Just Ask Grandpa - A Christian answers tough questions and debunks common myths

gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Just Ask Grandpa - A Christian answers tough questions and debunks common myths

Way too many "delusional myths", and unanswered questions on this site. One cannot rationally disbelieve something unless they have a clear picture of what it is that they do not believe. Since I do not see these myths and false perceptions answered properly in terms of simple reasoning I shall attempt to do it myself.

Myth #1. God will burn "sinners" in "HELL" throughout the ceaseless ages of eternity. This is not supported in the bible. It is merely a false doctrine that entered the church during the dark ages. It has it's roots in paganism. Unfortunately most Christians still believe this myth. Ultimately those who choose to accept Gods gift of eternal life will go on to live forever in a world without all the suffering and horrors of this world. Those who do not accept His gift will cease to exist and have nothing to do with God as they have chosen and wished for. Sounds pretty fair to me!

If God were indeed to burn anybody throughout the ceaseless ages of eternity (including the devil) He would be the most terrible monster one could imagine. I myself would join the movement in defying and blasting God. Fortunately we have a loving creator God that will not and would not do that.

Rather than writing a 20 page study on the topic of death and hell, I will just give a website that those interested can visit that will clearly and definitively clear this myth up. It is hell truth.com.

 


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:One cannot

gramster wrote:
One cannot rationally disbelieve something unless they have a clear picture of what it is that they do not believe.

Now if you replace "disbelieve" with "believe" and take out the "do not", you have my position.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


chndlrjhnsn
chndlrjhnsn's picture
Posts: 159
Joined: 2010-03-28
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote: Maybe those

gramster wrote:

 Maybe those cultures that God commanded to be destroyed were so totally degenerated by incest and disease that their very existence was a danger to those around them?

If that was the case, don't you think the Bible would say something about it, instead of portraying God as a genocidal maniac? Americans go into societies overrun with disease and bring medicine. I suppose that's too difficult for God. He can only destroy, unless he goes into Jesus Mode.  


StDissonance
Theist
Posts: 30
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Dusting Straw

 So you vote, you participate in our democracy.  Our democracy wiped out over 700 tribes and blew up half a country (and more).  Does that make our democracy "bad?"  Does that make you a homicidal maniac?  Not all Christians are Sola Scriptura junkies dude.  

Assigning the nature of God to the behavior of man is grad-ass philosophy.  

 

I'm Christian and I tell you to "fuck off" (sorry, not sure if this is the nice section), does that make God an asshole?  Uh. . . not that simple.  If I accuse you (actually most of you) of being bitter ex-Calvinists, does that make "atheism" a worthless club full of Randian grumpy Brits who are seeking self-justification?    

Every thread on this website pigeon holes Christianity into the Sola Calvinist paradigm, young earth creationists, and references 80's histography and archeology.  

Why would the Bible mention anything?  See above.

 

 

 

 

"So we'll integrate non-progressional evolution theory with God's creation of Eden. Eleven inherent metaphoric parallels already there. Eleven. Important number. Prime number. One goes into the house of eleven eleven times, but always comes out one. Noah's ark is a problem." River


Adventfred
atheist
Adventfred's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2009-09-12
User is offlineOffline
KSMB wrote:gramster

KSMB wrote:

gramster wrote:
Myth #1. God will burn "sinners" in "HELL" throughout the ceaseless ages of eternity.

Many hundreds of millions of christians disagree with this one. Why should we believe you over them? Even better, why should we believe any of you?

 

This is the F!cKing question here folks 


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Let's try one more time

I will try one more time to point out that the assumptoin that "faith" in reference to ones belief in God, the bible, or things relating to ones religion must "necessarily" mean without evidence or without good reason is not logical.

I agree that definition #2 that specifically mentions religion refers to a weak and unsubstantiated faith. This is the type of faith that I do not support. This is the kind of faith that I would have to have to believe in origins by evolution, or to be an atheist.

Definition #1 "complete trust or confidence", and the 4th "strongly held belief or theory" are not limited to non-religious applications. They also do not eliminate the possibility of being based on reason or evidence.

Since there exists the possibility that the faith mentioned in the bible may not be definition #2 it is only logical to further examine the issue. The logical thing to do is to examine examples of the use of the word faith in the bible and see if it is being used to describe faith based on evidence, or lack thereof. Sound fair??

I apologize for refering to Romans 11 instead of Hebrews 11. Also mentioning Cain instead of Abel. My mistake. Grandpa must be getting old. Go ahead have a hayday with that one. Now go to Hebrews 11. You will see that it refers to the following people in reference to their "faith".

Abel - It only makes sense that Abel would have good evidence and reason to believe in and trust in God, since he was the direct son of Adam who talked to God face to face. Agree?

Enoch - The bible says that he walked with God. He was so close to God, that God translated him to heaven. Is it too much of a stretch to believe Enoch had good evidence and reason to believe?

Noah - God spoke to Noah and instructed him to build an ark. I don't think we have any trouble believing that Noah would have to believe "blindly without evidence". Agree?

Abraham -God also spoke to Abraham, and he went out not know where he was going. If God speaks to someone personally that seems like pretty good evidence he exists. Problem?

Sarah - Again, this time an angel came to Abraham and Sarah overheard the conversation. Problem?

Joseph - This refers to when Joseph was old and had witnessed the direct hand of God in his life. Ok so far?

Moses - God spoke to Moses out of a burning bush. Once again, face to face with God.

Rahab - A prostitute in the city of Jerico. It would not be hard to see how she probably would have heard of the israelites crossing the Jordan on dry land. She would probably have heard about the pillar of fire that accompanied them, if not seeing it for herself.

These are all examples of "faith" in the bible. There is also Paul who was knocked off his horse and blinded by God. He was than directed to a Christian who healed him of his blindness.

Do you still maintain that faith in a religious context can only mean without evidence or reason?

The belief that all Christian faith is without or contrary to evidence is irrational. It is a myth. I know many Christians, and not one of them believe that faith does not require evidence.

Now, if we can get this basic elimentary issue resolved than Grandpa can start focusing on the deeper issues that have been brought up. There have been some pretty big claims made, and I will be looking into each one of them.

And you say that Grandpa's answers are lame.

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
StDissonance wrote: So you

StDissonance wrote:

 So you vote, you participate in our democracy.  Our democracy wiped out over 700 tribes and blew up half a country (and more).  Does that make our democracy "bad?"  Does that make you a homicidal maniac?  Not all Christians are Sola Scriptura junkies dude.  

Assigning the nature of God to the behavior of man is grad-ass philosophy.  

 

I'm Christian and I tell you to "fuck off" (sorry, not sure if this is the nice section), does that make God an asshole?  Uh. . . not that simple.  If I accuse you (actually most of you) of being bitter ex-Calvinists, does that make "atheism" a worthless club full of Randian grumpy Brits who are seeking self-justification?    

Every thread on this website pigeon holes Christianity into the Sola Calvinist paradigm, young earth creationists, and references 80's histography and archeology.  

Why would the Bible mention anything?  See above.

We base our assessment of the God Christians claim to believe in on their claims about him and what is written in the Bible, and a "compare and contrast" with independent observations of the actual nature of man and the universe, and what actually happens in the world, especially those things not easily traceable to human actions.

Believing in things with no decent evidential basis , such as 'God', and basing your moral decisions on what is ultimately arbitrary set of pronouncements, or worse, the mores of a tribal society of a few thousand years ago, makes Christians at least to that extent wilfully deluded and potentially a threat to society.

The willingness to accept propositions with no basis other than gut-feelings is a danger in this complex world, especially if you are in a position where your decisions could significantly affect many people.

There is no way to know with any certainty whatever of the actual motives and nature of such a being, if it existed.

There may well be individual posters who could fit your description, but making such a categorical claim shows that you are the one pigeon-holing non-believers according to your pre-conceptions.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
StDissonance wrote: So you

StDissonance wrote:

 So you vote, you participate in our democracy.  Our democracy wiped out over 700 tribes and blew up half a country (and more).  Does that make our democracy "bad?"  Does that make you a homicidal maniac?  Not all Christians are Sola Scriptura junkies dude.  

Assigning the nature of God to the behavior of man is grad-ass philosophy.  

 

I'm Christian and I tell you to "fuck off" (sorry, not sure if this is the nice section), does that make God an asshole?  Uh. . . not that simple.  If I accuse you (actually most of you) of being bitter ex-Calvinists, does that make "atheism" a worthless club full of Randian grumpy Brits who are seeking self-justification?    

Every thread on this website pigeon holes Christianity into the Sola Calvinist paradigm, young earth creationists, and references 80's histography and archeology.  

Why would the Bible mention anything?  See above.

 

 

 

 

No, some of you are sola fidei, sola gratia junkies. You know the type - they're the ones that can do whatever reprehensible thing they desire because they know they can apologize to their sky-father and promise to try really hard not to do it again (until the next time they want to) and be forgiven.

I call them the "lather, rinse, repeat" Christians. They're not quite as bad as the "peek-a-boo" Calvinists who claim that God can't see any thing they do after they've accepted Christ because his blood is covering them.

"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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Yes, your answers are lame.

Gramster, your answers are lame. Most of them are not examples of "faith".

Much of what you refer are fables from the Bible, involving characters who were mostly fiction, specifically written to 'prove' the doctrines of the book. The writers almost certainly believed in the 'truth' of what they were writing, but were almost certainly in most cases not the people who would have actually witnessed any of the events described, but trusted the stories that had been passed on many times since the hypothetical time when the events occurred. Others simply don't say anything about how the people justify their religious beliefs. 

Even assuming the anecdotes you list are true, most do not say anything about the definition of 'faith' used in the Bible. Showing that someone accepted something they actually observed or experienced, or was told to them by a first-hand witness, says nothing about the way Christians actually hold beliefs about God.

More specifically, the 'faith' required for religious belief is not the behaviour demonstrated in those stories, it is the faith required by the general followers of the religious tradition if they are to accept the truth of those stories and the 'message' they were meant to convey in the first place.

Anything to do with Genesis is pure myth. 

They also raise the question of why God made such explicit contact with people back then, so obviating the need for 'Faith' in the sense that Paul refers to, but in more recent times has stopped making such clear demonstrations of his existence, so relying on the more irrational form of faith.

Now can we get to some substantive answers, please.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:When we read

gramster wrote:

When we read the accounts in the old testament about God destroying people, men, women, children, babies etc, we usually make the mistake of making assumptions that are not necessarily true. We assume a normal, happy, healthy culture with somewhat reasonable behaviors. Maybe those cultures that God commanded to be destroyed were so totally degenerated by incest and disease that their very existence was a danger to those around them? What if they were so depraved that to allow them to continue would be more horrible than to wipe them out? There could be good reasons that we don't know about. We cannot assume that since we do not understand that there is no good explanation.

As for the subject of "torture", punishment is not monstrous so long as it is just. If you can't swallow that you would get along just fine in San Quentin. They also believe that they should not be punished justly for crimes committed. To burn one in "Hell" for ceaseless ages of eternity could never be just. That would indeed beyond question be truly monstrous. I think that we can both agree on that.

Countless millions of people have been victimized and brutally treated and it looks like those who have victimized them will not ever have to give account for or pay for what they have done. God simply tells us that "all" will give account one day for their horrific deeds. Victims can have the assurance that justice will prevail in the end. Not everlasting torture, but true and fair justice.

As for evil, I do not believe that God is it's author. That in itself is a whole other subject. I will try to address this one later when I have a little more time.

 

Those babies were probably little bastards.  Next time my three year old mouths off I'm going to read the Bible to her, that should get her to quiet down...after all, God loves people even more than a parents loves a child, and he doesn't have any problems ordering his zealots to murder kids.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
All the firstborn in the

All the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the firstborn of the Pharaoh who sits on his throne, even to the firstborn of the slave girl who is behind the millstones, all the firstborn of the cattle as well

Lovely that god fellow, he is so powerful that he could not just whisk his people away or directly threaten the pharoah himself, he has to kill children who had no hand in any of it.

Along with the plagues and wacky shit he did according to this temporally witless fable.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:These are all

gramster wrote:
These are all examples of "faith" in the bible.

Does the Bible state that these are examples of faith?

gramster wrote:
Do you still maintain that faith in a religious context can only mean without evidence or reason?

Faith, in a religious context, means what the religious thinks it means.

gramster wrote:
The belief that all Christian faith is without or contrary to evidence is irrational.

I do not know of any good objective evidence that supports Christianity.

Faith is without evidence if that is how it's defined. You are still confusing yourself with semantics. 

gramster wrote:
I know many Christians, and not one of them believe that faith does not require evidence.

I highly doubt that you don't know any Christians who believe that faith is belief without evidence. Surely, you agree that many Christians use this definition, whether explicitly or implicitly. 

Anyways, I thought the point was what the Bible says, regardless of what Christians believe.  

gramster wrote:
Now, if we can get this basic elimentary issue resolved than Grandpa can start focusing on the deeper issues that have been brought up.

This issue has already been resolved since before you came to this website. 'Tis boring, beating a dead horse.

Talk about something that we can really nail you on, like evolution.

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


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level Moderator
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1710
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
Gramster is a Seventh day Adventist

 Grampster wrote  It is called the great controversy. If you really want to understand why God did this or that get the book.

 

The book Great Controversy was written by Ellen G. White, the prophet of the SDA church who wrote a lot of books and had hundreds of visions after she was struck with a stone at the age of nine.  Adventist don't believe in the hell of the NT, but are more comfortable with the OT sheol definition.

 

Matthew 25:46 Douay-Rheims wrote:

46 And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.

If everlasting punishment is not forever, then everlasting life is not forever. But SDA are not consistent there.

 

SDAs also believe they are THE true church founded in 1844 after a failed Miller Jesus-returns prophecy based on the book of Daniel & Revelation. The group who became the Adventist suddenly realized Jesus was not coming back to earth then but went from the holy to the most holy part of the temple in heaven to begin judging everyone. God only knows why it is taking so long. If God knows everything who is trying to convince and how long does it take an all-powerful, all-knowing god to judge everyone. Seems it would be right off the top of his head. Even the Israeli parallel was only a day - Yom Kippur.  The Biblical contortions to get to Oct 1844 for this judgement day is quite fanciful.

 

They believe the Catholic Church is Babylon and the Pope is the anti-christ who in the last day (the ever receding horizon) will single them out and persecute them because they go to church on Saturday and not Sunday (the sign of the beast-quite a stretch for it to be a day. Another church thinks it credit cards, etc, etc). Good News though Jesus will come back for them and show those nasty evil doers who are the righteous people. Jesus will raise everyone only to embarrass them and strike them dead again. So it is the same punishment for all, Hitler and the guy next door who hasn't harmed anyone.

Ellen White also wrote against masturbation because it destroys the kidneys. Too bad there is zero evidence of that.

Many regular Christian churches consider the Adventist a "cult". The Adventist talk about being justified by faith only but they are tied to many OT laws/traditions. There was a strong movement in 1888 to make the church by faith only but it shortly fizzled out. 

 

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level Moderator
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1710
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:I will try

gramster wrote:

I will try one more time to point out that the assumptoin that "faith" in reference to ones belief in God, the bible, or things relating to ones religion must "necessarily" mean without evidence or without good reason is not logical.

I agree that definition #2 that specifically mentions religion refers to a weak and unsubstantiated faith. This is the type of faith that I do not support. This is the kind of faith that I would have to have to believe in origins by evolution, or to be an atheist.

Definition #1 "complete trust or confidence", and the 4th "strongly held belief or theory" are not limited to non-religious applications. They also do not eliminate the possibility of being based on reason or evidence.

Since there exists the possibility that the faith mentioned in the bible may not be definition #2 it is only logical to further examine the issue. The logical thing to do is to examine examples of the use of the word faith in the bible and see if it is being used to describe faith based on evidence, or lack thereof. Sound fair??

I apologize for refering to Romans 11 instead of Hebrews 11. Also mentioning Cain instead of Abel. My mistake. Grandpa must be getting old. Go ahead have a hayday with that one. Now go to Hebrews 11. You will see that it refers to the following people in reference to their "faith".

Abel - It only makes sense that Abel would have good evidence and reason to believe in and trust in God, since he was the direct son of Adam who talked to God face to face. Agree?

Enoch - The bible says that he walked with God. He was so close to God, that God translated him to heaven. Is it too much of a stretch to believe Enoch had good evidence and reason to believe?

Noah - God spoke to Noah and instructed him to build an ark. I don't think we have any trouble believing that Noah would have to believe "blindly without evidence". Agree?

Abraham -God also spoke to Abraham, and he went out not know where he was going. If God speaks to someone personally that seems like pretty good evidence he exists. Problem?

Sarah - Again, this time an angel came to Abraham and Sarah overheard the conversation. Problem?

Joseph - This refers to when Joseph was old and had witnessed the direct hand of God in his life. Ok so far?

Moses - God spoke to Moses out of a burning bush. Once again, face to face with God.

Rahab - A prostitute in the city of Jerico. It would not be hard to see how she probably would have heard of the israelites crossing the Jordan on dry land. She would probably have heard about the pillar of fire that accompanied them, if not seeing it for herself.

These are all examples of "faith" in the bible. There is also Paul who was knocked off his horse and blinded by God. He was than directed to a Christian who healed him of his blindness.

Do you still maintain that faith in a religious context can only mean without evidence or reason?

The belief that all Christian faith is without or contrary to evidence is irrational. It is a myth. I know many Christians, and not one of them believe that faith does not require evidence.

Now, if we can get this basic elimentary issue resolved than Grandpa can start focusing on the deeper issues that have been brought up. There have been some pretty big claims made, and I will be looking into each one of them.

And you say that Grandpa's answers are lame.

 

 

OK. The examples above are people who had DIRECT contact with God. God spoke to them, walked with them, showed his face to them, knocked them off their horse or an angel appeared to them.  So, they didn't have to rely on someone else for evidence. There was no book they read but had a personal experience. A child jumping into his father's arms knows his father. The child has experienced being with his father. He can see, hear, smell, touch his father. Other people can clearly see the father as his child jumps into his arms.

Does this mean you have had DIRECT physical contact with God in one of these avenues? Have you heard God's voice clearly speaking to you as a human would or have you seen an angel? If so, please let us know how.

 

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


Juvenile Narcissist
Silver Member
Juvenile Narcissist's picture
Posts: 115
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:When we read

gramster wrote:

When we read the accounts in the old testament about God destroying people, men, women, children, babies etc, we usually make the mistake of making assumptions that are not necessarily true. We assume a normal, happy, healthy culture with somewhat reasonable behaviors. Maybe those cultures that God commanded to be destroyed were so totally degenerated by incest and disease that their very existence was a danger to those around them? What if they were so depraved that to allow them to continue would be more horrible than to wipe them out? There could be good reasons that we don't know about. We cannot assume that since we do not understand that there is no good explanation.

 

It always surprises me that not only do Christians believe these excuses, but they offer them so readily as if they hold any water. They might do if we were talking about a finite and fallible being. But we aren't. At least in my understanding of the Judeo-Christian god, we aren't.  You'll have to correct me if yours differs from the one I'm using here. But if we are both talking about an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-wise, all-good, all-loving creator of the universe; the explanation "he used evil for the greater good" falls on its face to me. We're not talking about a fallible creature who has to bungle its way through with what it's been handed. We're talking about a perfect being who is the orchestrator and ruler of the system he's operating in. Every action he takes is not only justifiable, not only the best action possible, but perfect. By his very nature it has to be. Can you honestly say that the actions in the OT both directly by the Judeo-Christian god and on his direct order were perfect? Is this the best we get from an all-knowing, all-powerful and perfectly good being? The mental contortions needed to believe that are mind boggling. It is a far better explanation that these are simply myths of a bronze age people and their bronze age god(s) who was fickle, capricious and a means to explain their good fortune as well as their bad. If you make it anything more than that, it breaks down.

 

gramster wrote:

As for the subject of "torture", punishment is not monstrous so long as it is just. If you can't swallow that you would get along just fine in San Quentin. They also believe that they should not be punished justly for crimes committed. To burn one in "Hell" for ceaseless ages of eternity could never be just. That would indeed beyond question be truly monstrous. I think that we can both agree on that.

 

I agree with you that punishment is not monstrous so long as it is just. But torture is not the same as punishment, and torture is not just. Burning people is torture. It is one of the most agonizing things a person can be subjected to. How can you think that causing people horrendous agony is not monstrous? They incarcerate people at San Quentin; they don't set them on fire. Do you think they should?

 

gramster wrote:

 

Countless millions of people have been victimized and brutally treated and it looks like those who have victimized them will not ever have to give account for or pay for what they have done. God simply tells us that "all" will give account one day for their horrific deeds. Victims can have the assurance that justice will prevail in the end. Not everlasting torture, but true and fair justice.

 

Unless they are Christian. The victims of Christians get no justice. Where is the true and fair justice for them?

 

gramster wrote:

As for evil, I do not believe that God is it's author. That in itself is a whole other subject. I will try to address this one later when I have a little more time.

 

As others have pointed out, the Bible itself would indicate otherwise. But I would be interested to see what you have to say on the subject. No one has impressed me with their take on it. They have, at best, shackled their god and made him a victim of the system he is supposed to be the author and ruler of.

Rill


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level Moderator
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1710
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
perfect god - not

Juvenile Narcissist wrote:

snip

We're not talking about a fallible creature who has to bungle its way through with what it's been handed. We're talking about a perfect being who is the orchestrator and ruler of the system he's operating in. Every action he takes is not only justifiable, not only the best action possible, but perfect. 

 

In Genesis he sounds like barney fife. He can't see the future and repents and grieves and says f*ck it I will destroy those miserable men I created. We are talking serious bad design. And not too bright, he has to destroy all the animals for what man has done to offend him. What did the animals do?  Later in the bible God becomes perfect. He must have hired a publicist.

 

Genesis 6:5-8

And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.  And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
 "Hey I think I'll make a

 

"Hey I think I'll make a cosmos and populate one little planet with people who are very imperfect and see how many times they screw up. I will even tell them stupid shit lilke, their earth is flat and they are the center of everything and continue to expect them to worship me as an all powerful being." dur

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Juvenile Narcissist
Silver Member
Juvenile Narcissist's picture
Posts: 115
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
ex-minister wrote:Juvenile

ex-minister wrote:

Juvenile Narcissist wrote:

snip

We're not talking about a fallible creature who has to bungle its way through with what it's been handed. We're talking about a perfect being who is the orchestrator and ruler of the system he's operating in. Every action he takes is not only justifiable, not only the best action possible, but perfect. 

 

In Genesis he sounds like barney fife. He can't see the future and repents and grieves and says f*ck it I will destroy those miserable men I created. We are talking serious bad design. And not too bright, he has to destroy all the animals for what man has done to offend him. What did the animals do?  Later in the bible God becomes perfect. He must have hired a publicist.

 

 

Genesis 6:5-8

And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.  And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

 

 

Indeed he does. And then he goes from angsty teenager to sophisticated sadist. He's quite the piece of work, but not the kind of guy I'd want to spend forever and ever with. Especially after that whole "I'm gonna sacrifice myself to myself so that I don't have to set you on fire." At that point I think he might just have been getting senile. 

Rill


B166ER
atheist
B166ER's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2010-03-01
User is offlineOffline
Wow...

Gramster, your excuse for the inhumanity of the Israelites in their wars against other people is the same thing I have heard from a few other kooks like you; that the people who were genocidally wiped out were probably real bad and nasty and the world is a better place without them. Well you know what, you fascist loon, that's identical to the ramblings of other genocidal loons, like the European decedents colonizing what would become the U.S. who coined the term "the Indian problem" to the fascists in Europe who took that term and used it to justify their own bullshit. Really, I didn't need to change your paragraph much to show how close you are to your ideological and religious brethren, the Nazi's.

gramster wrote:
When we read the accounts in the old testament about God destroying people, men, women, children, babies etc, we usually make the mistake of making assumptions that are not necessarily true. We assume a normal, happy, healthy culture with somewhat reasonable behaviors. Maybe those cultures that God commanded to be destroyed were so totally degenerated by incest and disease that their very existence was a danger to those around them? What if they were so depraved that to allow them to continue would be more horrible than to wipe them out? There could be good reasons that we don't know about. We cannot assume that since we do not understand that there is no good explanation.

What that sounds like to me wrote:
When we read the accounts of WW2 about the Nazi's destroying people, men, women, children, babies etc, we usually make the mistake of making assumptions that are not necessarily true. We assume a normal, happy, healthy culture with somewhat reasonable behaviors. Maybe those cultures that the Nazi's commanded to be destroyed were so totally degenerated by incest and disease that their very existence was a danger to those around them? What if they were so depraved that to allow them to continue would be more horrible than to wipe them out? There could be good reasons that we don't know about. We cannot assume that since we do not understand that there is no good explanation.

Is it that hard to realize that you sound like every other genocidal madman the world has ever known? That for the "good" of the world and the "good people", the "bad" people, like those who don't believe in the right invisible sky daddy, deserve to be tortured to death or, in the case of virgin girls, be raped and held in lifetimes of sexual slavery.

If you can rationalize genocide, you sir, are sick in the head.

"This may shock you, but not everything in the bible is true." The only true statement ever to be uttered by Jean Chauvinism, sociopathic emotional terrorist.
"A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished." Mikhail Bakunin
"The means in which you take,
dictate the ends in which you find yourself."
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme leadership derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!"
No Gods, No Masters!


LogicCake
LogicCake's picture
Posts: 4
Joined: 2010-06-06
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:Maybe those

gramster wrote:

Maybe those cultures that God commanded to be destroyed were so totally degenerated by incest and disease that their very existence was a danger to those around them? What if they were so depraved that to allow them to continue would be more horrible than to wipe them out?

Did Noah's family not have to do the whole incest thing to repopulate the earth? Or what?

And why would god have created those people in the first place as, as you said, he can see into the future? Wouldn't he have saved a lot of time not creating them, and thus not have to wipe them out later?

Logic is yummy


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
B166ER wrote:  Is it that

B166ER wrote:

  Is it that hard to realize that you sound like every other genocidal madman the world has ever known? That for the "good" of the world and the "good people", the "bad" people, like those who don't believe in the right invisible sky daddy, deserve to be tortured to death or, in the case of virgin girls, be raped and held in lifetimes of sexual slavery.

If you can rationalize genocide, you sir, are sick in the head.

   Agreed.  Another baffling irony is that the majority of Christian theists attack atheism because it leads to lack of moral clarity and accuse atheists of frequently being wicked degenerates.....yet when atheists complain about the obvious lack of morality involved in the many acts of biblical genocide ( or slavery, etc )  Christian theists attempt to rationalize to we atheists how it's not actually a bad thing to murder men, women and children ( including the unborn )  because they all really deserved to be slaughtered, praise Jesus, amen !

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


chndlrjhnsn
chndlrjhnsn's picture
Posts: 159
Joined: 2010-03-28
User is offlineOffline
StDissonance wrote: So you

StDissonance wrote:

 So you vote, you participate in our democracy.  Our democracy wiped out over 700 tribes and blew up half a country (and more).  Does that make our democracy "bad?"  Does that make you a homicidal maniac?  Not all Christians are Sola Scriptura junkies dude.  

Assigning the nature of God to the behavior of man is grad-ass philosophy.  

 

I'm Christian and I tell you to "fuck off" (sorry, not sure if this is the nice section), does that make God an asshole?  Uh. . . not that simple.  If I accuse you (actually most of you) of being bitter ex-Calvinists, does that make "atheism" a worthless club full of Randian grumpy Brits who are seeking self-justification?    

Every thread on this website pigeon holes Christianity into the Sola Calvinist paradigm, young earth creationists, and references 80's histography and archeology.  

Why would the Bible mention anything?  See above.

The United States does not have infinite power. It has finite power. We wage war because we have limited options. God is supposedly omnipotent. He could just fart and make everything serene. But he would rather let things get out of hand until he is good and pissed off and then wipe everybody out, along with their unborn babies, their children, their wives, and their livestock. God could have corrected the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, but he would rather incinerate them. He's not willing to discipline them into good behavior. He's only willing to let them run rampant and then wipe them out. If the United States had the power to correct its enemies behavior, but chose to wipe them out instead, then yes, that would be evil.


B166ER
atheist
B166ER's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2010-03-01
User is offlineOffline
The answer to your question, in my opinion

StDissonance wrote:
So you vote, you participate in our democracy.  Our democracy wiped out over 700 tribes and blew up half a country (and more).  Does that make our democracy "bad?"

The answer to your question, in my opinion, is yes, it makes this country founded on genocide and that is something I would put in the "bad" category. Not every atheist would agree with me, many of the disagreements to the "opinion" on the western hemisphere genocide you might even hear on this site, but as a person who cares about human rights, I have to be against the worst genocide in human history, with 90-125 million people being tortured, murdered and raped out of existence from the western hemisphere.

So yeah, the genocides that happened here and in the OT are both fucked up. All genocide is. Our duty as human beings is to stop genocide before it starts, and if that isn't possible, fight with all our strength to stop it and try to fix what damage we can.

"This may shock you, but not everything in the bible is true." The only true statement ever to be uttered by Jean Chauvinism, sociopathic emotional terrorist.
"A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished." Mikhail Bakunin
"The means in which you take,
dictate the ends in which you find yourself."
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme leadership derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!"
No Gods, No Masters!


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Can not jump

I am sorry. Grandpa cannot allow you to jump to 3rd grade until you have demonstrated a basic understanding of 1st grade principles.

I do not know why you are "babbling" about "fictional characters". It is common knowledge that atheists believe the bible to be nothing more than a work of fiction, or fairy tale. What we are discussing is the biblical meaning of the word "faith".

A proper definition of a word is largely based upon it's use, and it's commonly perceived meaning. The atheist would like to beleive that the "only" valid meaning of the word "faith" as pertains to Christianity precludes the possibility of it being based on "reason" or "evidence". This is not true. It is also not logical or rational to believe that it is true.

Your perception of the word "faith" has been strongly tainted by your dogged persistance in believing it to only mean without evidence or reason. That would allow you to "win the battle" of logic by default. If the opponant does not believe in logic or evidence "he automatically loses". Grandpa cannot allow this illogical myth to stand. You, yourself are in essence exercizing the weak form of faith in insisting, against evidence and reason that the word "faith" precludes evidence.

For us to examine the meaning of the word "faith" in the bible we have no other choice than going to the bible and through simple logic see how it is used, and what it means in the bible. Whether or not the bible and it's characters are fictional or real is irrivelent to the study of the meaning of "faith" as used in scripture.

This is as simple as a 5th grade algebra equation. If a. God exists, and if God is great and powerful, than we can trust that God can do what He says he will do. It is clear, according to the bible, that the "characters" I quoted above would have had strong evidences for their "faith". Also when Jesus was on this earth (according to the bible) he called out to the multitudes to believe in him, if not for the evidence in old testament prophetic scriptures, to at least believe through the evidence of the miracles he was performing right in front of them. Hence, he is appealing them to have a strong belief (faith), not without evidence, but as a direct result of the strongest of evidence.

Again Paul, and the deciples "reasoned" with people regularly, appealing them to believe in Jesus based on the evidence. This includes eye witnesses of Jesus's miracles, and resurection. Paul also exhorted Timothy to be able to give reason or evidence for his "faith".

The passage about faith being the evidence of things not seen, and substance of things hoped for does not preclude that faith being based on a foundation of evidence and reason. Much like a young woman who becomes engaged to a man she has known intimately for many years. She probably has a very strong belief (faith) that the marrage will take place. She probably cannot be convinced that it will not happen. She has not yet seen the marriage take place. But she is confident that it will happen. In her mind it is a solid fact, even though it is yet in the future, i.e. evidence of things not seen, and substance of things hoped for. In this case her evidence is based on a rational, and consistant observation of the love and trustworthiness of her fiancee, and the observation of similar events taking place in the lives of others she knows personally.

One cannot let their dogged bias and falsly held beliefs, even though they do not promote their personal agenda, get in the way of coming to a logical conclussion based on evidence and reason.

All Grandpa is saying is that the word "faith" as it pertains to Christianity, does not necessarily preclude evidence and reason. To the contrary the majority of Christians believe just the opposite. That "faith" without evidence and reason is no faith at all.

This should be basic 1st grade logic relative to the topics discussed on this site. I would like to get to 3rd grade topics.

If you still cannot comprehend Grandpa's logic I would certianly hope that there is at least one atheist on this site that can understand, and has the moral courage to say so.

 

 


Sinphanius
Sinphanius's picture
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
Gotta love the endless contradictions of the Bible.

John 20:29 wrote:
Jesus said to him, "Have you come to believe because you have seen me?  Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed.
 

When you say it like that you make it sound so Sinister...


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:I am sorry.

gramster wrote:

I am sorry. Grandpa cannot allow you to jump to 3rd grade until you have demonstrated a basic understanding of 1st grade principles.

I do not know why you are "babbling" about "fictional characters". It is common knowledge that atheists believe the bible to be nothing more than a work of fiction, or fairy tale. What we are discussing is the biblical meaning of the word "faith".

A proper definition of a word is largely based upon it's use, and it's commonly perceived meaning. The atheist would like to beleive that the "only" valid meaning of the word "faith" as pertains to Christianity precludes the possibility of it being based on "reason" or "evidence". This is not true. It is also not logical or rational to believe that it is true.

Your perception of the word "faith" has been strongly tainted by your dogged persistance in believing it to only mean without evidence or reason. That would allow you to "win the battle" of logic by default. If the opponant does not believe in logic or evidence "he automatically loses". Grandpa cannot allow this illogical myth to stand. You, yourself are in essence exercizing the weak form of faith in insisting, against evidence and reason that the word "faith" precludes evidence.

For us to examine the meaning of the word "faith" in the bible we have no other choice than going to the bible and through simple logic see how it is used, and what it means in the bible. Whether or not the bible and it's characters are fictional or real is irrivelent to the study of the meaning of "faith" as used in scripture.

This is as simple as a 5th grade algebra equation. If a. God exists, and if God is great and powerful, than we can trust that God can do what He says he will do. It is clear, according to the bible, that the "characters" I quoted above would have had strong evidences for their "faith". Also when Jesus was on this earth (according to the bible) he called out to the multitudes to believe in him, if not for the evidence in old testament prophetic scriptures, to at least believe through the evidence of the miracles he was performing right in front of them. Hence, he is appealing them to have a strong belief (faith), not without evidence, but as a direct result of the strongest of evidence.

Again Paul, and the deciples "reasoned" with people regularly, appealing them to believe in Jesus based on the evidence. This includes eye witnesses of Jesus's miracles, and resurection. Paul also exhorted Timothy to be able to give reason or evidence for his "faith".

The passage about faith being the evidence of things not seen, and substance of things hoped for does not preclude that faith being based on a foundation of evidence and reason. Much like a young woman who becomes engaged to a man she has known intimately for many years. She probably has a very strong belief (faith) that the marrage will take place. She probably cannot be convinced that it will not happen. She has not yet seen the marriage take place. But she is confident that it will happen. In her mind it is a solid fact, even though it is yet in the future, i.e. evidence of things not seen, and substance of things hoped for. In this case her evidence is based on a rational, and consistant observation of the love and trustworthiness of her fiancee, and the observation of similar events taking place in the lives of others she knows personally.

One cannot let their dogged bias and falsly held beliefs, even though they do not promote their personal agenda, get in the way of coming to a logical conclussion based on evidence and reason.

All Grandpa is saying is that the word "faith" as it pertains to Christianity, does not necessarily preclude evidence and reason. To the contrary the majority of Christians believe just the opposite. That "faith" without evidence and reason is no faith at all.

This should be basic 1st grade logic relative to the topics discussed on this site. I would like to get to 3rd grade topics.

If you still cannot comprehend Grandpa's logic I would certianly hope that there is at least one atheist on this site that can understand, and has the moral courage to say so.

 

 

As I may in fact be older than you and also have grand kids myself you don't get to exalt yourself to the position of wise older scholar, at least not until you learn to use spell check.

The problem here with your position is this:

One can have faith that something will occur based on the evidence one has observed. This evidence gives your CPU (brain) highly probable odds that such and such has good basis. This works out well in your earlier example with the child and parent or in situations where you can interpolate data to give you a highly probable result. But this breaks down when we get into the religious & spiritual realm.

In the case of faith in regards to God and/or Jesus there is no hard evidence laying about - all the alleged witnesses alas are no more so we can't discuss what it is they have claimed to observe. In many cases these 100s of witnesses are nameless and have failed to come forward with a discussion of what they saw or experienced.

The supposed accounts of both the OT events and the NT events are pretty much hearsay evidence which have a multitude of contradictions and questionable problems which are really not much different than the stories of other cultures in regard to their own special gods and events. Thus, I know that Hercules was discussed multiple times in several ancient manuscripts but alas I have no actual proof he was the son of Zeus or even that Zeus existed at all. Contrast this to your young woman who has become engaged to a man she has known for sometime. She  knows the man exists, he gave her a ring, so she has a very high probability that she will eventually marry him or as you say, she has faith she will. 

Now, we have this stack of ancient manuscripts, some are clay tablets, some are papyrus, and some are many times copied over manuscripts. In these stacks we have the stories of the Gods of Sumer, Egypt, Greece, and of the Hebrews. All of them have similar appeals to have faith in the gods or god in question. All of them have many stories explaining in great details events of a very ancient archaic past in antiquity. None of these gods have been actually observed in the real world in current times. 

So what to do?

How can one have faith based on evidence for any of these gods. I know, there's this ancient writing that tells me about all the exploits he did. So I guess that means I'm justified in having faith in Enki or Ra using the archaic writing as evidence.

Several posters have been trying to get this across to you and you just let it zip by.

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
cut the crap

gramster wrote:

I am sorry. Grandpa cannot allow you to jump to 3rd grade until you have demonstrated a basic understanding of 1st grade principles.

 

I'm with pauljohntheskeptic.  I, too, am a grandparent (grandma in my case).  And I don't need to be talked to like I'm six, thank you kindly.

And I generally agree with the rest of his post.  It's all very well that the biblical characters saw and spoke with god or Jesus.  So what?  Has god/s/dess spoken to any multitudes recently?  You know, where his/her/its voice was recorded?  Flaming letters in the sky?  Burning bushes that can not be put out by the local fire department?  How about amputated limbs that have been regrown by faith healers?  What evidence do you have to support your faith?  I haven't seen doodly squat worth of evidence that supports the existence of any god/s/dess. 

You want faith to have evidential support.  Fine, what is your evidential support for the existence of god/s/dess?  Let me guess:

1. god/s/dess talks to you when you pray.  Careful who you tell, you could get sent in for psych eval.

2. You have a feeling of peace.  I have feelings of peace hiking out to one of the many waterfalls locally.  So?

3. Intelligence design?  Oh, please.  And how many times do you get up to pee in the night, gramster?  Just how intelligent is a designer who routes a flexible waste tube (urethra) through a structure that swells with age (prostate gland)?  I'm so not hiring that engineer.

4. Healing miracles.  Tell that to the local Oregon family that lost a granddaughter and son in less than a year because it was against their religion to take the kids into the doctor but prayed for them instead.  And just how could god's plan be to horribly (and it was horrible) kill a little girl less than 2 years old?  Maybe it was god's plan to tell the parents and grandparents to get their kids into the doctor and quit messing around with faith healing.  Lovely, a god that deliberately tortures little children.

5. The earth and environment are made for us and it is beautiful.  Actually, it's the other way around.  We evolved to fit the environment.  If we had evolved on Mars, that would be our perfect environment and we would believe Mars to be beautiful. 

6. ?????  Got some more evidence?

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:   Healing

cj wrote:

   Healing miracles.  Tell that to the local Oregon family that lost a granddaughter and son in less than a year because it was against their religion to take the kids into the doctor but prayed for them instead.  And just how could god's plan be to horribly (and it was horrible) kill a little girl less than 2 years old?  Maybe it was god's plan to tell the parents and grandparents to get their kids into the doctor and quit messing around with faith healing.  Lovely, a god that deliberately tortures little children.

    Yes, an all-powerful God who created the vastness of space and time, a God who allegedly loves us more than we can comprehend yet when it involves such an incredibly small, by comparison, expression of physical healing  well ......nothing.   Please see http://www.whywontgodhealamputees.com/god5.htm

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Juvenile Narcissist
Silver Member
Juvenile Narcissist's picture
Posts: 115
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:I am sorry.

gramster wrote:

I am sorry. Grandpa cannot allow you to jump to 3rd grade until you have demonstrated a basic understanding of 1st grade principles.

I do not know why you are "babbling" about "fictional characters". It is common knowledge that atheists believe the bible to be nothing more than a work of fiction, or fairy tale. What we are discussing is the biblical meaning of the word "faith".

A proper definition of a word is largely based upon it's use, and it's commonly perceived meaning. The atheist would like to beleive that the "only" valid meaning of the word "faith" as pertains to Christianity precludes the possibility of it being based on "reason" or "evidence". This is not true. It is also not logical or rational to believe that it is true.

Your perception of the word "faith" has been strongly tainted by your dogged persistance in believing it to only mean without evidence or reason. That would allow you to "win the battle" of logic by default. If the opponant does not believe in logic or evidence "he automatically loses". Grandpa cannot allow this illogical myth to stand. You, yourself are in essence exercizing the weak form of faith in insisting, against evidence and reason that the word "faith" precludes evidence.

For us to examine the meaning of the word "faith" in the bible we have no other choice than going to the bible and through simple logic see how it is used, and what it means in the bible. Whether or not the bible and it's characters are fictional or real is irrivelent to the study of the meaning of "faith" as used in scripture.

This is as simple as a 5th grade algebra equation. If a. God exists, and if God is great and powerful, than we can trust that God can do what He says he will do. It is clear, according to the bible, that the "characters" I quoted above would have had strong evidences for their "faith". Also when Jesus was on this earth (according to the bible) he called out to the multitudes to believe in him, if not for the evidence in old testament prophetic scriptures, to at least believe through the evidence of the miracles he was performing right in front of them. Hence, he is appealing them to have a strong belief (faith), not without evidence, but as a direct result of the strongest of evidence.

Again Paul, and the deciples "reasoned" with people regularly, appealing them to believe in Jesus based on the evidence. This includes eye witnesses of Jesus's miracles, and resurection. Paul also exhorted Timothy to be able to give reason or evidence for his "faith".

The passage about faith being the evidence of things not seen, and substance of things hoped for does not preclude that faith being based on a foundation of evidence and reason. Much like a young woman who becomes engaged to a man she has known intimately for many years. She probably has a very strong belief (faith) that the marrage will take place. She probably cannot be convinced that it will not happen. She has not yet seen the marriage take place. But she is confident that it will happen. In her mind it is a solid fact, even though it is yet in the future, i.e. evidence of things not seen, and substance of things hoped for. In this case her evidence is based on a rational, and consistant observation of the love and trustworthiness of her fiancee, and the observation of similar events taking place in the lives of others she knows personally.

One cannot let their dogged bias and falsly held beliefs, even though they do not promote their personal agenda, get in the way of coming to a logical conclussion based on evidence and reason.

All Grandpa is saying is that the word "faith" as it pertains to Christianity, does not necessarily preclude evidence and reason. To the contrary the majority of Christians believe just the opposite. That "faith" without evidence and reason is no faith at all.

This should be basic 1st grade logic relative to the topics discussed on this site. I would like to get to 3rd grade topics.

If you still cannot comprehend Grandpa's logic I would certianly hope that there is at least one atheist on this site that can understand, and has the moral courage to say so.

 

 

 

Just move on to the other stuff. The Bible, and Jesus specifically, had no problem with faith as belief in the absence of evidence. John Chapter 20 certainly indicates to me that Jesus preferred it to skepticism. If you've got a problem with belief without evidence being applied to Christians, take it up with him. Maybe tell him to ease up a bit so as not to confuse the poor atheists. Or maybe you could tell him he could write an amendment to that chapter saying he was only making a joke or that he'd just been resurrected, so he was a bit distracted and didn't really mean it. Until then, you can just say that when you talk about faith, you  mean belief based on evidence. Although, I would just not use the word "faith" to avoid confusion. And then, you can get to the meat of things and give us the evidence. Show us why you believe in and trust this particular character. Or are you hoping to tangle us in this little bit of "who gives a shit" so we'll forget about the other stuff? You talk about how much you want to move on to more interesting and important topics. So do it. Give us a bit more credit, dude, we're not stupid. We understand the principles. Show us what you've got. Get to the tough stuff. It's what you promised us with this thread. We're waiting.

 

Rill


chndlrjhnsn
chndlrjhnsn's picture
Posts: 159
Joined: 2010-03-28
User is offlineOffline
chndlrjhnsn

chndlrjhnsn wrote:

StDissonance wrote:

 So you vote, you participate in our democracy.  Our democracy wiped out over 700 tribes and blew up half a country (and more).  Does that make our democracy "bad?"  Does that make you a homicidal maniac?  Not all Christians are Sola Scriptura junkies dude.  

Assigning the nature of God to the behavior of man is grad-ass philosophy.  

 

I'm Christian and I tell you to "fuck off" (sorry, not sure if this is the nice section), does that make God an asshole?  Uh. . . not that simple.  If I accuse you (actually most of you) of being bitter ex-Calvinists, does that make "atheism" a worthless club full of Randian grumpy Brits who are seeking self-justification?    

Every thread on this website pigeon holes Christianity into the Sola Calvinist paradigm, young earth creationists, and references 80's histography and archeology.  

Why would the Bible mention anything?  See above.

The United States does not have infinite power. It has finite power. We wage war because we have limited options. God is supposedly omnipotent. He could just fart and make everything serene. But he would rather let things get out of hand until he is good and pissed off and then wipe everybody out, along with their unborn babies, their children, their wives, and their livestock. God could have corrected the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, but he would rather incinerate them. He's not willing to discipline them into good behavior. He's only willing to let them run rampant and then wipe them out. If the United States had the power to correct its enemies behavior, but chose to wipe them out instead, then yes, that would be evil.

Sorry, but the rest of what you were saying doesn't make much sense to me. Are you saying that some Christians don't believe that part of the Bible?


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:I do not know

gramster wrote:
I do not know why you are "babbling" about "fictional characters". It is common knowledge that atheists believe the bible to be nothing more than a work of fiction, or fairy tale. What we are discussing is the biblical meaning of the word "faith".

So you would like to discuss the meaning of the word as used in a fictional setting? And you further wish to extrapolate that meaning into reality?

How is this "logical" in any way?

Quote:

One cannot let their dogged bias and falsly held beliefs, even though they do not promote their personal agenda, get in the way of coming to a logical conclussion based on evidence and reason.

Pot, I have a friend to introduce to you: Kettle. Kettle, please meet Pot.

Quote:

All Grandpa is saying is that the word "faith" as it pertains to Christianity, does not necessarily preclude evidence and reason. To the contrary the majority of Christians believe just the opposite. That "faith" without evidence and reason is no faith at all.

So you do have evidence? If so, what is that evidence? What is this "reason" that supports the Christian faith? And how is it that you are the only Christian around who can present both reason and evidence in support of their faith?

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Now concerning Babylon

No, Grandpa does not have to come up with a "wierd response" to answer this one. A brief look at ancient history, some simple understanding about bible prophecy, and some simple 3rd grade logic will do just fine.

At the time of Isaiah, Assyria was the cheif enemy of Babylon. In the year 689, Sennacherib did utterly destroy ancient Babylon as you say. But the Median kingdom was at that time a relatively insignificant power. It would have made sense, if Isaiah were a false prophet, for him to have predicted this and leave it at that, but he didn't. The heart of this prophecy was forecasting a time much later, when Media would play a prominent part in the overthrow of Babylon.

When Babylon fell to Cyrus in 539, the Medes cooperated with the Persians in bringing about its downfall. Isaiah also predicted the part that Cyrus was to play (Isa. 44:27, 28; 45: 1-3). However the final ruin of Babylon came centuries later.

This prophecy, as was not uncommon to do, compounded several events spanning down through the centuries.

Note the mention that the Medes would "not be interested in silver" vs 17. This refers to the fact that the Medes were not primarily interested in the riches of Babyloin, but in power. The phrase "The glory of kingdoms" rules out the possibility that this prophecy was referring to the earlier event. Babylon would hardly have fit this description at that time.

As for the total destruction of Babylon, this did come. I did become a forsaken city. The term Arabian, commonly referring to the nomadic Bedouins, not pitching his tent there, describes their avoidance of the place of ancient Babylonian ruins out of superstition and /or horror.

The ending statement "near to come" likely referred to the 1st destruction which Isaiah was around to witness personally. This one was an utter and violent destruction.

Concerning the prophecy about Cyrus made a century and a half before his birth (see above) that mentions him by name. This one is very specific. Imagine Cyrus' amazement to find a Jewish population that was expecting him, due to a prophecy made a century and a half back, mentioning him by name, and describing his capture of the city, and predicting his policy towards the Jews. Yes, Cyrus was welcomed as a liberator. Especially by the Jews.

Isa. 44:28 "my shephard", refers to God raising up Cyrus to accomplish His purpose of liberating the Jews from their Babylonian captors just at the time predicted in the bible. "Thou shalt be built". Soon after capturing the city, Cyrus issued a decree allowing the Jews to return to their homeland, and rebuild their Temple.

In regards to Nabonidus, this issue has long been resolved. For a considerable time, critics have "blasted" this prophecy as well as the book of Daniel, noting that there was no evidence that Belshazzar mentioned by name in the book of Daniel even existed, and that history mentions only Nabonidus as the ruling king, and that he was not killed in the overthrow. Since, much evidence has emerged that sheds light on this subject. Some examples are: Theophilus G. Pinches, the Nabonidus Chronicle. This text describes the capture of Babylon by Cyrus, and states also that Nabonidus stayed in Tema for several years while his son Belshazzar was in Babylonia. From a study of ancient history, it appears that Nabonidus and Belshazzar were probably coregents. In this case it would not be uncommon to refer to both as king. See also Babylonian ancient texts translation by Oppenheim in Ancient near east texts.

Scholars are at a loss to explain how a later writer for the books of Daniel, or Isaiah could have know about Belshazzar before this evidence was uncovered from ancient ruins (as many bible critics claim). All records of Belshazzar are believed to have been lost by the end of the 5th century since the Persian records only mention Nabonidus. This has become a problem for the critics of Daniel ,especially since an early date for this book makes his prophecies even the more credible.

If I were an atheist, I would not be using this example. It is just too embarrassing. This was resolved some 60 years ago. Not even a "this century" issue. But it is not that uncommon for the critics of the bible to keep dragging up thoroughly debunked arguments from the last century, and pretending that they have proven something. Time after time the critics of the bible have to retreat to another "island" of folly when the one they are standing on "sinks".

Archeology is indeed the Christian's best friend. The more we learn, the better we can establish the existence of God, and the reliability of his word.

I have left out countless more references that give evidence and shed light on this due to the fact that I do not want to write a book right now, and others probably do not want to read one. Look in to the above, it should suffice.

And just in case "granny" is reading, yes I am sure there are many spelling and grammatical errors. And I intend to keep it that way.

Grandpa.

 

 


Indeterminate
Posts: 89
Joined: 2009-12-18
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:No, Grandpa

gramster wrote:

No, Grandpa does not have to come up with a "wierd response" to answer this one. A brief look at ancient history, some simple understanding about bible prophecy, and some simple 3rd grade logic will do just fine.

You should try not to take such a condescending tone when you abuse the common comma so. I know it's not really relevant, but that kind of thing annoys me. Incidentally, talking about yourself in the third person is usually a warning sign. Indeterminate forgets what of.

gramster wrote:

At the time of Isaiah, Assyria was the cheif enemy of Babylon. In the year 689, Sennacherib did utterly destroy ancient Babylon as you say. But the Median kingdom was at that time a relatively insignificant power. It would have made sense, if Isaiah were a false prophet, for him to have predicted this and leave it at that, but he didn't. The heart of this prophecy was forecasting a time much later, when Media would play a prominent part in the overthrow of Babylon.

When Babylon fell to Cyrus in 539, the Medes cooperated with the Persians in bringing about its downfall. Isaiah also predicted the part that Cyrus was to play (Isa. 44:27, 28; 45: 1-3). However the final ruin of Babylon came centuries later.

This prophecy, as was not uncommon to do, compounded several events spanning down through the centuries.

In 689 BCE the walls, palaces and temples were razed, which was followed by various rebuildings, revolts and sieges, until in 612 the Babylonians expelled the Assyrians from Babylon, sacked Nineveh and established what we now call the Neo-Babylonian empire. They did so with assistance from the Medes, the three having coexisted for many centuries.

During the 8th century BCE, when Isaiah was busy dispensing prophecy, the Medes and the Babylonians were on friendly terms and both occasionally and unsuccessfully revolted against the Assyrians. It would not have been a great feat of precognition to guess that sooner or later the Medes and Babylonians would successfully revolt against Assyria, or that at some time first the Assyrians would raze the city in punishment for all the trouble the Babylonians were causing them.

The Medes and Babylonians were allies against the Assyrians in the 6th century BCE, and later against the Persians. During this time Nebuchadnezzar built the Ishtar Gate and (supposedly) the Hanging Gardens, and exiled the jews. Cyrus the Great conquered first the Medes, then Babylon, and established the Achaemenid empire. Cyrus did not bring about the fall of the city, which had been rebuilt. Instead he expanded it even further than Nebuchadnezzar had done, making it first a provinicial capitol and later the administrative capitol of the Persian empire.

This is not exactly the version of history that you're using to support the prophecies of Isaiah.

gramster wrote:

In regards to Nabonidus, this issue has long been resolved. For a considerable time, critics have "blasted" this prophecy as well as the book of Daniel, noting that there was no evidence that Belshazzar mentioned by name in the book of Daniel even existed, and that history mentions only Nabonidus as the ruling king, and that he was not killed in the overthrow. Since, much evidence has emerged that sheds light on this subject. Some examples are: Theophilus G. Pinches, the Nabonidus Chronicle. This text describes the capture of Babylon by Cyrus, and states also that Nabonidus stayed in Tema for several years while his son Belshazzar was in Babylonia. From a study of ancient history, it appears that Nabonidus and Belshazzar were probably coregents. In this case it would not be uncommon to refer to both as king. See also Babylonian ancient texts translation by Oppenheim in Ancient near east texts.

Scholars are at a loss to explain how a later writer for the books of Daniel, or Isaiah could have know about Belshazzar before this evidence was uncovered from ancient ruins (as many bible critics claim). All records of Belshazzar are believed to have been lost by the end of the 5th century since the Persian records only mention Nabonidus. This has become a problem for the critics of Daniel ,especially since an early date for this book makes his prophecies even the more credible.

It is in the Babylonian Chronicles that Belshazzar was the son of Nabonidus, and was co-regent for most of his father's reign.

This is broadly the version given by Josephus in the 1st century BCE. That Jospehus wrote extensively about Belshazzar extensively in the 1st century BCE implies that some record or oral tradition had survived. That the Persians did not prepare cuneiform cylinders celebrating Belshazzar, the Babylonian heir of Nabonidus, after Cyrus deposed his father and conquered his empire is hardly surprising.

When you say lost by the end of the fifth century, do you mean 5th century CE or BCE? I wasn't able to find any reference for that claim.

gramster wrote:

If I were an atheist, I would not be using this example. It is just too embarrassing. This was resolved some 60 years ago. Not even a "this century" issue. But it is not that uncommon for the critics of the bible to keep dragging up thoroughly debunked arguments from the last century, and pretending that they have proven something. Time after time the critics of the bible have to retreat to another "island" of folly when the one they are standing on "sinks".

Archeology is indeed the Christian's best friend. The more we learn, the better we can establish the existence of God, and the reliability of his word.

Archaeology is certainly an improvement over the usual arguments. Personally, the omnipotence paradoxes do it for me.

Let me put the classic form of such a paradox to you, since you seem keen on the application of basic logic: can god create a stone so heavy that he cannot move it? If he can he's not omnipotent, if he can't he's not omnipotent. The existence of omnipotent beings entails a contradiction, and any statement which entails a contradiction is logically false.

I should point out that there are modern, some quite lengthy and detailed, forms of the omnipotence paradox which take into account what we now know about the nature of stone, weight, gravity, the orbit and rotation of planets, and the many linguistic subtleties with which you can qualify the term omnipotence. Wikipedia does a decent summary of the arguments and counter-arguments. The only way to weasel out of the contradiction is to dilute the meaning of omnipotence so far that it ceases to be omnipotence at all.

It's nice to know that omnipotent beings can't exist in any meaningful way. To my mind, emergent phenomena are far more spectacular than constructed ones.

God: "Thou Must Go from This Place Lest I Visit Thee with Boils!"
Man: "Really? Most people would bring a bottle of wine"


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:  

gramster wrote:

 

   Archeology is indeed the Christian's best friend. The more we learn, the better we can establish the existence of God, and the reliability of his word.

  Yes, and one could travel to Mt Carmel outside of Waco, Texas and find all kinds of archeological evidence that David Koresh and the Branch Davidians actually existed, built a compound, stockpiled weapons and fought a pitched battle with the Federal government and after 51 days subsequently perished in a massive fire  ...but does any of the archelogical evidence validate their peculiar religious beliefs or prove that Koresh was some sort of actual messiah ?

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Indeterminate wrote:gramster

Indeterminate wrote:

gramster wrote:

Isaiah also predicted the part that Cyrus was to play (Isa. 44:27, 28; 45: 1-3). However the final ruin of Babylon came centuries later.

Cyrus did not bring about the fall of the city, which had been rebuilt. Instead he expanded it even further than Nebuchadnezzar had done, making it first a provinicial capitol and later the administrative capitol of the Persian empire.

exactly right.  iwbiek has addressed this cyrus prophecy bullshit at least once before in this forum.  the general consensus among all biblical scholars who aren't bound by religious agendas is that isaiah is the product of at least two authors.  chapters 40-55 (and perhaps all the way to 66) are the work of deutero-isaiah, who certainly wrote right around the end of the babylonian captivity.  for one thing, there is a drastic shift in theme, tone, and style between chapters 39 and 40.  for another thing, the very discrepancies you mention--the fact that cyrus didn't rase babylon as deutero-isaiah predicts, nor did he send the jews back to palestine in nearly as triumphant a manner as deutero-isaiah describes--tell anyone who is equipped with "third grade logic" that deutero-isaiah was not only a contemporary of cyrus, but a really gung ho cyrus supporter who jumped the gun a little in his enthusiasm (just imagine him with drawing of cyrus tacked to his wall with "yes, we can!" inscribed in aramaic underneath).

iwbiek rests his case.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:As for the

gramster wrote:
As for the total destruction of Babylon, this did come. I did become a forsaken city. The term Arabian, commonly referring to the nomadic Bedouins, not pitching his tent there, describes their avoidance of the place of ancient Babylonian ruins out of superstition and /or horror.

Um, okay, so you know more about the history and the text than me.

That's great, but I don't see where you addressed the verse in question.

"She will never be inhabited or lived in through all generations" Isaiah 13:20

Where did you resolve this apparent contradiction with reality? I don't see it.

 

 

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


Indeterminate
Posts: 89
Joined: 2009-12-18
User is offlineOffline
What is third grade logic

What is third grade logic anyway? 


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Indeterminate wrote:What is

Indeterminate wrote:

What is third grade logic anyway? 

good question, hence the quotation marks i put around it. 

er, i mean, hence the quotation marks iwbiek put arou--aw, fuck it, i can't keep that stupid third person shit up...

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level Moderator
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1710
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
Gramps do you see and talk to Jesus?

ex-minister is still waiting for a response to a "living Jesus". Gramps can quote examples of interactions of people with God in an ancient book. Does that mean that God is dead? No DIRECT interactions happen today.  ex-minister is not looking to put his faith in some strung out evidence that the Jews existed and could predict the obvious or write that shit down after it happened. Many books were oral traditions written decades afterwards.

 

ex-minister's question was this:

 

OK. The examples above are people who had DIRECT contact with God. God spoke to them, walked with them, showed his face to them, knocked them off their horse or an angel appeared to them.  So, they didn't have to rely on someone else for evidence. There was no book they read but had a personal experience. A child jumping into his father's arms knows his father. The child has experienced being with his father. He can see, hear, smell, touch his father. Other people can clearly see the father as his child jumps into his arms.

Gramps,

Does this mean you have had DIRECT physical contact with God in one of these avenues? Have you heard God's voice clearly speaking to you as a human would or have you seen an angel? If so, please let us know how.

 

iwbiek, that third person stuff is hard to stick with. Must be a sign of sanity that it is so hard.

 

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Apology - Grandpa forced to modify position on faith

First I will clarify the obvious. You are still missing the point being made. The claim "trumpeted loudly" by atheists and evolutionists on a very large scale is that Christian "faith", by definition necessarily means "without evidence or reason". The critics of the bible frequently make the mistake of "reading in" to scripture what is not there. The examples I gave were not addressing the evidence or lack thereof for having such faith. It was simply "debunking" the ridicules notion that faith and evidence or reason are incompatible.

I am often criticized for comparing those who are too incompetent to understand something as basic as this, and too incompetent to even comprehend what is being discussed to 1st or 3rd graders, but to use a phrase the readers here can relate to WTF, are all atheists idiots.

Sorry for that outburst. Grandpa's blood was up. 

Now concerning faith. I recently stated that it is very rare to find someone who actually believe that faith should be, or even can be legitimate without reason or evidence. Since, I have been searching for examples of actual people and how they view, and validate their faith. Much to  my amazement, I found abundant examples of well educated and intelligent people that hold on to their beliefs without evidence or reason. In fact they readily admit that there is no scientific reason for their beliefs, but they must hold on to them anyway. It, to them is a belief, or religion they ardently hold, and are committed to regardless of evidence or reason. As previously stated Grandpa views this kind of dogmatic faith as nothing more than blatant stupidity.

I will present just a few of the dozens of examples I ran into. Many of the quotes are pared down to save space, not to change their context or meaning. References are listed for your convenience.

Hubery Yockey, a non-creationist information theorist: "Research on the origin of life seems to be unique in that the conclusion has already been authoritatively accepted... . What remains to be done is to find the scenarios which describe the detailed mechanisms and processes by which this happened.

One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written."

Ref: Yockey, H.P. A calculation of the probability of sponaneous biogenesis by information theory, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 67:377-398, 1977; quotes from pp. 379, 396.

Again Yockey, much more recent. "although at the beginning the paradigm was worth consideration, now the entire effort in the primeval soup paradigm is self deception on the ideology of its' champions. Belief in a primeval soup on the grounds that no other paradigm is available is an example of the logical fallacy of the false alternative.

Hubert Yockey, 1992 Information theory and molecular biology, Cambridge University Press, UK,, p.336

Professor Jerome Lejeune, an internationally recognized geneticist, at a lecture given in Paris on March 17, 1985. Translated by Peter Wilders of Monaco. "We have no acceptable theory of evolution at the present time. There is none; and I cannot accept the theory that I teach to my students each year. Let me explain. I teach the synthetic theory known as the neo-Darwinian one, for one reason only; not because it's good, we know it is bad, but because there isn't any other. Whilst waiting to find something better you are taught something which is known to be inexact..."

Atheist, Isaac Asimov, Counting the Eons, Grafton Books (Collins), London, p.9. "I have faith and belief myself. I believe that the universe is comprehensible within the bounds of natural law and that the human brain can discover those natural laws and comprehend the universe. I believe that nothing beyond those natural lawn is needed." "I have no evidence for this. It is simply what I have faith in and what I believe."

Dr Scott Todd, immunologist at Kansas State University: correspondence to Nature 401(6752):423, 30 Sept. 1999

"Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic."

Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist and leader in evolutionary biology, Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p.31, 9 Jan 1997. "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, ...failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises...in spite of the tolerance...unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. ... we are forced by our priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive...Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

Yes, indeed "blind faith" is abundant and flourishing out there. The dogmatic resolve to hold on to something one believes, not because of evidence, but in spite of evidence. Not because of reason, but counter to reason. Why? merely because one wants to believe that which is not rational and is not supported by evidence.

It is ironic that the very ones who hold on to their man made myths at all costs are the ones "trumpeting" loudly that it is the Christian who is ignorant and holding on to a baseless faith.

 

 

 


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Stupid Questions

I was wondering when some F.J.M. would throw this one out. The answer to this one is quite simple. Yes, God can create a rock so large He can not lift it. He would just simply have to create a rock of infinite size that incorporates everything, including God into it. Than God would cease to be God. He would simply be part of a very large rock and could not lift or do anything.

The fact that one can come up with a question so absolutely stupid that he or she can not answer it themselves does not prove that there is no God. It merely proves that stupid people can come up with some pretty stupid questions.


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Now concerning "Evolution"

Yes, every rational human if well informed will agree that in the broader sense does take place, and is observable. This is also part of the creationist model. It is the particles-to-people evolution that is at best an unsubstantiated hypothesis, or conjuncture at best.

Yes, I do agree that beneficial mutations (as well as numerous non-beneficial ones) are observed to take place regularly. What we do not see is mutations that increase genetic information which should be abundant.

New species have also been observed to form. Rapid speciation is a necessary part of the creation model as well. But, it is observed to take place within it's kind and involves once again no new genetic information.

As for transitional forms, there are only a few highly disputable examples. Darwin predicted that the fossil record would reveal an abundance of examples. 140 later almost nothing here.

Micro and Macro evolution (small vs large changes) Both occur. However, we only have been able to observe a sorting and overwhelming loss of information. We are hard pressed to find examples of even "micro" increases in information, although such changes should be frequent if the evolutionary model were to be true.

For the particles to people model to be considered as viable, there would have to be abundant examples of gradual changes that involve new genetic information observable presently as well as in the fossil record. It simply does not exist.

As for the "lame" explanation that when a change was produced the "new pair" became isolated from the main population, thus not having those changes "diluted", and retaining their newly obtained features to pass on to the next generation. This one is lame indeed. One better change that billions of years into quintillions. Even that would be insufficient to explain this.

As for your example of "designs" that don't make sense, the creation model includes the high probability that at this time in the worlds history, many genetic defects would certainly exist. This world and it's creation is a lot different than it was originally created.

Now for pineapples. Please, I'm amazed you dragged up that one. To imply that the fact that we share D.N.A. with a pineapple is evidence we have a common ancestor, is like claiming that my house is related to the public library since they both contain materials from the same batch and manufacturer. It simply shows that the designer used the same building materials.

Particles-to-people evolution is a broken model. It does not make sense. It defies logic and evidence. It is a dead horse. There are many in the field of science that have the common sense to realize this. Much to their dismay, they know that they are without any viable explanation for our origins.

Yes, God is the only solid rock we have to stand on. If something does not make sense. If it defies reason and evidence. It should be discarded no matter how badly you "want to believe".

 


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:Yes, I do

gramster wrote:

Yes, I do agree that beneficial mutations (as well as numerous non-beneficial ones) are observed to take place regularly. What we do not see is mutations that increase genetic information which should be abundant.

Yes we do, and its even understood in the genetic field how it occurs as well, via duplication and addition to the DNA sequence, chromosomal translocation, this can also happen via outside influence like mutagens (usually not benefial) and damage to the DNA via UV rays (again not usually beneficial).

Quote:

New species have also been observed to form. Rapid speciation is a necessary part of the creation model as well. But, it is observed to take place within it's kind and involves once again no new genetic information.

For creation to be true, especially the young earth types that believe the great global floor really happened, then we should be a whole different species than the species that we orignated from....heck from our great great grandparents...however that's not happened. The amount of speciation to have occurred for long living mammals and plants could not have occurred in the last 4000 years or even the last 6000 years.

Quote:

As for transitional forms, there are only a few highly disputable examples. Darwin predicted that the fossil record would reveal an abundance of examples. 140 later almost nothing here.

Yet again, deny reality and substitute your own, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils is just one of many lists you can find, oh and actually has scientific backing for it....where is the backing for your version?

Quote:

Micro and Macro evolution (small vs large changes) Both occur. However, we only have been able to observe a sorting and overwhelming loss of information. We are hard pressed to find examples of even "micro" increases in information, although such changes should be frequent if the evolutionary model were to be true.

Really there is only evolution, micro/macro don't really exist, the reality macro evolution is a series of micro evolution (at least the way creationist try to explain it, even using your explanation I can correct you massive misunderstanding of evolution), that might be a tad to much information for you to understand however.

Quote:

For the particles to people model to be considered as viable, there would have to be abundant examples of gradual changes that involve new genetic information observable presently as well as in the fossil record. It simply does not exist.

WHOLE SCIENTIFIC FIELDS...but again ignore the evidence and substitute your own reality to deny the evidence. Oh as for particles to humans, what do particles have to do with the evolution of humans? Last time I checked evolution starts once life starts, how life starts is a different explanation all together and has absolutely nothing to do with evolution, nor does evolution have anything to say how the universe began etc, etc etc.

Quote:

As for the "lame" explanation that when a change was produced the "new pair" became isolated from the main population, thus not having those changes "diluted", and retaining their newly obtained features to pass on to the next generation. This one is lame indeed. One better change that billions of years into quintillions. Even that would be insufficient to explain this.

Yet you again ignore the evidence and all the observed and tested science and substitute your own ignorance.  Forget what darwin observed 140 years ago, add all that has been observed and tested since then and you will know your wrong on this statement.

Quote:

As for your example of "designs" that don't make sense, the creation model includes the high probability that at this time in the worlds history, many genetic defects would certainly exist. This world and it's creation is a lot different than it was originally created.

Oh I would love to see your evidence for this, please provide a scientific paper that backs up this ridiculous claim.

 

Quote:

Particles-to-people evolution is a broken model. It does not make sense. It defies logic and evidence. It is a dead horse. There are many in the field of science that have the common sense to realize this. Much to their dismay, they know that they are without any viable explanation for our origins.

its because you massively misunderstand evolution and can be see by this statement

Quote:

Yes, God is the only solid rock we have to stand on. If something does not make sense. If it defies reason and evidence. It should be discarded no matter how badly you "want to believe".

So why haven't you discarded god yet? Defies all logic and has ZERO evidence.

 

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Since God is purely a

Since God is purely a concept in our mind, it is the most insubstantial thing on which to base our world-view. 'God' absolutely "defies reason and evidence."

Every fossil, every creature, is 'transitional' apart from those which were or are destined to be the last of their line.

Genetic studies support the idea that all life is related and is entirely consistent with evolution. FACT.

Increasing genetic 'information' has certainly been observed. It does not defy any scientific principles - it comes from the environment. FACT.

RNA can form spontaneously from simpler components, without direction. FACT.

Your whole position is based on massive ignorance, grandpa.

Thankfully, as with myself and cj, not all people at our end of life are as ignorant as you seem to be.

EDIT: Feel free to ask us any questions to clear up your misconceptions, at least about scientific and technical issues.

As you will have noticed by now, there are others here who can help you on historical matters re bible stories.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote: Yes, I do

gramster wrote:

Yes, I do agree that beneficial mutations (as well as numerous non-beneficial ones) are observed to take place regularly. What we do not see is mutations that increase genetic information which should be abundant.

 

It is real obvious you DON'T know doodly about information theory and you keep repeating your error, so I'll cut to the chase.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/infotheory.html

Read it, understand it, then get back to me.

 

gramster wrote:

As for transitional forms, there are only a few highly disputable examples. Darwin predicted that the fossil record would reveal an abundance of examples. 140 later almost nothing here.

 

Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters, by Donald R. Prothero

http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-What-Fossils-Say-Matters/dp/0231139624/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1276985200&sr=1-3

It was available in my library, so you don't have to spend a penny on the book.  You can always get it through interlibrary loan if your local library doesn't have a copy.  Lots of pretty pictures and the writing is pitched to the layman.  That's you and me, gramps.

 

gramster wrote:

As for the "lame" explanation that when a change was produced the "new pair" became isolated from the main population, thus not having those changes "diluted", and retaining their newly obtained features to pass on to the next generation. This one is lame indeed. One better change that billions of years into quintillions. Even that would be insufficient to explain this.

 

This is called, formally, "the island effect".  And we have evidence that if the environmental pressures are strong enough, change can happen in a few generations.  See Hawaiian wallabies.  A bunch of Australian wallabies escaped King Kamemeha's zoo, some were recaptured.  Some weren't and the zoo keepers figured they were going to die as the native Hawaiian vegetation was poisonous to Australian wallabies.  So they imported some more Australian wallabies whose descendants are still living at the zoo.  Less than 50 years later, wallabies were found near the Kaneohe pass and they were thriving on what was supposed to be poisonous vegetation.  Yes, they were still wallabies, but they were no longer Australian.

Evolution is a change in the population genetics over time.

That is the entire definition.  Time can be hours in the case of bacteria or centuries in the case of the longest lived forms like bristle cone pines.  Change can be one base pair different or many multiples of DNA such as the differences between wild roses and cabbage roses.  Oh, you didn't know about polyploidy in plants?  How did I ever guess?

 

gramster wrote:

As for your example of "designs" that don't make sense, the creation model includes the high probability that at this time in the worlds history, many genetic defects would certainly exist. This world and it's creation is a lot different than it was originally created.

 

Let's see.  There is the flexible waste tube running through a structure that swells as it ages.  Think prostate gland.  And how many times do you get up in the middle of the night?

There are eyes.  I am rather fond of my progressive lenses, are you wearing the bifocals or trifocals with lines?  Shall I say, thank  god/s/dess for taking away my ability to focus as I get older?  Or is it all Adam's fault? 

Or we could go with the by now infamous joke - god must be a civil engineer, who else would put the playground next to the waste facility?

It's pretty obvious to me the only stuff you read is what the church puts out and you haven't read anything like a scientific paper in your entire life.  And I'm supposed to be impressed?  Not happened yet.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


chndlrjhnsn
chndlrjhnsn's picture
Posts: 159
Joined: 2010-03-28
User is offlineOffline
Indeterminate wrote:What is

Indeterminate wrote:

What is third grade logic anyway? 

I think that if you use third grade logic, you will get it, but if you use fourth grade logic, you might not.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
chndlrjhnsn wrote:I think

chndlrjhnsn wrote:

I think that if you use third grade logic, you will get it, but if you use fourth grade logic, you might not.

 

"Get it"????  Sounds like a social disease.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Information Theory, Polyploidy, Wallabies

Yes, I am familiar with information theory and how it "doesn't" work in the real world of evolution. I am also familiar with polyploidy in plants, and the many problems with trying to make this a viable explanation for genesis of life through evolution. As for wallabies "adapting" to thier enviornment, this is just another example of the "in kind' changes that are built into their genetic information from the start. This is nothing new.

We will start with information theory. I can agree that the work of Shannon seems to be very thorough, and backed up by solid math. It also seems to appear that Dembski and other critics need to be more thorough in their work. That woud be a meaningful discussion if it were relevant to the topic of the genesis of life. In order for information "theory" to have  significance, it would have to be demonstrated, or observed to actually happen abundantly enough to be able to account for the large information gap in the evolutionary origins model.

In reality this is not the case. Even many of ardent evolutionists admit that this model of information theory falls far short, and is far too problematic. It is nothing more than another example of straining at a gnat, and swallowing a camel.

Yes, polyploidy does take place in plants. It has been observed to increase the amount of DNA, but generally not resulting in new information. Chromsone duplication has been shown to produce usable variety, but so far only "in kind", and that in plants, and invertebrates resulting in single gene duplication.

Some of the problems with trying to use polyploidy as a viable source of new genetic information that could give credibility to genesis through evolution are as follows.

1) Multiple mutations are necessary to produce a single new functional gene. Each mutation must remain un deleted until the gene has evolved to the degree that positive selection can occur. Meanwhile if a duplicated gene produces a defective protien, that is usually fatal. The duplication of genes also taxes the cells resources which also adds a significant problem.

2) Like information theory, gene duplication rates are not high enough to provide an adequate source for the evolutionary model.

3) For vertebrates, and higher forms of life, gene mutation is almost always fatal, and this model breaks down completely.

The evolutionary model depends on generation of totally new genetic information, and in sufficient quantity to "make the model work". Only a few highly disputable examples if any are known to exist in living things. Neither information theory, or polyploidy come anywhere close to solving this problem. They are only more examples of the just-so-story telling that we have been getting from the evolutionists all along.

Trying to use information theory, or polyploidy as a viable source of new information to make the evolutionary model work, is kind of like trying to make the case that the towering inferno could be put out by urinating on it. You could do the math to prove that there are sufficient people on the planet, if given enough time, could produce enough urine to extinguish the fire. You could never solve the logistical problems, and the problem of the building burning up before one could get all the people into place. It would be absurd. Likewise the notion that all that we see and observe came about throught the evolutionary model is even more absurd. It is a fatally broken model.

There is one example that the evolutionary scientists were able to come up with where the spontaneous generation of life was actually able to be observed and replicated. It was touted for years as solid evidence for origins by process of evolution. The creationists were derided as delusional nit wits for not accepting this solid evidence.

Than came Louis Pasteur. With the discovery of "wee beasties", and invention of pasturization, this model came crashing down. The evolutionists have been "island hopping" ever since. Yes, the wild explanations get more sophisticated all the time, but they still fail to be able to "take the camel out of the soup". It is still there staring us right in the face.

A cell was once thought to be nothing more that a "blob of goo". Now it is know to be amazingly complex. The more we know of God's creation, the more amazing it is shown to be.

A gnat catcher will never be able to remove a dead camel carcass from a bowl of soup. And Grandpa is not going to eat camel soup no matter how "gnat free" it is certified to be.

Oh yes, the island effect. Of course observable changes take place in relatively short periods of time when isolated. But these changes are still using existing genetic information. Even if there were a few examples of this involving new information it would take billions of these very complicated changes to take place to come close to fixing the "broken model". The only "island effect" that is clearly observable and significant, is the way evolutionists and atheists hop from one sinking island to the next in desperate attempt to keep their heads above water.

I do not blame you for so desperately seeking to defend your "secular religion". From the beginning of recorded history that is what people have been observed to do. Keep "beating the dead horse", if your "faith" is strong enough, maybe, just maybe it will raise from the dead, and you will be able to ride it a few more miles down the road.

What is observed in abundance is kind producing kind, and the ability of kind to adapt to it's enviornment in amazing ways. Yes, we do have one awesome creator.

 

 

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
There is no "information

There is no "information gap" problem in evolution.

There is no specific 'load" on the cell's resource from duplicated genes.

All the steps, duplication, deletion, relocation, of both single nucleotides and whole genes, that would be required to mutate one DNA sequence, via a series of simple steps, into any other, have been observed to happen with quite adequate frequency to be consistent with evolution. Remember, we now have methods to efficiently measure the sequence of genetic material directly, not just indirectly through observation of visible changes in whole organisms. So we can now see all the changes which have no visible effect.

Dunno where you got that stuff about 'polyploidy', that is not what I am talking about. It is about small accumulating changes to the sequences of a standard set of normal chromosomes, in the normal processes of normal cells, including replication preceding mitosis.

These are observed, and most of the time have little or no effect on the viability of the organism.

If they happen, by pure chance, to improve the reproductive success of the organism, they will tend to spread, if they reduce it, that lineage will tend to die off.

This is all that is required for evolution.

EDIT: It is so basic, once you 'get it', that it is back to you to explain what is going to stop it happening. Like where is the mythical mechanism with the unchangeable reference DNA to keep the mutations from evolving into another 'kind'?? /EDIT

And just how do you see information theory blocking this process, gramster?

And what is the mechanism that compares any changes with some constant reference sequence to limit changes from going "too far", and where is this reference sequence stored in the organism?? Without such a specific mechanism, what is there to limit evolutionary changes from continuing indefinitely far from any starting point?

There is a limit to the evolutionary pathway, in that each step must be still viable, but no ultimate limit to cumulative change, in the absence of some as yet undiscovered additional mechanism and some unchanging 'kind reference'.

The limitations to the path evolution can follow show up in the many less-than-ideal 'designs' we see, such as the human eye with its blood supply on the same side of the retina as the lens, unlike the eyes of some other species like the octopus, or the laryngeal nerve between the cortex and the larynx, which is forced to go down into the base of the neck and back because it goes the 'wrong' side of the aorta. It didn't matter which side of the blood vessel which became the mammalian aorta it went in the marine animals in which it originally developed.

There is no simple mutation which could move it to the other side, and it doesn't actually make the organism unviable, even in the giraffe, where it still goes all the way down the neck and back.

Such strange 'features' of the 'design' of life-forms are readily understandable by the limitations of step-by-step, undirected evolution, but are certainly problematic for someone proposing the involvement of an 'intelligent designer'.

For many more such examples, see http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm

So, gramster, any other creationist myths you want us to debunk?

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:Yes,

gramster wrote:

Yes, polyploidy does take place in plants. It has been observed to increase the amount of DNA, but generally not resulting in new information. Chromsone duplication has been shown to produce usable variety, but so far only "in kind", and that in plants, and invertebrates resulting in single gene duplication.

New information? I think you completely misunderstand how DNA information works, but hey so far you have misunderstood evolution to this point. Duplication can add information depending on where the duplication in the genetic sequence is done. Again have enough genetic change and you get a new species, but one that if you look back looks no different than it's parent. It's a gradual change, not a cat coming from a dog type of change that you seem to imply.

Quote:

Some of the problems with trying to use polyploidy as a viable source of new genetic information that could give credibility to genesis through evolution are as follows.

1) Multiple mutations are necessary to produce a single new functional gene. Each mutation must remain un deleted until the gene has evolved to the degree that positive selection can occur. Meanwhile if a duplicated gene produces a defective protien, that is usually fatal. The duplication of genes also taxes the cells resources which also adds a significant problem.

2) Like information theory, gene duplication rates are not high enough to provide an adequate source for the evolutionary model.

3) For vertebrates, and higher forms of life, gene mutation is almost always fatal, and this model breaks down completely.

The evolutionary model depends on generation of totally new genetic information, and in sufficient quantity to "make the model work". Only a few highly disputable examples if any are known to exist in living things. Neither information theory, or polyploidy come anywhere close to solving this problem. They are only more examples of the just-so-story telling that we have been getting from the evolutionists all along.

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoHumBenMutations.html would you like to take back your statement that gene mutation is almost always fatal? Most mutations that do occur are not fatal nor beneficial, they tend to be neutral, unless it's done via a mutagen such as well radiation, x-rays or hydrocarbons, etc, etc, etc. These tend to be fatal, however benefical mutations occur and tend survive because they tend to help in the survival of the species, such as the wallabies in Hawaii.

Quote:

Trying to use information theory, or polyploidy as a viable source of new information to make the evolutionary model work, is kind of like trying to make the case that the towering inferno could be put out by urinating on it. You could do the math to prove that there are sufficient people on the planet, if given enough time, could produce enough urine to extinguish the fire. You could never solve the logistical problems, and the problem of the building burning up before one could get all the people into place. It would be absurd. Likewise the notion that all that we see and observe came about throught the evolutionary model is even more absurd. It is a fatally broken model.

Trying to dismiss this is ignorance at it's best. You are more than ok to dismiss it, but you haven't proven it wrong, on the contrary you just dismiss it because it doesn't fit your model. The explanation of how this occurs and how it can and does result in new information being added to DNA is proven. Can you prove otherwise? What you have typed here is not proof, it's just a dismissal.

Quote:

There is one example that the evolutionary scientists were able to come up with where the spontaneous generation of life was actually able to be observed and replicated. It was touted for years as solid evidence for origins by process of evolution. The creationists were derided as delusional nit wits for not accepting this solid evidence.

evolutionary scientists touted spontaneous generation of life really? Because if I recalled again they only care about life and it's evolution, it's those that study abiogensis that may have done that, but in the end, that's really the beauty of science vs religion, if science is wrong and the evidence proves that, then a new explanation can be done, in religion no matter how much the evidence shows to the contrary, they just keep their heads buried in the sand ignore reality.

Quote:

Than came Louis Pasteur. With the discovery of "wee beasties", and invention of pasturization, this model came crashing down. The evolutionists have been "island hopping" ever since. Yes, the wild explanations get more sophisticated all the time, but they still fail to be able to "take the camel out of the soup". It is still there staring us right in the face.

A cell was once thought to be nothing more that a "blob of goo". Now it is know to be amazingly complex. The more we know of God's creation, the more amazing it is shown to be.

There was never a god to cause creation, you have failed to prove god to date, your claim so far is ridiculous and until proven otherwise should and will be treated as a ridiculous claim. Island hopping has evidence to back it up, your claim of a god? So far ZERO evidence.

Quote:

Oh yes, the island effect. Of course observable changes take place in relatively short periods of time when isolated. But these changes are still using existing genetic information. Even if there were a few examples of this involving new information it would take billions of these very complicated changes to take place to come close to fixing the "broken model". The only "island effect" that is clearly observable and significant, is the way evolutionists and atheists hop from one sinking island to the next in desperate attempt to keep their heads above water.

Can you prove your statement here that it would take BILLIONS of years? Next new information is the addition or deletion or duplication of the genetic sequence and where it is either, inserted, deleted or duplicated, that would add new information to the genetic sequence A, G, T,C, if you cannot understand this, the conversation pretty much ends here.

Quote:

I do not blame you for so desperately seeking to defend your "secular religion". From the beginning of recorded history that is what people have been observed to do. Keep "beating the dead horse", if your "faith" is strong enough, maybe, just maybe it will raise from the dead, and you will be able to ride it a few more miles down the road.

What is observed in abundance is kind producing kind, and the ability of kind to adapt to it's enviornment in amazing ways. Yes, we do have one awesome creator.

Love the secular religion part, it's always the best thing because well in reality your projecting, your defending your religious views against reality and the evidence that in the end proves your god did squat all and does not exist. But hey projecting is what many theists do best, when faced with the reality they are making ridiculous claims.

 

 

 

 

 


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Now if you could only define

Now if you could only define "kind"...