it, of course.  He is committed firstly to faith and only second to reason and evidence.

 

Quote:
  My ultimate hope and prayer is that God will touch your heart and your life in a way that needs no explanation or physical evidence, so that you may know Him more and have eternal life. 

Sorry, but I understand that emotional experiences are chemical in nature and, having evolved in an environment very different from the one in which modern humans live, are often misleading and should be examined rationally.

 

Quote:
  My purpose is to intrigue you to look deeper, beyond the physical and into the spiritual,

You mean the emotional.  Evangelism would be absolutely nowhere without emotional manipulation.  It's quite shameful, really.

 

Quote:
  for that is where you will experience the realness of our Heavenly Father and His will for your life, mortal and eternal. 

Correction: that is where you experience the fantasy that your Sky Daddy not only exists but actually notices and cares about you.  Grow up; God is just pretend.

 

Quote:
  May God bless you and use you for His purpose and will.

May you develope decent reasoning skills.

 

Reality is the graveyard of the gods.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13537
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:May Godbless you and

Quote:
May God
bless you and use you for His purpose and will.

I understand your "intent" by saying this. But just like sphincters everyone who believes in a god thinks god is doing what they want.

The downside to this attitude are written in the blood of history. Witch Hunts, slavery, dark ages and 9/11.

Does your god get off on watching his toys suffer?

I will no more be used for the purpose of your god claim than I will be used for those who claim Allah.  The ancient Egyptians thought they were being used for the whims of the BIG BALL OF BURNING GAS, they thought was a god.

But somehow, magically you think you escaped the same human flaw the Egyptians didn't.

I am no more worried about your claims that your fictional super hero will affect me than Mickey Mouse could affect me. BUT, I do worry about the REAL people who do things in the name of their gang clubs and gang manuals(holy books).

Thanks for your concern for my welfare. But, FOR ARGUMENT'S SAKE ONLY, if your god were real, I don't want any more of it's help. His help is deadly.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


NoDeity
Bronze Member
NoDeity's picture
Posts: 268
Joined: 2009-10-13
User is offlineOffline
Ack.  I made a typo. 

Ack.  I made a typo.  There should be no 'e' at the end of develop.

Reality is the graveyard of the gods.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3705
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Quote:You use Darwin as one

Quote:
You use Darwin as one of the scientists who proved that evolution is the explanation of our existance. My question to you is, "Do you know Darwin personally?  Have you spoken to him and seen his scientific experiments and works with your own eyes or are
you just basing your arguement on recorded history?"

How would knowing Darwin personally convince me of the validity of evolution? He was a key proponent of natural selection, but really, most of the evidence comes after Darwin. 

Yes, I support the theory of evolution because of the evidence. I've familiarized myself with some of the issues concerning evolution, like the geographical distribution of organisms, genetic mutations, the geological column, etc, and I've seen cool looking fossils at various museums. However, I'm a physics major, not a biologist, so I obviously haven't seen very many experiments or anything. But, to claim that I have no right to accept evolution because of this is just silly. Evolution is logically sound and conforms to what I know about the world, and criticism of the theory always seems to have a flawed understanding of what is actually being proposed. That's way more than enough for me.

Quote:
There is also recorded history of Jesus Christ.  This recorded history is some of the very first historical record, long before Darwin.

The age of a claim doesn't affect its validity.

Quote:
There is more documention in history of God's and Jesus' existance than you will ever find on Darwin

Lol, stop talking about Darwin. I don't worship Darwin, and I don't care how much documentation there is of him. Even if Darwin never existed, evolution would still be a fact.

Quote:
Exponential amounts of recorded history that speak of Jesus and the teachings of His Father and His role in our existance.

Exponential amounts? Show me. What do you have other than the Bible?

Quote:
Look up Hugh Ross, PhD.  He is a PhD Astrophysicist who argues the existance of a supernatural, omniscient, omnipresent God and Creator through his findings as a scientist.

First of all, you just said that he's an astrophysicist. That means he is not an authority on evolution.

Second, lol, is this really where you want to go? The natural sciences community overwhelmingly supports the theory of evolution. I can cite ten credentialed scientists that accept evolution for every one of yours, but it won't even matter. We can piss back and forth forever, and we won't be one step closer to resolving the debate. Appealing to authority is stupid.

Quote:
I would be very interested to see a debate between you and Hugh but beware, his knowledge and intellect may be a little over your head.

I'm not very interested.

If he's a Creationist, then he either doesn't understand evolution or is good with mental gymnastics. Either way, we have people with science degrees on this forum. Sorry, he doesn't stand a chance.  

Quote:
Your renounce of God and Jesus is as rediculous as me renouncing the existance of Charles Darwin since I can't see him or touch him today.

That would be ridiculous. But, that's not the only reason I don't believe in God. 

Oops, there goes another strawman.

Quote:
My ultimate hope and prayer is that God will touch your heart

Does God have a medical degree? My heart is a fragile organ; it pumps blood throughout my body. 

Quote:
and your life in a way

Whoa! I didn't know 'life' was an object. How does it feel to touch it? Is it squishy?

Quote:
that needs no explanation or physical evidence, so that you may know Him more and have eternal life.

Believe something without any explanation or physical evidence? Do Christians actually do that? That's amazing. 

Quote:
  My purpose is to intrigue you to look deeper, beyond the physical and into the spiritual,

And, pray tell, what is the "spiritual?" Does it have ice cream?

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare