Origin of Language = Epic Evolution/Atheist FAIL!

TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
Origin of Language = Epic Evolution/Atheist FAIL!

Here is something I find quite puzzling.  If God did not create us, and we evolve from other creatures,  how did our languages come into existance?   The world is full of many rich cultures complete with an unique linguistic form of language following an agreed set of rules.  So who created the rules, the sounds, and how did this person or evolutionary ancestor get others to understand and agree with the rules?   THis is obviously a huge leap from the primitive grunts and noises that other animal species make.  Yes, primates can communicate on a basic level.  But they can't verbalize into words, or express complete sentences conveying abstract ideas. 

How would you convey to a fellow creature a metaphorical or philosophical question when there is no foundation for language?  You can point to objects and make a noise, but that only gets you so far in language.  The same problem exists for creating a written language.

 

Even if evolutionary linguists can come up with a plausible explanation, there remains one big problem.   Why don't we all speak the same language? 

 

Another issue is you don't see any transitional forms with anything resembling our complex voice box anatomy.  Why did we evolve to have this feature?  What was the enviromental factors that separated our genetic line from other animals and created the need for a voice box?  I would be more convinced if someone found a fossil that contained at least a primitive form of a voice box.

 

Sure, there are a number of theories, but they are pretty weak sauce with zero supporting evidence. 

 

OTOH, the Bible perfectly explains how language and culture came into being.  Man began with an universal language after the Flood with Noah.  Then after the man started building the tower of Babel, God confused the languages which scattered people all over the earth.  This also explains why we find global myth stories with many details striking similiar to the Bible's account.  They infused their own language and culture into the original story.

Yep, I'll take the truth of the Bible over fallible man's theories anytime.

 

 


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
I admit that you are right

I admit that you are right on the above statement.

 Now where does that leave us? 

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:cj wrote:TWD39

TWD39 wrote:

cj wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

Your explanation just doesn't hold water with me.  It over simplifies the topic.  It's a far cry to go from associating sounds with objects to expressing concepts like metaphors, or describing intangle non-physical items.  How would you tell the other person that you love them?  Point to your heart?  No, that's a modern association.

 

If I were stuck on an island with someone of a different language, we would find a way to communicate because we already have foundations of language.  We would draw from those foundations to forge a common communication.  A baby can learn to speak because a foundation already exists.   The foundation had to start somewhere.    You have no proof that early man would have eventually understood even a basic word/object association. 

 

My youngest son has a learning disorder, it is called "communication disorder" or "specific language impaired."

Wiki's definition will do:

Quote:

Specific language impairment (SLI) is diagnosed when a child has delayed or disordered language development for no apparent reason.[1] Usually the first indication of SLI is that the child is later than usual in starting to speak and subsequently is delayed in putting words together to form sentences. Spoken language may be immature throughout corresponds to an expressive language impairment. In many children with SLI, understanding of language, or receptive language, is also impaired, though this may not be obvious unless the child is given a formal assessment.[2] Although difficulties with use and understanding of complex sentences are a common feature of SLI, the diagnostic criteria encompass a wide range of problems, and for some children other aspects of language are problematic (see below). In general, the term SLI is reserved for children whose language difficulties persist into school age, and so it would not be applied to toddlers who are late to start talking, most of whom catch up with their peer group after a late start.[3]

 

My son's impairment was severe enough he didn't understand body language.  He didn't speak in full sentences until he was almost 7 and then they were very simple sentences.  Language impacts every thing you learn - even mathematics - and he struggled all through school.  So, did he learn language?  Yes, specifically he learned English.  Can he speak in grammatical sentences?  Yes, and he can express complex ideas including metaphors.  He learned to read in junior high but it has never been a favorite past time.  There was no denying he did not understand communicating in a language before he got into the special ed classes and before I learned how to help him learn.

I read about language and learning disabilities a lot. What I can tell you is that, yes, it would have been next to impossible to learn a full language with metaphors, allegories, and fairy tales with poor Opp and Urg never growing up with the idea of language and complex ideas.  But I am reasonably certain metaphors and such were not required when a person is chipping tools off of stone and making bone needles to sew up their fur bikini. 

Languages evolved just like you said English evolved.  I notice you haven't replied to my previous post.  I am not going to let you get away with this, I will keep repeating what you said until you get it.  Language likely started with simple requests that were relevant to their lives, and evolved - just like English - into more complex language.  I suspect language evolved until it was complex enough that people could begin to speak about complex building projects - the hallmark of civilization.  And then, writing evolved to allow people to account for all their things.  Only when civilization is complex enough that you have a division of labor - farmers, shepherds, craftsmen, warriors, kings and priests - do some people have enough leisure that they can begin to create and tell stories.  And as the old stories became stale, some bright person(s) created allegories and metaphors.

It really isn't all that difficult to be able to imagine how language evolved just like you said English evolved.  

 

 

I don't disagree that language evolves.  It is in a constant state of evolution.   But in order to for language to evolve, you must have a beginning.  This is where evolution fails to demonstrate evidence of a beginning.  It's a huge leap to go from animal noises to forming distinct vowel sounds and construct a word from those sounds.  How did early man learn to make these vowel sounds and create words with vowels and consonants?   Mitch Hedberg had a funny bit about words from the south missing vowels, and how ridiculous it sounds without vowels. 

And multiple possibilities have been shown to you. You just believe that the "beginning language" had to be fully formed by a supernatural agency with a complete lexicon.

"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


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:Vastet wrote:TWD

TWD39 wrote:

Vastet wrote:
TWD fails with every post

 

Seeing how atheists will NEVER admit that a Christian is right,  I take no offense to such tired rhetoric.

In your case, we're still waiting for you to be right. When are you going to start?

"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


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:Vastet wrote:TWD

TWD39 wrote:

Vastet wrote:
TWD fails with every post

 

Seeing how atheists will NEVER admit that a Christian is right,  I take no offense to such tired rhetoric.

Proof one example of where you or any other christian has been right.

Failure to prove that language is a by product of evolution.

Failure to prove any existence of the Tower of Babel.

Failure to prove the existence of god (specifically the christian god).

Failure to give some sort of tangible evidence that the bible is irrefutable.

Where am I supposed to admit that you have been right on a single subject thus far.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:Vastet wrote:TWD

TWD39 wrote:

Vastet wrote:
TWD fails with every post

 

Seeing how christians will NEVER admit that a atheist is right,  I take no offense to such tired rhetoric.

Fixed.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote:TWD39

harleysportster wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

Vastet wrote:
TWD fails with every post

 

Seeing how atheists will NEVER admit that a Christian is right,  I take no offense to such tired rhetoric.

Proof one example of where you or any other christian has been right.

Failure to prove that language is a by product of evolution.

Failure to prove any existence of the Tower of Babel.

Failure to prove the existence of god (specifically the christian god).

Failure to give some sort of tangible evidence that the bible is irrefutable.

Where am I supposed to admit that you have been right on a single subject thus far.

 

How can I or any Christian prove anything when you have a biased predisposition to auto-reject any Christian evidence?  Because if you did have to accept that there is evidence, good evidence out there,  then you can't live comfortably in your delusional world that lets you live a sinful life with no consequences. 

I have  demonstrated clearly how it is simply impossible to provide any evidence that can't be refuted in some way.  By the same token, it's impossible to prove ANYTHING that can't be refuted in some way if a person so badly wants to deny it.

 

 


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1580
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
No TWD is deciding that 'she' wants to do this

No TWD is deciding that 'she' wants to do this

harleysportster wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

Vastet wrote:
TWD fails with every post

 

Seeing how atheists will NEVER admit that a Christian is right,  I take no offense to such tired rhetoric.

Proof one example of where you or any other christian has been right.

Failure to prove that language is a by product of evolution.

Failure to prove any existence of the Tower of Babel.

Failure to prove the existence of god (specifically the christian god).

Failure to give some sort of tangible evidence that the bible is irrefutable.

Where am I supposed to admit that you have been right on a single subject thus far.

  TWD39 is simply asking questions, which is okay.

 

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:harleysportster

TWD39 wrote:

harleysportster wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

Vastet wrote:
TWD fails with every post

 

Seeing how atheists will NEVER admit that a Christian is right,  I take no offense to such tired rhetoric.

Proof one example of where you or any other christian has been right.

Failure to prove that language is a by product of evolution.

Failure to prove any existence of the Tower of Babel.

Failure to prove the existence of god (specifically the christian god).

Failure to give some sort of tangible evidence that the bible is irrefutable.

Where am I supposed to admit that you have been right on a single subject thus far.

 

How can I or any Christian prove anything when you have a biased predisposition to auto-reject any Christian evidence?  Because if you did have to accept that there is evidence, good evidence out there,  then you can't live comfortably in your delusional world that lets you live a sinful life with no consequences. 

I have  demonstrated clearly how it is simply impossible to provide any evidence that can't be refuted in some way.  By the same token, it's impossible to prove ANYTHING that can't be refuted in some way if a person so badly wants to deny it.

 

 

Don't you have to actually provide evidence before you get it rejected? I'm not talkiong about any Christian here - this is aimed at you. Your whole thing has been to assert the Bible story as true, say that you prefer it to any scientific explanation (auto-reject much?) and then refuse to respond to what has been provided to you. Now you go into the whole "You just want to sin and not be accountable to God" stuff. 

Sorry, pal. If I didn't want to be accountable for the consequences of my actions I'd be a Christian. Why? Christians have that lovely forgiveness thing. This allows you to do pretty much as you please as long as you remember to tell God you're real sorry, ask for his forgiveness and promise you'll try really hard to not do it again (until it becomes advantageous for you to do it again). The really silly part about it is that you don't have to do any of that. As I previously showed you, all you really have to do is believe that Jesus is the son of God and that he died and rose again for you. Nothing else matters.

Apparently there is some evidence that can't be refuted because you haven't managed to do it to the evidence you've been given. "I don't like it" isn't a refutation.

 

"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


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary wrote:No TWD

danatemporary wrote:

No TWD is deciding that 'she' wants to do this

harleysportster wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

Vastet wrote:
TWD fails with every post

 

Seeing how atheists will NEVER admit that a Christian is right,  I take no offense to such tired rhetoric.

Proof one example of where you or any other christian has been right.

Failure to prove that language is a by product of evolution.

Failure to prove any existence of the Tower of Babel.

Failure to prove the existence of god (specifically the christian god).

Failure to give some sort of tangible evidence that the bible is irrefutable.

Where am I supposed to admit that you have been right on a single subject thus far.

  TWD39 is simply asking questions, which is okay.

 

 

Asking questions is good only when the asker cares about the answer.

"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


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary wrote:No TWD

danatemporary wrote:

No TWD is deciding that 'she' wants to do this

harleysportster wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

Vastet wrote:
TWD fails with every post

 

Seeing how atheists will NEVER admit that a Christian is right,  I take no offense to such tired rhetoric.

Proof one example of where you or any other christian has been right.

Failure to prove that language is a by product of evolution.

Failure to prove any existence of the Tower of Babel.

Failure to prove the existence of god (specifically the christian god).

Failure to give some sort of tangible evidence that the bible is irrefutable.

Where am I supposed to admit that you have been right on a single subject thus far.

  TWD39 is simply asking questions, which is okay.

 

 

I don't see where TWD is asking questions. It seems that this thread and the previous ones have all started out with a few talking points, followed by massive assertions and then this passive/aggressive attitude towards everyone with "Atheist are bullying assholes" but then reverses to ad homs and seems to think there is not some sort of double standard to behaving like that.

To me, that is not asking a question.

A question to me, would be to say : "Hey Atheists, how do you account for the Tower of Babel." or "Hey Atheists, I think the origin of languages comes from god, what do you say to refute that ?".

That to me is simply asking questions. Not titling a thread "EPIC ATHEIST FAIL" and then getting upset when it turns out to not be an epic fail.

Look at my thread about the argument from incredulity. Granted, I am already an Atheist, but did not have any immediate rebuttals to the creationist argument that evolution was impossible because woman and man would have had to evolve at the same exact time. So I asked what some rebuttals to that was.

Now, if TWD wants to ask a question, I don't care. I can even answer that question in a civil manner.

BUT, if TWD wants to pose an argument and then become highly insulting when the argument is refuted, or at least disputed by claiming to be a victim of persecution,and making sweeping generalizations about Atheists in general, then I have a problem with being civil to someone like that.

Again, TWD can look back at their very first post on here. I was the first person to respond to that post. I was very cordial. But a few posts in and thus began the : "Atheists are not nice people" rhetoric. Which I found to be highly insulting so any attempt at civility degenerated from there.

Granted, I have not played very nicely towards TWD since that thread, but let him drop all of the ad homs and I will drop the ad homs. In the meantime, uncivility will probably continue.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4568
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
TWD39 wrote: I have

TWD39 wrote:
 

I have demonstrated clearly how it is simply impossible to provide any evidence that can't be refuted in some way. 

You are completely right about this. See, I can admit when you are right. When you are trying to prove something that is completely false it will always be impossible to provide irrefutable evidence.

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 331
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote: How can I or

TWD39 wrote:

 

How can I or any Christian prove anything when you have a biased predisposition to auto-reject any Christian evidence?  

We don't auto-reject it. We examine it. We check if it's legitimate. The sources you provide are typically very easy to refute, that's all. We do also provide explanations for our rejection of evidence. You tend to just spew more Christian doctrine, or get upset, or yell.

TWD39 wrote:

Because if you did have to accept that there is evidence, good evidence out there,  then you can't live comfortably in your delusional world that lets you live a sinful life with no consequences. 

What an offensive pre-supposition! I could equally say that you simply believe in Christianity, because it allows you to hurt people wantonly. Instead of having to ask the people you've wronged for forgiveness, or having to make an attempt to fix what you broke, you find that the easier method is telepathically asking magic sky-daddy for forgiveness, and all is fine. I won't pre-suppose that about you, because I know little about you, but if that sounds offensive to you, it is, in essence, what you are saying about atheists. Good thing you mocked us on our principals of morality instead of hair loss. It saved you the risk of being mauled by bears (this is in your book!)

TWD39 wrote:

I have  demonstrated clearly how it is simply impossible to provide any evidence that can't be refuted in some way.  By the same token, it's impossible to prove ANYTHING that can't be refuted in some way if a person so badly wants to deny it.

Here's how this works though. Take gravity (the theory of gravity....note the strength of the word "theory" here). 100% of the time, we have observed that gravity is a seemingly constant 9.81m/s squared on our planet. Every time it's been carefully measured, that is what has come out. So what would disprove gravity? Well, if something that should fall, doesn't. We know that birds, planes, helicopters, hot air and helium balloons do go up, but based on other physics (either creating lift, or being lighter than the surrounding air) we know that they shouldn't fall. However if you were to throw a baseball off a balcony, and it seemed to simply keep going, then stop in mid-air, then you would have evidence that contradicts the theory of gravity. So the theory of gravity is refutable (falsifiable) because we know what it would take to make it not true. Gravity is refutable, but based on the evidence we have (everything EVER that should fall, did) we have reason to believe that it's a constant, and will not change. Note this: Everything that has ever fallen is evidence that supports the theory of gravity. Based on that evidence, we can safely predict that it will continue on in exactly this way.

The evidence that you (and just about any religious person) provide on the other hand is always either VERY easy to refute, or is NOT falsifiable (or testable). This thread is about language. Your source for how you believe it happened is the bible, and specifically, the story of the tower of babel. Examining the things in the bible that we can test, reveals many internal contradictions (meaning that at least one of the contradicting statements are not true), and a plethora of inaccuracies both historical, and scientific. Every one of those things makes the whole document less and less likely to be a reliable authority on any topic, while it claims to be a reliable authority on EVERY topic.

You simply assert that the bible is true, without providing supporting evidence, or without addressing what I just said (that's been mentioned to you several times). You also refuse to engage and ask further questions when people have provided you with how language may have most likely come about, then revert to "it couldn't have just gone from whines, grunts, and screams to Shakespeare". We keep telling you that we agree that it could not have just come about in that way, but you continue to caricature our argument, and claim that you're somehow on the winning side here. 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster

harleysportster wrote:

danatemporary wrote:

No TWD is deciding that 'she' wants to do this

harleysportster wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

Vastet wrote:
TWD fails with every post

 

Seeing how atheists will NEVER admit that a Christian is right,  I take no offense to such tired rhetoric.

Proof one example of where you or any other christian has been right.

Failure to prove that language is a by product of evolution.

Failure to prove any existence of the Tower of Babel.

Failure to prove the existence of god (specifically the christian god).

Failure to give some sort of tangible evidence that the bible is irrefutable.

Where am I supposed to admit that you have been right on a single subject thus far.

  TWD39 is simply asking questions, which is okay.

 

 

I don't see where TWD is asking questions. It seems that this thread and the previous ones have all started out with a few talking points, followed by massive assertions and then this passive/aggressive attitude towards everyone with "Atheist are bullying assholes" but then reverses to ad homs and seems to think there is not some sort of double standard to behaving like that.

To me, that is not asking a question.

A question to me, would be to say : "Hey Atheists, how do you account for the Tower of Babel." or "Hey Atheists, I think the origin of languages comes from god, what do you say to refute that ?".

That to me is simply asking questions. Not titling a thread "EPIC ATHEIST FAIL" and then getting upset when it turns out to not be an epic fail.

Look at my thread about the argument from incredulity. Granted, I am already an Atheist, but did not have any immediate rebuttals to the creationist argument that evolution was impossible because woman and man would have had to evolve at the same exact time. So I asked what some rebuttals to that was.

Now, if TWD wants to ask a question, I don't care. I can even answer that question in a civil manner.

BUT, if TWD wants to pose an argument and then become highly insulting when the argument is refuted, or at least disputed by claiming to be a victim of persecution,and making sweeping generalizations about Atheists in general, then I have a problem with being civil to someone like that.

Again, TWD can look back at their very first post on here. I was the first person to respond to that post. I was very cordial. But a few posts in and thus began the : "Atheists are not nice people" rhetoric. Which I found to be highly insulting so any attempt at civility degenerated from there.

Granted, I have not played very nicely towards TWD since that thread, but let him drop all of the ad homs and I will drop the ad homs. In the meantime, uncivility will probably continue.

 

You were cordial and polite in the beginning, but BeyondSaving immediately set the tone for the thread with his mocking Christian rhetoric and even said so.  Then others joined the party, and in usual fashion, my thread gets buried in replies.  I've stated many times that I simply don't have the time or energy to take on a dozen atheists at once, but again, the complaints continue because I don't reply to every single one.

It would be nice for a change to have a balanced discussion with an equal number of atheists vs theists.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4568
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
TWD39 wrote:You were cordial

TWD39 wrote:

You were cordial and polite in the beginning, but BeyondSaving immediately set the tone for the thread with his mocking Christian rhetoric and even said so.  Then others joined the party, and in usual fashion, my thread gets buried in replies.  I've stated many times that I simply don't have the time or energy to take on a dozen atheists at once, but again, the complaints continue because I don't reply to every single one.

It would be nice for a change to have a balanced discussion with an equal number of atheists vs theists.

You certainly find a lot of time to respond to everything other than serious points. You find a lot of time to whine about being outnumbered, and whine about how atheists reject your evidence (evidence that you have not made a single post about). You have now made 171 posts, few have even been half assed attempts at responding to counter arguments and even that few is pretty much nothing but naked assertions. The minute you start seriously making/responding to an argument you will find that people will take you seriously. If you persist on whining about being outnumbered you will be laughed at as the joke that you are. 

 

Edit: If you are serious about wanting a discussion with an equal number of atheists vs. theists you can invite someone to a 1 vs. 1 debate. Invite someone, then set up a thread with 1 vs 1 in the title and the mods will delete posts from anyone other than the two people involved. It has been done here several times in the past. That way you will only be talking to one person and the rest of us will just be watching awestruck from the peanut gallery as you demonstrate an "EPIC Atheist FAIL". I'm sure someone would be willing to do it with you.

For an example see http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/29116 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:harleysportster

TWD39 wrote:

harleysportster wrote:

danatemporary wrote:

No TWD is deciding that 'she' wants to do this

harleysportster wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

Vastet wrote:
TWD fails with every post

 

Seeing how atheists will NEVER admit that a Christian is right,  I take no offense to such tired rhetoric.

Proof one example of where you or any other christian has been right.

Failure to prove that language is a by product of evolution.

Failure to prove any existence of the Tower of Babel.

Failure to prove the existence of god (specifically the christian god).

Failure to give some sort of tangible evidence that the bible is irrefutable.

Where am I supposed to admit that you have been right on a single subject thus far.

  TWD39 is simply asking questions, which is okay.

 

 

I don't see where TWD is asking questions. It seems that this thread and the previous ones have all started out with a few talking points, followed by massive assertions and then this passive/aggressive attitude towards everyone with "Atheist are bullying assholes" but then reverses to ad homs and seems to think there is not some sort of double standard to behaving like that.

To me, that is not asking a question.

A question to me, would be to say : "Hey Atheists, how do you account for the Tower of Babel." or "Hey Atheists, I think the origin of languages comes from god, what do you say to refute that ?".

That to me is simply asking questions. Not titling a thread "EPIC ATHEIST FAIL" and then getting upset when it turns out to not be an epic fail.

Look at my thread about the argument from incredulity. Granted, I am already an Atheist, but did not have any immediate rebuttals to the creationist argument that evolution was impossible because woman and man would have had to evolve at the same exact time. So I asked what some rebuttals to that was.

Now, if TWD wants to ask a question, I don't care. I can even answer that question in a civil manner.

BUT, if TWD wants to pose an argument and then become highly insulting when the argument is refuted, or at least disputed by claiming to be a victim of persecution,and making sweeping generalizations about Atheists in general, then I have a problem with being civil to someone like that.

Again, TWD can look back at their very first post on here. I was the first person to respond to that post. I was very cordial. But a few posts in and thus began the : "Atheists are not nice people" rhetoric. Which I found to be highly insulting so any attempt at civility degenerated from there.

Granted, I have not played very nicely towards TWD since that thread, but let him drop all of the ad homs and I will drop the ad homs. In the meantime, uncivility will probably continue.

 

You were cordial and polite in the beginning, but BeyondSaving immediately set the tone for the thread with his mocking Christian rhetoric and even said so.  Then others joined the party, and in usual fashion, my thread gets buried in replies.  I've stated many times that I simply don't have the time or energy to take on a dozen atheists at once, but again, the complaints continue because I don't reply to every single one.

It would be nice for a change to have a balanced discussion with an equal number of atheists vs theists.

I'm not putting up a time limit. However, I am going to call you when someone presents an argument about your claim and you keep insisting that no argument has been presented.

As for being outnumbered, at least you're here to dispute with us. Most of us have been booted from theist forums the moment we disagree.

"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


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:I don't disagree

TWD39 wrote:

I don't disagree that language evolves.  It is in a constant state of evolution.   But in order to for language to evolve, you must have a beginning.  This is where evolution fails to demonstrate evidence of a beginning.  It's a huge leap to go from animal noises to forming distinct vowel sounds and construct a word from those sounds.  How did early man learn to make these vowel sounds and create words with vowels and consonants?   Mitch Hedberg had a funny bit about words from the south missing vowels, and how ridiculous it sounds without vowels. 

 

Oh?  Ever raise a child, a litter of kittens, puppies, pigs or some other critter with vocal chords?  Shortly after birth, they are making sounds.  Little piggy grunts as they feed and squeals when pushed/pulled away from the teat.  Same for kittens, puppies, and --- humans.  New born infants make sounds.  Linguists have even studied which vowel and consonant sounds are most common.  Funny, but I remember it was the same around the world.  ALL human infants make very similar sounds - from birth.  Even infants that are in hell hole institutional settings start out making sounds, though they eventually stop if neglected long enough.

Put people in a group, and they will make sounds.  Sounds for "OW!"  Sounds plus body language for "hand me that thing over there."  Sounds and body language for "I love you."  And body language IS a language.  Just as valid as a spoken language.  People use it constantly - you can get lessons on various body language signals that are appropriate for each culture for crying out loud.  They are designed for corporate types that have to do a lot of meetings with people from other countries.

Given that all infants of any species that have vocal chords are vocal from birth, I fail to see how it would be such a big overwhelming deal to start with those sounds and turn them into words.  Really, it is not such a huge step as you are making it out to be.  The bible was written by a bunch of bronze/iron age early agriculturalists and pastoralists.  They made up stories about their world.  Fine.  It doesn't mean that those stories are factual.

 

-- 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.


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1580
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
See TWD39

BeyondSaving wrote:
Edit: If you are serious about wanting a discussion with an equal number of atheists vs. theists you can invite someone to a 1 vs. 1 debate. Invite someone, then set up a thread with 1 vs 1 in the title and the mods will delete posts from anyone other than the two people involved. It has been done here several times in the past. That way you will only be talking to one person and the rest of us will just be watching awestruck from the peanut gallery as you demonstrate an "EPIC Atheist FAIL". I'm sure someone would be willing to do it with you.

For an example see http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/29116

  Others have already tried to clue TWD39 in about alternative areas of the board, in TWD39s previous thread. But, I am glad an effort is made because apparently Theist rarely get a chance to find out about these alternatives on this board by reading and interacting more than is exhibited. I am starting to think TWD39 is not listening at all. Perhaps reading the entire Thread through it might be an eye opener, though I may be wrong. It would be hard time in convincing me TWD39 is listening. By these EXCUSES and difficulties it reminds me a bit of ElijahTruth (if you remember him).

 

 


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:You were cordial

TWD39 wrote:

You were cordial and polite in the beginning,

Ok. Ok. Ok.

I'll dispense with all of the sarcasm against you if your looking for a serious discussion.

I'll even lay off making jokes about the questions and such.

I'll even give you a chance to catch up on the previous threads.

I'll even agree to hold off chiming in on your threads unless it is in correlation with the topic at hand.

So, please feel free to catch up with the posts on your own time without any further unnecessary interruptions  or crude rebuttals from me.

 

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary

danatemporary wrote:

BeyondSaving wrote:
Edit: If you are serious about wanting a discussion with an equal number of atheists vs. theists you can invite someone to a 1 vs. 1 debate. Invite someone, then set up a thread with 1 vs 1 in the title and the mods will delete posts from anyone other than the two people involved. It has been done here several times in the past. That way you will only be talking to one person and the rest of us will just be watching awestruck from the peanut gallery as you demonstrate an "EPIC Atheist FAIL". I'm sure someone would be willing to do it with you.

For an example see http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/29116

  Others have already tried to clue TWD39 in about alternative areas of the board, in TWD39s previous thread. But, I am glad an effort is made because apparently Theist rarely get a chance to find out about these alternatives on this board by reading and interacting more than is exhibited. I am starting to think TWD39 is not listening at all. Perhaps reading the entire Thread through it might be an eye opener, though I may be wrong. It would be hard time in convincing me TWD39 is listening. By these EXCUSES and difficulties it reminds me a bit of ElijahTruth (if you remember him).

 

 

There is always the Kill 'em with Kindness Forum as well.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:Where am I

TWD39 wrote:

Where am I supposed to admit that you have been right on a single subject thus far.

How can I or any Christian prove anything when you have a biased predisposition to auto-reject any Christian evidence?  Because if you did have to accept that there is evidence, good evidence out there,  then you can't live comfortably in your delusional world that lets you live a sinful life with no consequences. 

I have  demonstrated clearly how it is simply impossible to provide any evidence that can't be refuted in some way.  By the same token, it's impossible to prove ANYTHING that can't be refuted in some way if a person so badly wants to deny it.

 

I never said that I would automatically deny the proof if proof could be provided.

I never said that I would automatically deny the possibility of something if even the probability of it could be provided.

But I have yet to see either of these things since the time I have stopped believing in god, several years ago.

I desperately wanted to believe in god above all else. I wanted that more than life. I just couldn't continue to believe when several factors, too many to be named here, kept happening in my life.

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 331
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Edit: If

Beyond Saving wrote:

Edit: If you are serious about wanting a discussion with an equal number of atheists vs. theists you can invite someone to a 1 vs. 1 debate. Invite someone, then set up a thread with 1 vs 1 in the title and the mods will delete posts from anyone other than the two people involved. It has been done here several times in the past. That way you will only be talking to one person and the rest of us will just be watching awestruck from the peanut gallery as you demonstrate an "EPIC Atheist FAIL". I'm sure someone would be willing to do it with you.

For an example see http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/29116 

I'd be willing on any reasonable topic to do a 1 on 1, and I'm not even as educated as many here are. 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4568
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
harleysportster

harleysportster wrote:

danatemporary wrote:

BeyondSaving wrote:
Edit: If you are serious about wanting a discussion with an equal number of atheists vs. theists you can invite someone to a 1 vs. 1 debate. Invite someone, then set up a thread with 1 vs 1 in the title and the mods will delete posts from anyone other than the two people involved. It has been done here several times in the past. That way you will only be talking to one person and the rest of us will just be watching awestruck from the peanut gallery as you demonstrate an "EPIC Atheist FAIL". I'm sure someone would be willing to do it with you.

For an example see http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/29116

  Others have already tried to clue TWD39 in about alternative areas of the board, in TWD39s previous thread. But, I am glad an effort is made because apparently Theist rarely get a chance to find out about these alternatives on this board by reading and interacting more than is exhibited. I am starting to think TWD39 is not listening at all. Perhaps reading the entire Thread through it might be an eye opener, though I may be wrong. It would be hard time in convincing me TWD39 is listening. By these EXCUSES and difficulties it reminds me a bit of ElijahTruth (if you remember him).

 

 

There is always the Kill 'em with Kindness Forum as well.

Yes, the Kill'em with Kindness Forum would be a good option as well. I am under a self imposeed ban from the KEWK forum. But I believe that Dana is right, TWD isn't listening and isn't interested in a real discussion. Whining about how mean atheists are or about being outnumbered is simply a method of changing the subject in order to ignore arguments. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote: How can

Jabberwocky wrote:

 

How can I or any Christian prove anything when you have a biased predisposition to auto-reject any Christian evidence?  

We don't auto-reject it. We examine it. We check if it's legitimate. The sources you provide are typically very easy to refute, that's all. We do also provide explanations for our rejection of evidence. You tend to just spew more Christian doctrine, or get upset, or yell.

 

Hogwash.  First, atheists never even define what qualifies as non-refutable evidence because you're afraid that you will be backed into a corner you can't get out of. 

As a test, I presented a miracle healing story where a man recovered immediately from a massive stroke and returned to work within days.  Complete with verification from his neurologist, and MRI scan images to show the damge.  It was rejected IMMMEDIATELY without examination.  The response was "big deal".  Like this is something perfectly normal that happens every day.  I even did a google search and could find nothing that suggests that a person can recover this quickly from this level of stroke, much less with no after effects.    It didn't phase you people one bit. 

 

 

Jabberwocky wrote:

What an offensive pre-supposition! I could equally say that you simply believe in Christianity, because it allows you to hurt people wantonly. Instead of having to ask the people you've wronged for forgiveness, or having to make an attempt to fix what you broke, you find that the easier method is telepathically asking magic sky-daddy for forgiveness, and all is fine. I won't pre-suppose that about you, because I know little about you, but if that sounds offensive to you, it is, in essence, what you are saying about atheists. Good thing you mocked us on our principals of morality instead of hair loss. It saved you the risk of being mauled by bears (this is in your book!)

 

Not true at all.  I grew up between two schools of theology.  A penacostal belief that you can lose your salvation, and a Baptist belief that once saved, always saved.  I've never been entirely comfortable with either one.  There are enough scriptures to make me feel uneasy about doing whatever I want and then just asking for forgiveness.  Forgiveness requires a pentatent heart, and a pentanet heart means you are willing to stop doing the sinful action.

 

TWD39 wrote:

I have  demonstrated clearly how it is simply impossible to provide any evidence that can't be refuted in some way.  By the same token, it's impossible to prove ANYTHING that can't be refuted in some way if a person so badly wants to deny it.

 

 

Jabberwocky wrote:

Here's how this works though. Take gravity (the theory of gravity....note the strength of the word "theory" here). 100% of the time, we have observed that gravity is a seemingly constant 9.81m/s squared on our planet. Every time it's been carefully measured, that is what has come out. So what would disprove gravity? Well, if something that should fall, doesn't. We know that birds, planes, helicopters, hot air and helium balloons do go up, but based on other physics (either creating lift, or being lighter than the surrounding air) we know that they shouldn't fall. However if you were to throw a baseball off a balcony, and it seemed to simply keep going, then stop in mid-air, then you would have evidence that contradicts the theory of gravity. So the theory of gravity is refutable (falsifiable) because we know what it would take to make it not true. Gravity is refutable, but based on the evidence we have (everything EVER that should fall, did) we have reason to believe that it's a constant, and will not change. Note this: Everything that has ever fallen is evidence that supports the theory of gravity. Based on that evidence, we can safely predict that it will continue on in exactly this way.

The evidence that you (and just about any religious person) provide on the other hand is always either VERY easy to refute, or is NOT falsifiable (or testable). This thread is about language. Your source for how you believe it happened is the bible, and specifically, the story of the tower of babel. Examining the things in the bible that we can test, reveals many internal contradictions (meaning that at least one of the contradicting statements are not true), and a plethora of inaccuracies both historical, and scientific. Every one of those things makes the whole document less and less likely to be a reliable authority on any topic, while it claims to be a reliable authority on EVERY topic.

You simply assert that the bible is true, without providing supporting evidence, or without addressing what I just said (that's been mentioned to you several times). You also refuse to engage and ask further questions when people have provided you with how language may have most likely come about, then revert to "it couldn't have just gone from whines, grunts, and screams to Shakespeare". We keep telling you that we agree that it could not have just come about in that way, but you continue to caricature our argument, and claim that you're somehow on the winning side here. 

 

There are no contradictions or inaccuracies.  Any such ones you present are a result of bad interpretation or taking things out of context.  The Bible is 100% true. 

There is plenty of evidence that the Bible is divine in origin.  It has survived numerous attempts to destory it.  It has been meticulously preserved with thousands of manuscripts.  If it was a work of fiction, why so much effort to preserve it unlike other lost ancient documents?  The Bible has over 2000 fullfilled prophecies some with great detail along with a huge body of archaeological evidence supporting, never disproving the Bible.  You would think the opposite would be true if it was just a stupid book of myths.

 

OTOH, you  have ZERO hard proof demonstrating how language came to be through evolution.  Just theories which are meaningless without evidence.

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:Jabberwocky

TWD39 wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

 

How can I or any Christian prove anything when you have a biased predisposition to auto-reject any Christian evidence?  

We don't auto-reject it. We examine it. We check if it's legitimate. The sources you provide are typically very easy to refute, that's all. We do also provide explanations for our rejection of evidence. You tend to just spew more Christian doctrine, or get upset, or yell.

 

Hogwash.  First, atheists never even define what qualifies as non-refutable evidence because you're afraid that you will be backed into a corner you can't get out of. 

As a test, I presented a miracle healing story where a man recovered immediately from a massive stroke and returned to work within days.  Complete with verification from his neurologist, and MRI scan images to show the damge.  It was rejected IMMMEDIATELY without examination.  The response was "big deal".  Like this is something perfectly normal that happens every day.  I even did a google search and could find nothing that suggests that a person can recover this quickly from this level of stroke, much less with no after effects.    It didn't phase you people one bit. 

You didn't get the evidence from the person. You got it from a preacher who is using the story to line his pockets in the name of "god". it contains pictures that the pastor claims were from that guy's MRI scans and claims from a neurologist who may or may not exist (I couldn't find anything on him). Claims are not evidence - especially not third hand claims.

 

Jabberwocky wrote:

What an offensive pre-supposition! I could equally say that you simply believe in Christianity, because it allows you to hurt people wantonly. Instead of having to ask the people you've wronged for forgiveness, or having to make an attempt to fix what you broke, you find that the easier method is telepathically asking magic sky-daddy for forgiveness, and all is fine. I won't pre-suppose that about you, because I know little about you, but if that sounds offensive to you, it is, in essence, what you are saying about atheists. Good thing you mocked us on our principals of morality instead of hair loss. It saved you the risk of being mauled by bears (this is in your book!)

TWD39 wrote:
 

Not true at all.  I grew up between two schools of theology.  A penacostal belief that you can lose your salvation, and a Baptist belief that once saved, always saved.  I've never been entirely comfortable with either one.  There are enough scriptures to make me feel uneasy about doing whatever I want and then just asking for forgiveness.  Forgiveness requires a pentatent heart, and a pentanet heart means you are willing to stop doing the sinful action.

 You grew up between two schools of Christian theology - Jabberwocky's point stands. And yes, I'm sure you did have a penitent heart and were willing to stop doing the sin while you were asking for forgiveness. Afterwards, it was "Whew, glad that's done! I feel so clean" until doing the sinful action benefited you again. 

TWD39 wrote:

I have  demonstrated clearly how it is simply impossible to provide any evidence that can't be refuted in some way.  By the same token, it's impossible to prove ANYTHING that can't be refuted in some way if a person so badly wants to deny it.

 

 

Jabberwocky wrote:

Here's how this works though. Take gravity (the theory of gravity....note the strength of the word "theory" here). 100% of the time, we have observed that gravity is a seemingly constant 9.81m/s squared on our planet. Every time it's been carefully measured, that is what has come out. So what would disprove gravity? Well, if something that should fall, doesn't. We know that birds, planes, helicopters, hot air and helium balloons do go up, but based on other physics (either creating lift, or being lighter than the surrounding air) we know that they shouldn't fall. However if you were to throw a baseball off a balcony, and it seemed to simply keep going, then stop in mid-air, then you would have evidence that contradicts the theory of gravity. So the theory of gravity is refutable (falsifiable) because we know what it would take to make it not true. Gravity is refutable, but based on the evidence we have (everything EVER that should fall, did) we have reason to believe that it's a constant, and will not change. Note this: Everything that has ever fallen is evidence that supports the theory of gravity. Based on that evidence, we can safely predict that it will continue on in exactly this way.

The evidence that you (and just about any religious person) provide on the other hand is always either VERY easy to refute, or is NOT falsifiable (or testable). This thread is about language. Your source for how you believe it happened is the bible, and specifically, the story of the tower of babel. Examining the things in the bible that we can test, reveals many internal contradictions (meaning that at least one of the contradicting statements are not true), and a plethora of inaccuracies both historical, and scientific. Every one of those things makes the whole document less and less likely to be a reliable authority on any topic, while it claims to be a reliable authority on EVERY topic.

You simply assert that the bible is true, without providing supporting evidence, or without addressing what I just said (that's been mentioned to you several times). You also refuse to engage and ask further questions when people have provided you with how language may have most likely come about, then revert to "it couldn't have just gone from whines, grunts, and screams to Shakespeare". We keep telling you that we agree that it could not have just come about in that way, but you continue to caricature our argument, and claim that you're somehow on the winning side here. 

TWD39 wrote:

There are no contradictions or inaccuracies.  Any such ones you present are a result of bad interpretation or taking things out of context.  The Bible is 100% true. 

There is plenty of evidence that the Bible is divine in origin.  It has survived numerous attempts to destory it.  It has been meticulously preserved with thousands of manuscripts.  If it was a work of fiction, why so much effort to preserve it unlike other lost ancient documents?  The Bible has over 2000 fullfilled prophecies some with great detail along with a huge body of archaeological evidence supporting, never disproving the Bible.  You would think the opposite would be true if it was just a stupid book of myths.

 

OTOH, you  have ZERO hard proof demonstrating how language came to be through evolution.  Just theories which are meaningless without evidence.

 

1. What we have are copies of copies of the Bible that are filled with errors. That's not meticulous preservation.

2. Please list an attempt to destroy the Bible in the last 200o years.

3. It's funny. these prophecies only became prophecies after some Christian came by and attached an event to the prophecy long afterwards. I always thought prophecies were to come before the events they prophesied happened.

4. Spider-Man comics are set in NYC. New York city is real so Spidey is too? Don't laugh = I'm using your logic.

5. The Bhagavad Gita is a "stupid book of myths" that has been around longer than the Bible.

6. Theories are supported by evidence, facts and research (thank you for recognizing the theories of language evolution as theories). All you have are claims. 

"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


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:You didn't

jcgadfly wrote:

You didn't get the evidence from the person. You got it from a preacher who is using the story to line his pockets in the name of "god". it contains pictures that the pastor claims were from that guy's MRI scans and claims from a neurologist who may or may not exist (I couldn't find anything on him). Claims are not evidence - especially not third hand claims.

 

So that's the new standard?  I have to get the evidence directly from the person?  Your logic is ridiculous.  Andrew Womack gives the name of the doctor and where he works.  You can easily find his contact info through google if you needed more verification.   Futhermore, if you knew ANYTHING about Andrew Womack, you would know that he actually gives away  most of his materials for free to anyone who needs them.   Your baseless attack on his ministry is more proof of atheists biased attitude, and not examining the evidence.  I'm right again.

 

jcgadfly wrote:

  

 

1. What we have are copies of copies of the Bible that are filled with errors. That's not meticulous preservation.

2. Please list an attempt to destroy the Bible in the last 200o years.

3. It's funny. these prophecies only became prophecies after some Christian came by and attached an event to the prophecy long afterwards. I always thought prophecies were to come before the events they prophesied happened.

4. Spider-Man comics are set in NYC. New York city is real so Spidey is too? Don't laugh = I'm using your logic.

5. The Bhagavad Gita is a "stupid book of myths" that has been around longer than the Bible.

6. Theories are supported by evidence, facts and research (thank you for recognizing the theories of language evolution as theories). All you have are claims. 

 

 

1.  Just none that you can demonstrate.

 

2.  Roman Emperor Diocletian  issued an order to destroy the scriptures.  William Tyndale was strangled to death for his translations into modern English.   Pope Gregory IX, 1234 orded the burning of the Bible.  Just a few.

 

3.  Example?  There are OT prophecies that came true before the NT.  

 

4.  Spiderman is a well documented work of fiction created by Stan lee.  Where is your proof that the Bible is fiction?  With your logic, we might as well regard all ancient history as fiction. 

 

5.  Has it been translated perfectly into 1000 different languages like the Bible?  That's a starting point.

 

6.  Excuse me then, I guess there are no theories since you have ZERO evidence.  It's just some atheist liberal anti-Christian scientist opinion. 


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4568
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
TWD39 wrote:Jabberwocky

TWD39 wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

 

How can I or any Christian prove anything when you have a biased predisposition to auto-reject any Christian evidence?  

We don't auto-reject it. We examine it. We check if it's legitimate. The sources you provide are typically very easy to refute, that's all. We do also provide explanations for our rejection of evidence. You tend to just spew more Christian doctrine, or get upset, or yell.

 

Hogwash.  First, atheists never even define what qualifies as non-refutable evidence because you're afraid that you will be backed into a corner you can't get out of. 

As a test, I presented a miracle healing story where a man recovered immediately from a massive stroke and returned to work within days.  Complete with verification from his neurologist, and MRI scan images to show the damge.  It was rejected IMMMEDIATELY without examination.  The response was "big deal".  Like this is something perfectly normal that happens every day.  I even did a google search and could find nothing that suggests that a person can recover this quickly from this level of stroke, much less with no after effects.    It didn't phase you people one bit. 

 

I remember several people responding by pointing you towards journal articles and books written by specialized doctors on the subject. The experiences of the gentleman you describe are very rare but not unheard of and not impossible. I even pointed you to an article about a new medication that testing indicated is capable of bringing quicker recovery to similar symptoms than the case you claim god fixed. While this particular case is in the upper range of recovery results, it is no more a "miracle" than winning the lottery. The story you linked to also did not claim there were "no after effects" it commented on the quick recovery and had a quote from the patient saying he was going to continue to work hard on his recovery. If he is continuing to "work hard" that implies that he is not 100%, just substantially better off than when he was initially paralyzed. 

Also, the story you linked to specifically stated that the damage was still there when a second MRI was performed. The stroke didn't magically disappear, the brain didn't magically become instantaneously healed. About the only logical conclusion one can come to with the information provided is that we do not know everything about strokes and how the human brain recovers from them. Which we already know, and that is why some people devote their lives to studying strokes, how they happen, what causes them to happen and why some people recover better and/or faster than others. By studying these unknowns, we can learn how to better treat them and hopefully in the future prevent them. I am glad these doctors are asking "why" rather than simply shrugging and say "its a miracle, praise god!" and letting it be at that. 

Imagine if Alexander Fleming chalked up penicillin as a miracle?  

It seems like the only argument you have for your religion is that we cannot explain every detail in the universe. Guess what, we know that. That is why scientists still have jobs. Just because we don't know why something happens, doesn't mean there is a deity behind it, it simply means we don't know. It is an even more absurd step to assume that deity is you xtian god. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4568
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
TWD39 wrote:4.  Spiderman

TWD39 wrote:

4.  Spiderman is a well documented work of fiction created by Stan lee.  Where is your proof that the Bible is fiction?  With your logic, we might as well regard all ancient history as fiction. 

Much of ancient history is fiction. Even relatively recent history is often filled with stories that we now know are fictional. For example, the tale of George Washington and the cherry tree was taught as historical fact in school classes around the country for decades and we are now quite certain that the tale was completely fictional. 

Most people believe that witches were burnt to death at the stake in Salem. In fact, they were hung, not burned at the stake and 6 of the "witches" were male.

Thomas Edison did not in fact invent the light bulb. The light bulb was invented 40 years earlier by William de la Rue. Edison improved upon the concept and made the light bulb commercially viable.

It is now believed that Marie Antoinette never said "Let them eat cake" and that the whole incident was fictionalized by Jean Jaques Rousseau. Ironically, even if she did say the words it hardly has the derogatory meaning that is assigned to them today. The laws at the time required bakers who ran out of cheap bread to sell brioche (the high quality bread) and the lower price. So her saying "let them eat cake(brioche)" is basically saying feed the peasants the good stuff at the cheap price.

I could go on as I am always fascinated by historical stories that are proved to be fictional. There are thousands of similar cases where we know they are fictional, and thousands more where there are solid arguments that the story is fictional but no way to conclusively prove one way or the other. Obviously, the farther back you go in time the more difficult it is to prove what happened, the less reliable the sources and the less physical evidence exists. Since we know for a fact that much of history over the last 200 years isn't particularly accurate, it isn't hard to believe that most of what we believe we know about history 2000 years ago is probably very wrong.  

 

 

TWD39 wrote:

6.  Excuse me then, I guess there are no theories since you have ZERO evidence.  It's just some atheist liberal anti-Christian scientist opinion. 

I suggest you read some linguist journals. http://linguistlist.org/pubs/journals/browse-journals.cfm

You will find that there is a significant number of theories and a significant amount of evidence. Of course, we will never really know for sure unless time travel is possible. Someday we may travel to other planets and encounter new species developing and perhaps have an opportunity to observe a language being founded for the very first time which would go a long way towards confirming such theories. Although, even then, there is no guarantee that all languages are created the same or even in similar ways. 

Personally, I know virtually nothing about linguistics, it doesn't interest me. But I find the theories suggested by linguists to be far more plausible on the surface than your mythological story of the tower of bable. The linguists are not asking me to believe anything extraordinary. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
The whining never ends. If

The whining never ends. If you can't or won't keep up with a mass participation topic, then pick someone and go one on one. Such threads can be protected by moderation to ensure unwanted participation is blocked.

To start, pick an opponent. Any opponent. Ensure the opponent has a desire to debate, or obviously nothing will happen.

Your next step is to message Brian Sapient, the guy who runs the site, so he can set it up for you. If you cannot, I'd be willing to message him for you.

Then Brian will do whatever he needs to, and you will find the discussion here:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forums/religionandirrationalities/oneonedebate

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:jcgadfly

TWD39 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

You didn't get the evidence from the person. You got it from a preacher who is using the story to line his pockets in the name of "god". it contains pictures that the pastor claims were from that guy's MRI scans and claims from a neurologist who may or may not exist (I couldn't find anything on him). Claims are not evidence - especially not third hand claims.

 

So that's the new standard?  I have to get the evidence directly from the person?  Your logic is ridiculous.  Andrew Womack gives the name of the doctor and where he works.  You can easily find his contact info through google if you needed more verification.   Futhermore, if you knew ANYTHING about Andrew Womack, you would know that he actually gives away  most of his materials for free to anyone who needs them.   Your baseless attack on his ministry is more proof of atheists biased attitude, and not examining the evidence.  I'm right again.

 

jcgadfly wrote:

  

 

1. What we have are copies of copies of the Bible that are filled with errors. That's not meticulous preservation.

2. Please list an attempt to destroy the Bible in the last 200o years.

3. It's funny. these prophecies only became prophecies after some Christian came by and attached an event to the prophecy long afterwards. I always thought prophecies were to come before the events they prophesied happened.

4. Spider-Man comics are set in NYC. New York city is real so Spidey is too? Don't laugh = I'm using your logic.

5. The Bhagavad Gita is a "stupid book of myths" that has been around longer than the Bible.

6. Theories are supported by evidence, facts and research (thank you for recognizing the theories of language evolution as theories). All you have are claims. 

 

 

1.  Just none that you can demonstrate.

 

2.  Roman Emperor Diocletian  issued an order to destroy the scriptures.  William Tyndale was strangled to death for his translations into modern English.   Pope Gregory IX, 1234 orded the burning of the Bible.  Just a few.

 

3.  Example?  There are OT prophecies that came true before the NT.  

 

4.  Spiderman is a well documented work of fiction created by Stan lee.  Where is your proof that the Bible is fiction?  With your logic, we might as well regard all ancient history as fiction. 

 

5.  Has it been translated perfectly into 1000 different languages like the Bible?  That's a starting point.

 

6.  Excuse me then, I guess there are no theories since you have ZERO evidence.  It's just some atheist liberal anti-Christian scientist opinion. 

New standard? No. I've always had the same standard when it comes to hearsay from someone with an agenda. If you actually read my earlier post about it you'd have known that. I have no reason to believe your pastor buddy because there is no outside corroboration. 

On to the numbers:

1. You consider preserving incorrect documents meticulous preservation? Don't you think if the book was actually divine that God would've protected the original and it wouldn't need interpretation?

2. Except for Diocletian's order (which had nothing to do with the scriptures themselves but the Christians' refusing military service and generally trying to overthrow him - isn't there something in the book about Christians respecting rulers because they were sent by God?), the other instances were Christians destroying the scriptures (for their own ends for which I'm sure they were forgiven afterwards)

3. Examples of prophecies fulfilled backwards? all the messianic ones that the gospel writers said were about Jesus. Other prophecies that were unfulfilled? Tyre, Damascus and Egypt are supposed to be desolate wastelands - oops they're still there. Give me a prophecy that fits what you described.

4. The Bible is supposedly well documented also (remember your meticulous preservation?) My proof for the fiction of the Bible is a combination of all the tings it got wrong, the fact that there is no evidence for many of the major characters in the work (God, Jesus as god, Moses, etc).

5. Yes, the Bhagavad Gita has been translated into multiple languages. No, the Bible has not been translated perfectly as we no longer have the originals to look at. Stop lying about that please.

6. I don't claim to be a scientist and their evidence has been recorded for those with the intellectual ability to look it up. Evidence has no bias - that's what's great about it. It's probably what scares you so much. It's so much easier to take a pastor's word instead of looking things up for yourself. And before you accuse me of not reading the Bible - how do you think I became an atheist? I was a Christian for many years before I started studying the Bible seriously.

"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


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:TWD39

jcgadfly wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

You didn't get the evidence from the person. You got it from a preacher who is using the story to line his pockets in the name of "god". it contains pictures that the pastor claims were from that guy's MRI scans and claims from a neurologist who may or may not exist (I couldn't find anything on him). Claims are not evidence - especially not third hand claims.

 

So that's the new standard?  I have to get the evidence directly from the person?  Your logic is ridiculous.  Andrew Womack gives the name of the doctor and where he works.  You can easily find his contact info through google if you needed more verification.   Futhermore, if you knew ANYTHING about Andrew Womack, you would know that he actually gives away  most of his materials for free to anyone who needs them.   Your baseless attack on his ministry is more proof of atheists biased attitude, and not examining the evidence.  I'm right again.

 

jcgadfly wrote:

  

 

1. What we have are copies of copies of the Bible that are filled with errors. That's not meticulous preservation.

2. Please list an attempt to destroy the Bible in the last 200o years.

3. It's funny. these prophecies only became prophecies after some Christian came by and attached an event to the prophecy long afterwards. I always thought prophecies were to come before the events they prophesied happened.

4. Spider-Man comics are set in NYC. New York city is real so Spidey is too? Don't laugh = I'm using your logic.

5. The Bhagavad Gita is a "stupid book of myths" that has been around longer than the Bible.

6. Theories are supported by evidence, facts and research (thank you for recognizing the theories of language evolution as theories). All you have are claims. 

 

 

1.  Just none that you can demonstrate.

 

2.  Roman Emperor Diocletian  issued an order to destroy the scriptures.  William Tyndale was strangled to death for his translations into modern English.   Pope Gregory IX, 1234 orded the burning of the Bible.  Just a few.

 

3.  Example?  There are OT prophecies that came true before the NT.  

 

4.  Spiderman is a well documented work of fiction created by Stan lee.  Where is your proof that the Bible is fiction?  With your logic, we might as well regard all ancient history as fiction. 

 

5.  Has it been translated perfectly into 1000 different languages like the Bible?  That's a starting point.

 

6.  Excuse me then, I guess there are no theories since you have ZERO evidence.  It's just some atheist liberal anti-Christian scientist opinion. 

New standard? No. I've always had the same standard when it comes to hearsay from someone with an agenda. If you actually read my earlier post about it you'd have known that. I have no reason to believe your pastor buddy because there is no outside corroboration. 

On to the numbers:

1. You consider preserving incorrect documents meticulous preservation? Don't you think if the book was actually divine that God would've protected the original and it wouldn't need interpretation?

2. Except for Diocletian's order (which had nothing to do with the scriptures themselves but the Christians' refusing military service and generally trying to overthrow him - isn't there something in the book about Christians respecting rulers because they were sent by God?), the other instances were Christians destroying the scriptures (for their own ends for which I'm sure they were forgiven afterwards)

3. Examples of prophecies fulfilled backwards? all the messianic ones that the gospel writers said were about Jesus. Other prophecies that were unfulfilled? Tyre, Damascus and Egypt are supposed to be desolate wastelands - oops they're still there. Give me a prophecy that fits what you described.

4. The Bible is supposedly well documented also (remember your meticulous preservation?) My proof for the fiction of the Bible is a combination of all the tings it got wrong, the fact that there is no evidence for many of the major characters in the work (God, Jesus as god, Moses, etc).

5. Yes, the Bhagavad Gita has been translated into multiple languages. No, the Bible has not been translated perfectly as we no longer have the originals to look at. Stop lying about that please.

6. I don't claim to be a scientist and their evidence has been recorded for those with the intellectual ability to look it up. Evidence has no bias - that's what's great about it. It's probably what scares you so much. It's so much easier to take a pastor's word instead of looking things up for yourself. And before you accuse me of not reading the Bible - how do you think I became an atheist? I was a Christian for many years before I started studying the Bible seriously.

 

Again, you falsely claim that Andrew Womack's agenda is to bilk people out of money.  Proof? You have NONE.   Atheists have no problem resorting to lies to deny a miracle ever took place.

1.  That's your assertion that the Bible is correct.  Fortunately, there happens to be a lot more Biblical scholars out there who believe that the Bible is completely correct.  You would think after being handed down generation after generation and translated, the stories would have evolved into something completely different.  Nope, the Dead Sea Scrolls proved that our modern day Bible is quite accurate.

 

2.  Let's see, you ask for examples, but wait, suddenly you are the expert on the topic!  This reveals that you never had any interest in my response.  I can list more examples, but it would be pointless.

 

3. Messiahic prophecy would be pointless to discuss because you can always fall back on your "Jesus never existed" fallacy.  Tyre was destroyed exactly the way the Bible described many years before.  Of course, atheists ignore this remarkable fact.  You get hung up on the fact that someone decided to name some city Tyre nearby.  The fact is the city was never rebuilt the way it once was.    The prophecy regarding Damacus may be fullfilled in the end times.  The prophecy regarding Egypt doesn't say  it would be a desolate wasteland.  It says that Egypt would never rule over many nations, and be a great empire again.  Guess what,  it remains a small nation to this day.  See Ezekiel 29:15

 

4.  There is archaelogical and extra-biblical evidence to support the stories in the Bible.  Where is your archaelogical evidence for Spiderman? 

 

5.  Has it been translated in 1000 languages? That was the question.  Dodger.

 

6.  Evidence can be manipulated or mis-represented.  One of the best examples are all these medical study findings.  You could call that evidence, but it's always some conflicting information.  Now I hear that eating eggs is just as bad as smoking for me, and excess consumption of salt isn't that bad.  Next year, another study will say the opposite thing. 

 


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3391
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: 5. The

jcgadfly wrote:

 

5. The Bhagavad Gita is a "stupid book of myths" that has been around longer than the Bible.

 

minor gripe: the gita has definitely not been around longer than most of the bible.  the earliest possible date scholars are willing to give the composition of the gita is around the 5th century B.C.E., though most go with the second century, while most scholars place the septuagint (which, recall, was a translation, not a composition) at around the 4th century.  so you might be able to say the gita is as old as the bible, but that's unlikely.

most of the vedic literature, however, is older than the bible, and the samhita portion of the rig veda is a helluva lot older.

just FYI.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:jcgadfly

TWD39 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

You didn't get the evidence from the person. You got it from a preacher who is using the story to line his pockets in the name of "god". it contains pictures that the pastor claims were from that guy's MRI scans and claims from a neurologist who may or may not exist (I couldn't find anything on him). Claims are not evidence - especially not third hand claims.

 

So that's the new standard?  I have to get the evidence directly from the person?  Your logic is ridiculous.  Andrew Womack gives the name of the doctor and where he works.  You can easily find his contact info through google if you needed more verification.   Futhermore, if you knew ANYTHING about Andrew Womack, you would know that he actually gives away  most of his materials for free to anyone who needs them.   Your baseless attack on his ministry is more proof of atheists biased attitude, and not examining the evidence.  I'm right again.

 

jcgadfly wrote:

  

 

1. What we have are copies of copies of the Bible that are filled with errors. That's not meticulous preservation.

2. Please list an attempt to destroy the Bible in the last 200o years.

3. It's funny. these prophecies only became prophecies after some Christian came by and attached an event to the prophecy long afterwards. I always thought prophecies were to come before the events they prophesied happened.

4. Spider-Man comics are set in NYC. New York city is real so Spidey is too? Don't laugh = I'm using your logic.

5. The Bhagavad Gita is a "stupid book of myths" that has been around longer than the Bible.

6. Theories are supported by evidence, facts and research (thank you for recognizing the theories of language evolution as theories). All you have are claims. 

 

 

1.  Just none that you can demonstrate.

 

2.  Roman Emperor Diocletian  issued an order to destroy the scriptures.  William Tyndale was strangled to death for his translations into modern English.   Pope Gregory IX, 1234 orded the burning of the Bible.  Just a few.

 

3.  Example?  There are OT prophecies that came true before the NT.  

 

4.  Spiderman is a well documented work of fiction created by Stan lee.  Where is your proof that the Bible is fiction?  With your logic, we might as well regard all ancient history as fiction. 

 

5.  Has it been translated perfectly into 1000 different languages like the Bible?  That's a starting point.

 

6.  Excuse me then, I guess there are no theories since you have ZERO evidence.  It's just some atheist liberal anti-Christian scientist opinion. 

New standard? No. I've always had the same standard when it comes to hearsay from someone with an agenda. If you actually read my earlier post about it you'd have known that. I have no reason to believe your pastor buddy because there is no outside corroboration. 

On to the numbers:

1. You consider preserving incorrect documents meticulous preservation? Don't you think if the book was actually divine that God would've protected the original and it wouldn't need interpretation?

2. Except for Diocletian's order (which had nothing to do with the scriptures themselves but the Christians' refusing military service and generally trying to overthrow him - isn't there something in the book about Christians respecting rulers because they were sent by God?), the other instances were Christians destroying the scriptures (for their own ends for which I'm sure they were forgiven afterwards)

3. Examples of prophecies fulfilled backwards? all the messianic ones that the gospel writers said were about Jesus. Other prophecies that were unfulfilled? Tyre, Damascus and Egypt are supposed to be desolate wastelands - oops they're still there. Give me a prophecy that fits what you described.

4. The Bible is supposedly well documented also (remember your meticulous preservation?) My proof for the fiction of the Bible is a combination of all the tings it got wrong, the fact that there is no evidence for many of the major characters in the work (God, Jesus as god, Moses, etc).

5. Yes, the Bhagavad Gita has been translated into multiple languages. No, the Bible has not been translated perfectly as we no longer have the originals to look at. Stop lying about that please.

6. I don't claim to be a scientist and their evidence has been recorded for those with the intellectual ability to look it up. Evidence has no bias - that's what's great about it. It's probably what scares you so much. It's so much easier to take a pastor's word instead of looking things up for yourself. And before you accuse me of not reading the Bible - how do you think I became an atheist? I was a Christian for many years before I started studying the Bible seriously.

 

Again, you falsely claim that Andrew Womack's agenda is to bilk people out of money.  Proof? You have NONE.   Atheists have no problem resorting to lies to deny a miracle ever took place.

1.  That's your assertion that the Bible is correct.  Fortunately, there happens to be a lot more Biblical scholars out there who believe that the Bible is completely correct.  You would think after being handed down generation after generation and translated, the stories would have evolved into something completely different.  Nope, the Dead Sea Scrolls proved that our modern day Bible is quite accurate.

 

2.  Let's see, you ask for examples, but wait, suddenly you are the expert on the topic!  This reveals that you never had any interest in my response.  I can list more examples, but it would be pointless.

 

3. Messiahic prophecy would be pointless to discuss because you can always fall back on your "Jesus never existed" fallacy.  Tyre was destroyed exactly the way the Bible described many years before.  Of course, atheists ignore this remarkable fact.  You get hung up on the fact that someone decided to name some city Tyre nearby.  The fact is the city was never rebuilt the way it once was.    The prophecy regarding Damacus may be fullfilled in the end times.  The prophecy regarding Egypt doesn't say  it would be a desolate wasteland.  It says that Egypt would never rule over many nations, and be a great empire again.  Guess what,  it remains a small nation to this day.  See Ezekiel 29:15

 

4.  There is archaelogical and extra-biblical evidence to support the stories in the Bible.  Where is your archaelogical evidence for Spiderman? 

 

5.  Has it been translated in 1000 languages? That was the question.  Dodger.

 

6.  Evidence can be manipulated or mis-represented.  One of the best examples are all these medical study findings.  You could call that evidence, but it's always some conflicting information.  Now I hear that eating eggs is just as bad as smoking for me, and excess consumption of salt isn't that bad.  Next year, another study will say the opposite thing. 

 

What's that? auto rejection?

If I've made a false claim show me where it's false. Evidence - not "I like the preacher so he's always telling the truth" 

1. I didn't assert the Bible is correct - that;s your assertion. I'm the guy saying that people have made worse copies of bad copies. Get it right.

2. You mean I'm not allowed to dispute your examples? Sorry, bubbles, I don't take things on faith. that's your job.

3a. I never said Jesus never existed. My problem has never been with a historical Jesus. It's been with the fantasy of the"son of God"

3b. The prophecy said that Tyre would never be rebuilt - oops egg on God's face.

3c. Egypt holds influence over many nations (Arab League comes to mind) oops again for you and God

4. Spiderman is still extant. Archaeology deals with past events. If you had the evidence you claim you'd bring it. You can start with the Exodus - that many people and animals moving around should have left something behind.

5. (thanks iwbiek on the date correction - unlike this particular Christian I can admit when I'm wrong) As for the Gita I don't know if it has been translated in exactly 1000 languages just as you don't know that of the Bible though I strongly suspect based on as may copies of both books that have come through my hands I'd say yes.

6. Evidence can be manipulated and people can be dishonest. Funny how you only mention that when the evidence goes against you. No, wait. That can't be. Only atheists auto-reject evidence.

"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


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:What's that?

jcgadfly wrote:

What's that? auto rejection?

If I've made a false claim show me where it's false. Evidence - not "I like the preacher so he's always telling the truth" 

1. I didn't assert the Bible is correct - that;s your assertion. I'm the guy saying that people have made worse copies of bad copies. Get it right.

2. You mean I'm not allowed to dispute your examples? Sorry, bubbles, I don't take things on faith. that's your job.

3a. I never said Jesus never existed. My problem has never been with a historical Jesus. It's been with the fantasy of the"son of God"

3b. The prophecy said that Tyre would never be rebuilt - oops egg on God's face.

3c. Egypt holds influence over many nations (Arab League comes to mind) oops again for you and God

4. Spiderman is still extant. Archaeology deals with past events. If you had the evidence you claim you'd bring it. You can start with the Exodus - that many people and animals moving around should have left something behind.

5. (thanks iwbiek on the date correction - unlike this particular Christian I can admit when I'm wrong) As for the Gita I don't know if it has been translated in exactly 1000 languages just as you don't know that of the Bible though I strongly suspect based on as may copies of both books that have come through my hands I'd say yes.

6. Evidence can be manipulated and people can be dishonest. Funny how you only mention that when the evidence goes against you. No, wait. That can't be. Only atheists auto-reject evidence.

 

I did.  AWM is a non-profit organization who donates most of their material to anyone who asks for it.  That's pretty generous and not indicative of someone who is just looking to scam people out of money.  Either put up or shut up about it.

 

1.  Then explain why the modern day translation does NOT differ greatly from the Dead Sea Scrolls.

 

2.  No, you just immediately deny the facts if they support my case.  So what if Christians tried to destroy the Bible?  IT doesn't dilute the fact that many attempts have been made to destroy the Bible. 

Need a more recent example?  Hitler and the Nazi party certainly tried to destroy the Bible:

During the war Alfred Rosenberg formulated a thirty-point program for the National Reich Church, which included:

  • The National Reich Church claims exclusive right and control over all Churches.
  • The National Church is determined to exterminate foreign Christian faiths imported into Germany in the ill-omened year 800.

       The National Church demands immediate cessation of the publishing and dissemination of the Bible.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany

 

3.  You have no proof that Jesus is NOT the son of God.

 

You are resorting to pathetic legalism to try and discount the Tyre prophecy.  Was it destroyed exactly the way the Bible predicted?  Yes or No.

Egypt does not rule over other nations.  Egg on your face.

 

4.  You are missing the point completely.  Your Spiderman comparison doesn't hold water.  Epic Fail!

 

5.  Looks like I win on this point then.

 

6.  I have no problem accepting that false evidence can be presented on my side of the fence.  Certainly there have been accounts of Noah's Ark being discovered which proved to be hoaxes.   I believe the sounds from hell youtube clip, while scary, is a hoax.  Sensationalism sells.


Damasius
Theist
Posts: 118
Joined: 2010-02-25
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:Here is

TWD39 wrote:

Here is something I find quite puzzling.  If God did not create us, and we evolve from other creatures,  how did our languages come into existance?   The world is full of many rich cultures complete with an unique linguistic form of language following an agreed set of rules.  So who created the rules, the sounds, and how did this person or evolutionary ancestor get others to understand and agree with the rules?   THis is obviously a huge leap from the primitive grunts and noises that other animal species make.  Yes, primates can communicate on a basic level.  But they can't verbalize into words, or express complete sentences conveying abstract ideas. 

How would you convey to a fellow creature a metaphorical or philosophical question when there is no foundation for language?  You can point to objects and make a noise, but that only gets you so far in language.  The same problem exists for creating a written language.

 

Even if evolutionary linguists can come up with a plausible explanation, there remains one big problem.   Why don't we all speak the same language? 

 

Another issue is you don't see any transitional forms with anything resembling our complex voice box anatomy.  Why did we evolve to have this feature?  What was the enviromental factors that separated our genetic line from other animals and created the need for a voice box?  I would be more convinced if someone found a fossil that contained at least a primitive form of a voice box.

 

Sure, there are a number of theories, but they are pretty weak sauce with zero supporting evidence. 

 

OTOH, the Bible perfectly explains how language and culture came into being.  Man began with an universal language after the Flood with Noah.  Then after the man started building the tower of Babel, God confused the languages which scattered people all over the earth.  This also explains why we find global myth stories with many details striking similiar to the Bible's account.  They infused their own language and culture into the original story.

Yep, I'll take the truth of the Bible over fallible man's theories anytime.

 

 

 

Many other species use a primitive kind of lanmguage, this is true of chimps and even of dolphins, as the brain develloped in our ansesters the early hominids: homo ergaster etc, the language became more complex and diversified and was linked to the developement of the brain.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:jcgadfly

TWD39 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

What's that? auto rejection?

If I've made a false claim show me where it's false. Evidence - not "I like the preacher so he's always telling the truth" 

1. I didn't assert the Bible is correct - that;s your assertion. I'm the guy saying that people have made worse copies of bad copies. Get it right.

2. You mean I'm not allowed to dispute your examples? Sorry, bubbles, I don't take things on faith. that's your job.

3a. I never said Jesus never existed. My problem has never been with a historical Jesus. It's been with the fantasy of the"son of God"

3b. The prophecy said that Tyre would never be rebuilt - oops egg on God's face.

3c. Egypt holds influence over many nations (Arab League comes to mind) oops again for you and God

4. Spiderman is still extant. Archaeology deals with past events. If you had the evidence you claim you'd bring it. You can start with the Exodus - that many people and animals moving around should have left something behind.

5. (thanks iwbiek on the date correction - unlike this particular Christian I can admit when I'm wrong) As for the Gita I don't know if it has been translated in exactly 1000 languages just as you don't know that of the Bible though I strongly suspect based on as may copies of both books that have come through my hands I'd say yes.

6. Evidence can be manipulated and people can be dishonest. Funny how you only mention that when the evidence goes against you. No, wait. That can't be. Only atheists auto-reject evidence.

 

I did.  AWM is a non-profit organization who donates most of their material to anyone who asks for it.  That's pretty generous and not indicative of someone who is just looking to scam people out of money.  Either put up or shut up about it.

 

1.  Then explain why the modern day translation does NOT differ greatly from the Dead Sea Scrolls.

 

2.  No, you just immediately deny the facts if they support my case.  So what if Christians tried to destroy the Bible?  IT doesn't dilute the fact that many attempts have been made to destroy the Bible. 

Need a more recent example?  Hitler and the Nazi party certainly tried to destroy the Bible:

During the war Alfred Rosenberg formulated a thirty-point program for the National Reich Church, which included:

  • The National Reich Church claims exclusive right and control over all Churches.
  • The National Church is determined to exterminate foreign Christian faiths imported into Germany in the ill-omened year 800.

       The National Church demands immediate cessation of the publishing and dissemination of the Bible.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany

 

3.  You have no proof that Jesus is NOT the son of God.

 

You are resorting to pathetic legalism to try and discount the Tyre prophecy.  Was it destroyed exactly the way the Bible predicted?  Yes or No.

Egypt does not rule over other nations.  Egg on your face.

 

4.  You are missing the point completely.  Your Spiderman comparison doesn't hold water.  Epic Fail!

 

5.  Looks like I win on this point then.

 

6.  I have no problem accepting that false evidence can be presented on my side of the fence.  Certainly there have been accounts of Noah's Ark being discovered which proved to be hoaxes.   I believe the sounds from hell youtube clip, while scary, is a hoax.  Sensationalism sells.

6. Sensationalism does sell - that must be why an eternal hell of punishment and an eternal heaven of bliss  has so many followers.

5. How do you win when we both agree? Multiple translations don't imply truth.

4. Your biblical archaeology is essentially "(x) exists so the Bible is wholly and completely true." Just what a fervent believer in the Wall-Crawler would say about Spidey.

3. The most damning proof that I have of Jesus not being the son of God is that he never made the claim. What have you got? On Egypt, controlling policy for many nations is rulership. Control doesn't stop at land. The prophecy said tyre was never to be rebuilt. Yet it still stands today after being destroyed. God still doesn't get away.

2. Why would a good christian like Hitler destroy the book he believed he was following? use a search engine for Hitler quotes. It's ironic that the best evidence you have for the Bible being destroyed comes from believers in the book.

1. You guys can't even agree on this among yourselves - http://www.brandplucked.webs.com/dssfiasco.htm

 

"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


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Damasius wrote: Many other

Damasius wrote:

 

Many other species use a primitive kind of lanmguage, this is true of chimps and even of dolphins, as the brain develloped in our ansesters the early hominids: homo ergaster etc, the language became more complex and diversified and was linked to the developement of the brain.

Which hardly proves the existence of a god does it ? Albeit a catholic one at that.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Damasius
Theist
Posts: 118
Joined: 2010-02-25
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster

harleysportster wrote:

Damasius wrote:

 

Many other species use a primitive kind of lanmguage, this is true of chimps and even of dolphins, as the brain develloped in our ansesters the early hominids: homo ergaster etc, the language became more complex and diversified and was linked to the developement of the brain.

Which hardly proves the existence of a god does it ? Albeit a catholic one at that.

 

No,  and another thing that does not prove the non existence of God is the porkers youve been telling us on my other thread, the one about walking in the snow and praying knee on concrete being some of the sweattiest and most incontinent ones.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
What are you talking about Dam?

Damasius wrote:

harleysportster wrote:

Damasius wrote:

 

Many other species use a primitive kind of lanmguage, this is true of chimps and even of dolphins, as the brain develloped in our ansesters the early hominids: homo ergaster etc, the language became more complex and diversified and was linked to the developement of the brain.

Which hardly proves the existence of a god does it ? Albeit a catholic one at that.

 

No,  and another thing that does not prove the non existence of God is the porkers youve been telling us on my other thread, the one about walking in the snow and praying knee on concrete being some of the sweattiest and most incontinent ones.

 

As a former christian myself, I've gone through similar episodes of self loathing and pleading for heavenly communication in my past. I never walked in snow or knelt on concrete but I went to about 6 Billy Graham concerts and many youth camps annually. They were torturous. In fact, they were more torturous than kneeling on concrete. The point Harley made in any case, was that he pleaded with god for a sign, got none, and blamed himself for many, many years. 

In his opinion, this and the complete lack of evidence combine to suggest no god exists. You've never had an actual sign, either, Dam, for all your platitudes and motivated reasoning. God is not listening to you. You should be worshiping modern medicine or the planetary biochemical processes some label Gaia. That's what it appears created sentient life. According to the actual evidence. 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Damasius
Theist
Posts: 118
Joined: 2010-02-25
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

Damasius wrote:

harleysportster wrote:

Damasius wrote:

 

Many other species use a primitive kind of lanmguage, this is true of chimps and even of dolphins, as the brain develloped in our ansesters the early hominids: homo ergaster etc, the language became more complex and diversified and was linked to the developement of the brain.

Which hardly proves the existence of a god does it ? Albeit a catholic one at that.

 

No,  and another thing that does not prove the non existence of God is the porkers youve been telling us on my other thread, the one about walking in the snow and praying knee on concrete being some of the sweattiest and most incontinent ones.

 

As a former christian myself, I've gone through similar episodes of self loathing and pleading for heavenly communication in my past. I never walked in snow or knelt on concrete but I went to about 6 Billy Graham concerts and many youth camps annually. They were torturous. In fact, they were more torturous than kneeling on concrete. The point Harley made in any case, was that he pleaded with god for a sign, got none, and blamed himself for many, many years. 

In his opinion, this and the complete lack of evidence combine to suggest no god exists. You've never had an actual sign, either, Dam, for all your platitudes and motivated reasoning. God is not listening to you. You should be worshiping modern medicine or the planetary biochemical processes some label Gaia. That's what it appears created sentient life. According to the actual evidence. 

 

 

 

 

 

Billy Graham!!! lol!! this is the problem with you americvan atheists, youve all had the taste of shit of protestant and $$ religion that all of these false prophets represent.


Damasius
Theist
Posts: 118
Joined: 2010-02-25
User is offlineOffline
Damasius

Damasius wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

Damasius wrote:

harleysportster wrote:

Damasius wrote:

 

Many other species use a primitive kind of lanmguage, this is true of chimps and even of dolphins, as the brain develloped in our ansesters the early hominids: homo ergaster etc, the language became more complex and diversified and was linked to the developement of the brain.

Which hardly proves the existence of a god does it ? Albeit a catholic one at that.

 

No,  and another thing that does not prove the non existence of God is the porkers youve been telling us on my other thread, the one about walking in the snow and praying knee on concrete being some of the sweattiest and most incontinent ones.

 

As a former christian myself, I've gone through similar episodes of self loathing and pleading for heavenly communication in my past. I never walked in snow or knelt on concrete but I went to about 6 Billy Graham concerts and many youth camps annually. They were torturous. In fact, they were more torturous than kneeling on concrete. The point Harley made in any case, was that he pleaded with god for a sign, got none, and blamed himself for many, many years. 

In his opinion, this and the complete lack of evidence combine to suggest no god exists. You've never had an actual sign, either, Dam, for all your platitudes and motivated reasoning. God is not listening to you. You should be worshiping modern medicine or the planetary biochemical processes some label Gaia. That's what it appears created sentient life. According to the actual evidence. 

 

 

 

 

 

Billy Graham!!! lol!! this is the problem with you americvan atheists, youve all had the taste of shit of protestant and $$ religion that all of these false prophets represent.

 

 

 

 ''for all your platitudes and motivated reasoning. God is not listening to you''

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!1 and you know this do you? extremist in any religion are bad, and you: atheist extremist are a poster boy for ignorance.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Damasius wrote:Damasius

Damasius wrote:

Damasius wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

Damasius wrote:

harleysportster wrote:

Damasius wrote:

 

Many other species use a primitive kind of lanmguage, this is true of chimps and even of dolphins, as the brain develloped in our ansesters the early hominids: homo ergaster etc, the language became more complex and diversified and was linked to the developement of the brain.

Which hardly proves the existence of a god does it ? Albeit a catholic one at that.

 

No,  and another thing that does not prove the non existence of God is the porkers youve been telling us on my other thread, the one about walking in the snow and praying knee on concrete being some of the sweattiest and most incontinent ones.

 

As a former christian myself, I've gone through similar episodes of self loathing and pleading for heavenly communication in my past. I never walked in snow or knelt on concrete but I went to about 6 Billy Graham concerts and many youth camps annually. They were torturous. In fact, they were more torturous than kneeling on concrete. The point Harley made in any case, was that he pleaded with god for a sign, got none, and blamed himself for many, many years. 

In his opinion, this and the complete lack of evidence combine to suggest no god exists. You've never had an actual sign, either, Dam, for all your platitudes and motivated reasoning. God is not listening to you. You should be worshiping modern medicine or the planetary biochemical processes some label Gaia. That's what it appears created sentient life. According to the actual evidence. 

 

 

 

 

 

Billy Graham!!! lol!! this is the problem with you americvan atheists, youve all had the taste of shit of protestant and $$ religion that all of these false prophets represent.

 

 

 

 ''for all your platitudes and motivated reasoning. God is not listening to you''

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!1 and you know this do you? extremist in any religion are bad, and you: atheist extremist are a poster boy for ignorance.

If atheism was a religion you might have a case. Do you consider bald a hair color?

"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


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Damasius

Damasius wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

Damasius wrote:

harleysportster wrote:

Damasius wrote:

 

Many other species use a primitive kind of lanmguage, this is true of chimps and even of dolphins, as the brain develloped in our ansesters the early hominids: homo ergaster etc, the language became more complex and diversified and was linked to the developement of the brain.

Which hardly proves the existence of a god does it ? Albeit a catholic one at that.

 

No,  and another thing that does not prove the non existence of God is the porkers youve been telling us on my other thread, the one about walking in the snow and praying knee on concrete being some of the sweattiest and most incontinent ones.

 

As a former christian myself, I've gone through similar episodes of self loathing and pleading for heavenly communication in my past. I never walked in snow or knelt on concrete but I went to about 6 Billy Graham concerts and many youth camps annually. They were torturous. In fact, they were more torturous than kneeling on concrete. The point Harley made in any case, was that he pleaded with god for a sign, got none, and blamed himself for many, many years. 

In his opinion, this and the complete lack of evidence combine to suggest no god exists. You've never had an actual sign, either, Dam, for all your platitudes and motivated reasoning. God is not listening to you. You should be worshiping modern medicine or the planetary biochemical processes some label Gaia. That's what it appears created sentient life. According to the actual evidence. 

 

 

 

 

 

Billy Graham!!! lol!! this is the problem with you americvan atheists, youve all had the taste of shit of protestant and $$ religion that all of these false prophets represent.

What? Billy not rape enough kids for you? 

"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


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1580
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Now come on now; the Jesus Loving remember ?

Damasius now come on now. The Jesus loving remember ? Now here is a revelation . . .details ' who wrote THE book of blame':

  Father Benedict Groeschel, 78, has his own thread on the board if you'd care to comment 'there', about the Priests (you should know of  this Thread).

 

 See: Image (tehehe)

 


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Actually

Damasius wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

Damasius wrote:

harleysportster wrote:

Damasius wrote:

 

Many other species use a primitive kind of lanmguage, this is true of chimps and even of dolphins, as the brain develloped in our ansesters the early hominids: homo ergaster etc, the language became more complex and diversified and was linked to the developement of the brain.

Which hardly proves the existence of a god does it ? Albeit a catholic one at that.

 

No,  and another thing that does not prove the non existence of God is the porkers youve been telling us on my other thread, the one about walking in the snow and praying knee on concrete being some of the sweattiest and most incontinent ones.

 

As a former christian myself, I've gone through similar episodes of self loathing and pleading for heavenly communication in my past. I never walked in snow or knelt on concrete but I went to about 6 Billy Graham concerts and many youth camps annually. They were torturous. In fact, they were more torturous than kneeling on concrete. The point Harley made in any case, was that he pleaded with god for a sign, got none, and blamed himself for many, many years. 

In his opinion, this and the complete lack of evidence combine to suggest no god exists. You've never had an actual sign, either, Dam, for all your platitudes and motivated reasoning. God is not listening to you. You should be worshiping modern medicine or the planetary biochemical processes some label Gaia. That's what it appears created sentient life. According to the actual evidence. 

 

 

 

Billy Graham!!! lol!! this is the problem with you americvan atheists, youve all had the taste of shit of protestant and $$ religion that all of these false prophets represent.

 

My experience of Billy Graham was in Australasia but that would not alter my general position against monotheism - that the doctrine of original sin is an ad hominem fallacy, that hell is a fallacious appeal to force and that both these irrational arguments lie at the core of these faiths because there is no actual proof with which to supplant them.

Personally, and with due recognition of the fallability of human understanding, I prefer hypotheses to come springloaded with testable explanations and anyone who threatens me to accept bald assertions is in for short shrift. Including catholic idol worshippers such as yourself...

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Explain your

 

Damasius wrote:

 

''for all your platitudes and motivated reasoning. God is not listening to you''

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!1 and you know this do you? extremist in any religion are bad, and you: atheist extremist are a poster boy for ignorance.

 

evidence for communication with god that discounts conversations you have when role playing in the confines of your own skull. Use definitions with cogent meanings and give evidence of testable explanations.

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Damasius wrote: No,  and

Damasius wrote:

 

No,  and another thing that does not prove the non existence of God is the porkers youve been telling us on my other thread, the one about walking in the snow and praying knee on concrete being some of the sweattiest and most incontinent ones.

So you admit that there is no proof of god ?

The fact that your rebuttal is "well it doesn't prove one doesn't exist" is a appeal to burden of proof fallacy.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Damasius wrote:   Billy

Damasius wrote:

  

 

Billy Graham!!! lol!! this is the problem with you americvan atheists, youve all had the taste of shit of protestant and $$ religion that all of these false prophets represent.

AE is Australian. See what happens when you assume ? You make an ass out of yourself.

BTW. You attacked protestantism in favor of your brand of christianity.

No True Scotsman Fallacy.

Second logical fallacy that you have committed on this thread.

Care to do another logical fallacy ?

Or would you just like to resort to ad homs ?

Or are ad homs too difficult for you, English being a fifth language and all.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3391
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Damasius wrote:Billy

Damasius wrote:

Billy Graham!!! lol!! this is the problem with you americvan atheists, youve all had the taste of shit of protestant and $$ religion that all of these false prophets represent.

the last christian i was reading as a believer, before i let it all go, was gregory palamas.  i never paid a smidgen of attention to billy graham, josh mcdowell, joel osteen, oral roberts, falwell, tommy nelson, max lucado, or any other member of the evangelical celebrity world because i felt them too watered-down.

guess what?  ancient, dignified bullshit is still bullshit.  maybe it just stinks a little less because it's dried out.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:TWD39

jcgadfly wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

What's that? auto rejection?

If I've made a false claim show me where it's false. Evidence - not "I like the preacher so he's always telling the truth" 

1. I didn't assert the Bible is correct - that;s your assertion. I'm the guy saying that people have made worse copies of bad copies. Get it right.

2. You mean I'm not allowed to dispute your examples? Sorry, bubbles, I don't take things on faith. that's your job.

3a. I never said Jesus never existed. My problem has never been with a historical Jesus. It's been with the fantasy of the"son of God"

3b. The prophecy said that Tyre would never be rebuilt - oops egg on God's face.

3c. Egypt holds influence over many nations (Arab League comes to mind) oops again for you and God

4. Spiderman is still extant. Archaeology deals with past events. If you had the evidence you claim you'd bring it. You can start with the Exodus - that many people and animals moving around should have left something behind.

5. (thanks iwbiek on the date correction - unlike this particular Christian I can admit when I'm wrong) As for the Gita I don't know if it has been translated in exactly 1000 languages just as you don't know that of the Bible though I strongly suspect based on as may copies of both books that have come through my hands I'd say yes.

6. Evidence can be manipulated and people can be dishonest. Funny how you only mention that when the evidence goes against you. No, wait. That can't be. Only atheists auto-reject evidence.

 

I did.  AWM is a non-profit organization who donates most of their material to anyone who asks for it.  That's pretty generous and not indicative of someone who is just looking to scam people out of money.  Either put up or shut up about it.

 

1.  Then explain why the modern day translation does NOT differ greatly from the Dead Sea Scrolls.

 

2.  No, you just immediately deny the facts if they support my case.  So what if Christians tried to destroy the Bible?  IT doesn't dilute the fact that many attempts have been made to destroy the Bible. 

Need a more recent example?  Hitler and the Nazi party certainly tried to destroy the Bible:

During the war Alfred Rosenberg formulated a thirty-point program for the National Reich Church, which included:

  • The National Reich Church claims exclusive right and control over all Churches.
  • The National Church is determined to exterminate foreign Christian faiths imported into Germany in the ill-omened year 800.

       The National Church demands immediate cessation of the publishing and dissemination of the Bible.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany

 

3.  You have no proof that Jesus is NOT the son of God.

 

You are resorting to pathetic legalism to try and discount the Tyre prophecy.  Was it destroyed exactly the way the Bible predicted?  Yes or No.

Egypt does not rule over other nations.  Egg on your face.

 

4.  You are missing the point completely.  Your Spiderman comparison doesn't hold water.  Epic Fail!

 

5.  Looks like I win on this point then.

 

6.  I have no problem accepting that false evidence can be presented on my side of the fence.  Certainly there have been accounts of Noah's Ark being discovered which proved to be hoaxes.   I believe the sounds from hell youtube clip, while scary, is a hoax.  Sensationalism sells.

6. Sensationalism does sell - that must be why an eternal hell of punishment and an eternal heaven of bliss  has so many followers.

5. How do you win when we both agree? Multiple translations don't imply truth.

4. Your biblical archaeology is essentially "(x) exists so the Bible is wholly and completely true." Just what a fervent believer in the Wall-Crawler would say about Spidey.

3. The most damning proof that I have of Jesus not being the son of God is that he never made the claim. What have you got? On Egypt, controlling policy for many nations is rulership. Control doesn't stop at land. The prophecy said tyre was never to be rebuilt. Yet it still stands today after being destroyed. God still doesn't get away.

2. Why would a good christian like Hitler destroy the book he believed he was following? use a search engine for Hitler quotes. It's ironic that the best evidence you have for the Bible being destroyed comes from believers in the book.

1. You guys can't even agree on this among yourselves - http://www.brandplucked.webs.com/dssfiasco.htm

 

 

 

6.  Dumb pointless statement

 

5.  Multiple translations heightens the odds of error.   Yet our modern day Bible is remarkable close to old manuscripts.  That's a miracle from God.

 

4.   If the Bible is fiction, they should be finding artifacts which disprove the Bible.  Yet, discoveries are constantly being made which support the Bible. 

 

3.  If that's your best proof then you have a pretty weak case.  Jesus certainly did present himself as God.   In John 8:58, he shows that he has always existed.  In Matt 14:33, he doesn't disagree with the disciples when they declare that he is the son of God.  In Matthew 26:64 he says he sits on the right hand of God.  The notion that Jesus never declared himself as a deity is ridiculous.

 

2.  Are you really that narrow minded to believe that just because someone says they are a Christian, it makes them a Christian?  Hitler wanted to use religion as another agent of control and power.  If he truly had a relationship with Jesus Christ,  he would not have commited such monsterous acts.

 

1.  Not sure what your point is here.  The dead scrolls have been compared to the Bible and little difference was found.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:jcgadfly

TWD39 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

What's that? auto rejection?

If I've made a false claim show me where it's false. Evidence - not "I like the preacher so he's always telling the truth" 

1. I didn't assert the Bible is correct - that;s your assertion. I'm the guy saying that people have made worse copies of bad copies. Get it right.

2. You mean I'm not allowed to dispute your examples? Sorry, bubbles, I don't take things on faith. that's your job.

3a. I never said Jesus never existed. My problem has never been with a historical Jesus. It's been with the fantasy of the"son of God"

3b. The prophecy said that Tyre would never be rebuilt - oops egg on God's face.

3c. Egypt holds influence over many nations (Arab League comes to mind) oops again for you and God

4. Spiderman is still extant. Archaeology deals with past events. If you had the evidence you claim you'd bring it. You can start with the Exodus - that many people and animals moving around should have left something behind.

5. (thanks iwbiek on the date correction - unlike this particular Christian I can admit when I'm wrong) As for the Gita I don't know if it has been translated in exactly 1000 languages just as you don't know that of the Bible though I strongly suspect based on as may copies of both books that have come through my hands I'd say yes.

6. Evidence can be manipulated and people can be dishonest. Funny how you only mention that when the evidence goes against you. No, wait. That can't be. Only atheists auto-reject evidence.

 

I did.  AWM is a non-profit organization who donates most of their material to anyone who asks for it.  That's pretty generous and not indicative of someone who is just looking to scam people out of money.  Either put up or shut up about it.

 

1.  Then explain why the modern day translation does NOT differ greatly from the Dead Sea Scrolls.

 

2.  No, you just immediately deny the facts if they support my case.  So what if Christians tried to destroy the Bible?  IT doesn't dilute the fact that many attempts have been made to destroy the Bible. 

Need a more recent example?  Hitler and the Nazi party certainly tried to destroy the Bible:

During the war Alfred Rosenberg formulated a thirty-point program for the National Reich Church, which included:

  • The National Reich Church claims exclusive right and control over all Churches.
  • The National Church is determined to exterminate foreign Christian faiths imported into Germany in the ill-omened year 800.

       The National Church demands immediate cessation of the publishing and dissemination of the Bible.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany

 

3.  You have no proof that Jesus is NOT the son of God.

 

You are resorting to pathetic legalism to try and discount the Tyre prophecy.  Was it destroyed exactly the way the Bible predicted?  Yes or No.

Egypt does not rule over other nations.  Egg on your face.

 

4.  You are missing the point completely.  Your Spiderman comparison doesn't hold water.  Epic Fail!

 

5.  Looks like I win on this point then.

 

6.  I have no problem accepting that false evidence can be presented on my side of the fence.  Certainly there have been accounts of Noah's Ark being discovered which proved to be hoaxes.   I believe the sounds from hell youtube clip, while scary, is a hoax.  Sensationalism sells.

6. Sensationalism does sell - that must be why an eternal hell of punishment and an eternal heaven of bliss  has so many followers.

5. How do you win when we both agree? Multiple translations don't imply truth.

4. Your biblical archaeology is essentially "(x) exists so the Bible is wholly and completely true." Just what a fervent believer in the Wall-Crawler would say about Spidey.

3. The most damning proof that I have of Jesus not being the son of God is that he never made the claim. What have you got? On Egypt, controlling policy for many nations is rulership. Control doesn't stop at land. The prophecy said tyre was never to be rebuilt. Yet it still stands today after being destroyed. God still doesn't get away.

2. Why would a good christian like Hitler destroy the book he believed he was following? use a search engine for Hitler quotes. It's ironic that the best evidence you have for the Bible being destroyed comes from believers in the book.

1. You guys can't even agree on this among yourselves - http://www.brandplucked.webs.com/dssfiasco.htm

 

 

 

6.  Dumb pointless statement

 

5.  Multiple translations heightens the odds of error.   Yet our modern day Bible is remarkable close to old manuscripts.  That's a miracle from God.

 

4.   If the Bible is fiction, they should be finding artifacts which disprove the Bible.  Yet, discoveries are constantly being made which support the Bible. 

 

3.  If that's your best proof then you have a pretty weak case.  Jesus certainly did present himself as God.   In John 8:58, he shows that he has always existed.  In Matt 14:33, he doesn't disagree with the disciples when they declare that he is the son of God.  In Matthew 26:64 he says he sits on the right hand of God.  The notion that Jesus never declared himself as a deity is ridiculous.

 

2.  Are you really that narrow minded to believe that just because someone says they are a Christian, it makes them a Christian?  Hitler wanted to use religion as another agent of control and power.  If he truly had a relationship with Jesus Christ,  he would not have commited such monsterous acts.

 

1.  Not sure what your point is here.  The dead scrolls have been compared to the Bible and little difference was found.

6. In other words, it kicked you in the teeth. Face it, heaven and hell are sensationalism. Playing on that fear and promise works for Christianity.

5. The evidence stands against you.

4. Not my fauklt you have a low standard of evidence that accepts "Jerusalem exists so the Bible is all true" while skipping over Nazareth not existing during the time of Christ, Egyptians building pyramids duting the worldwide flood and the Babylonaians making beer while God created the universe.

3.  Jesus was a Pharasaic Jew and would never have said that he, a human, was God.  That was all Paul and his converts. 

2. All I have are his words and actions where he claimed to be doing God's work (Bible backs him up). I'm not privileged to have the magic God vision you have. Again, the evidence is against you. A relationship with Jesus makes you do worse things than Hitler could have dreamed (telling people in Africa condoms cayuse AIDS comes immediately to mind)

1. My point is that it depends on who you talk to. The guy who put up that site would disagree that the modern translations are close to the DSS (he's KJV only). Do you have a source for your claim or do you believe it for the same reason you believe your preacher buddy? 

"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