QUESTION FOR ATHEIST

questions
Theist
questions's picture
Posts: 49
Joined: 2007-02-10
User is offlineOffline
QUESTION FOR ATHEIST

How was the world created. I have heard 2 basic arguments. Out of nothing came this dust or these particles? Or this dust or particles always existed. Was wondering what you would say was the creation story?


AtheistInWonderland
RRS local affiliate
Posts: 80
Joined: 2006-07-25
User is offlineOffline
Leuthesius wrote: Uh...

Leuthesius wrote:
Uh... actually... something DOES come from nothing..

 No it doesn't.  A quote from the article you linked..

Quote:
The new particles are not really created from nothing, they are created from the available kinetic energy of the energetic particles that collide.


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Maybe you're taking that

Maybe you're taking that sentence out of context....


AtheistInWonderland
RRS local affiliate
Posts: 80
Joined: 2006-07-25
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote: Maybe

zarathustra wrote:
Maybe you're taking that sentence out of context....

 I checked again...nope Smiling


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
questions wrote: I watch a

questions wrote:
I watch a kid who is staring at a piece of candy he is not allowed to have. I know when no one is looking he is going to take that piece of candy. But I didn't make him take it.

But you didn't make the child, or give him a desire for the candy or the willingness to take it in the first place. Therefore you're not responsible.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Look, questions I think you

Look, questions I think you dont understand.

 

Matter cannot be created or destroyed. It is eternal and has always existed. Seeing as matter is merely the expression of condensed energy in the form of rotating 11 dimensional membranes of  oscillating electromagnetic current.

 NOT EVEN GOD CAN VIOLATE THE FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS
 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


questions
Theist
questions's picture
Posts: 49
Joined: 2007-02-10
User is offlineOffline
I'm no scientist but you

I'm no scientist but you have told me what I was looking for. I was looking for your explanation.

 

But to the question of could God violate the first law of thermodynamics, sure He could.  If God created it, He can defy it. 

Mod: Two-Day Timeout for Lying 3/23/2007


questions
Theist
questions's picture
Posts: 49
Joined: 2007-02-10
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: questions

Vastet wrote:
questions wrote:
I watch a kid who is staring at a piece of candy he is not allowed to have. I know when no one is looking he is going to take that piece of candy. But I didn't make him take it.
But you didn't make the child, or give him a desire for the candy or the willingness to take it in the first place. Therefore you're not responsible.

Once again God gave Adam choice. Once Adam sinned the desire for sin came into the world we got that from Adam.  We inherited  the desire for sin.

Mod: Two-Day Timeout for Lying 3/23/2007


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
questions wrote: Once

questions wrote:

Once again God gave Adam choice. Once Adam sinned the desire for sin came into the world we got that from Adam. We inherited the desire for sin.

 It never ends, I tell you.  It just never ends.  

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
But to the question of

But to the question of could God violate the first law of thermodynamics, sure He could. If God created it, He can defy it.

Not really. This is similiar to a philosophical debate "can God operate outside of logic"? Can God create square circles and invisible colors? Things which are inherent logical contradictions. Most theists say no. They usually say "God can do everything which is absolutely possible".

violating the first law of thermodynamics is absolutely impossible. Ex nihlo creation from nothing is essentially magic. One variation of the "uncaused cause" argument is that "no painting exists without a painter", and "no building exists without a builder". But according the creation, God created the universe from literally, what was physically nothing. Physical nothingness is a meaningless concept. Sort of like ether. It is not possible. Indeed, this raises another set of objections, namely: If God exists outside the realm of matter and space time (such would be a necessary requisite if God did indeed create the universe ex nihlo) then on what basis do we say God exists? If someone says "God exists outside of space, time and matter" it is a logical contradiction because "existance" is defined by space time and matter. So it is sort of like saying "God exists, but God does not exist".

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


questions
Theist
questions's picture
Posts: 49
Joined: 2007-02-10
User is offlineOffline
deludegod, an finite man can

deludegod, an finite man can not explain an infinite God. Plato use to say that the most real things are thoughts. God thought and said let their be light and it was. Let there be animals and there were. He thought it and it came to be. We are a creation of his thoughts and words. I would say it is much more logical to say that a supernatural being made nature. Oppose to say that nature made nature. Nature would say that things couldn't have existed forever. Newton says that for something to move their must be a mover. The mover must be God.

Mod: Two-Day Timeout for Lying 3/23/2007


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
questions wrote: deludegod,

questions wrote:
deludegod, an finite man can not explain an infinite God.

Then a finite man ought not to preach to other finite men about an infinite god which he himself cannot explain.

questions wrote:

God thought and said let their be light and it was. Let there be animals and there were. He thought it and it came to be.

What is this?  Didn't you just get done saying man can't explain god?   

questions wrote:

We are a creation of his thoughts and words. I would say it is much more logical to say that a supernatural being made nature.

You would be wrong.  It is not more logical to say that, as you are then obliged to explain what made the supernatural being.  And if you cleverly retort that the supernatural being was always there, you are obliged to explain why nature could not have always been there. 

questions wrote:
  Nature would say that things couldn't have existed forever.

Matter cannot be destroyed.  Matter will exist forever.  Not at all illogical to think that it has always existed. 

Not sure that Nature would say anything -- as to the best of my knowledge, Nature doesn't talk -- but if it could, it would say you're wrong.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
deludegod, an finite man

deludegod, an finite man can not explain an infinite God.

Really? Theists certianly think they can. They think the understand God so well they know what sex she is. They think they understand God so well that they have killed other people with other Gods for her.

Furthermore, I know this will sound extremely annoying, but infinite cannot be defined in the context of nonexistence (God outside of matter aka extramaterial) in fact, Im not sure it can be defined in the context of existence either. It is not meaningful in this context. It is another logical contradiction "God does not exist, but is infinite.

 Plato use to say that the most real things are thoughts.

 He was right. Everything around us is an illusion/experience created by our brains. 100 billion nuerons creating the feeling (or illusion) that we exist and are concious.

 God thought and said let their be light and it was.

Not possible. If there is one thing that definitely cannot be conjured up, it is light. Also, what makes you think God is sentient? (ie a thinking being)

 Let there be animals and there were.

 Actually, animal life comes from 700 million years of divergent evolution

 He thought it and it came to be.

You see! You think you understand God so well you know he has a penis? (That is the definition of "he&quotEye-wink

 We are a creation of his thoughts and words.

 Words? Who was he talking to? Himself?

 I would say it is much more logical to say that a supernatural being made nature.

You have failed to define "supernatural" which is concept which essentially means nonexistant, because you failed to give a definition of existance. I have already given a defintion, by which supernatural would be deemed nonexistent because it is inherently meaningless.

 Oppose to say that nature made nature. Nature would say that things couldn't have existed forever.

Meaningless concept. Time only exists if matter exists.

 Newton says that for something to move their must be a mover. The mover must be God.

Newton was a genius, but in the 17th century men were not quite up to speed on quantum physics. 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


NarcolepticSun
Posts: 108
Joined: 2007-02-18
User is offlineOffline
Since questions delivered

Since questions delivered such a senseless post - I do believe it is time for some comic relief via sarcasm and mockery:

questions wrote:
deludegod, an finite man can not explain an infinite God.


 That is because infinite God's don't exist. It is also most certainly proper English to use "an" before a descriptor beginning with a consonant.

Quote:
Plato use to say that the most real things are thoughts.


 All hail! The inerrant words of Plato! No one is fit to question this philosopher's philosophy from ages ago!

Quote:
God thought and said let their be light and it was. Let there be animals and there were. He thought it and it came to be. We are a creation of his thoughts and words.


 Oh! Yeah! Story time... let me get the pillow...

Quote:
I would say it is much more logical to say that a supernatural being made nature.


 After all - Supernature and Nature are damn near identical in every way!

Quote:
Oppose to say that nature made nature.


 Because nature OBVIOUSLY had a maker. Nature was probably baked at 400 degrees for a year... damn near got burnt to a crisp...

Quote:
Nature would say that things couldn't have existed forever.


 Nature is talking again? dammit... get the exhorcist! Since nature, apparently, has a mouth - i want to know - does she give good head?

Quote:
Newton says that for something to move their must be a mover. The mover must be God.


...Or the energizer bunny!

---
Alrighty - I have to take the seriousness out of this crap... laughing is more fun.


RationalSchema
RationalSchema's picture
Posts: 358
Joined: 2007-02-12
User is offlineOffline
I have two questions and

I have two questions and one statement about your question.

Questions

1. Why did the universe have to be created? Created implying that there was an intention by something to make something else.

2. How does any flaw in an atheist view of the origins of the universe equate to evidence for the Judeo-Christian creation story?

Statement:

1. Time is a man made construct.

"Those who think they know don't know. Those that know they don't know, know."


questions
Theist
questions's picture
Posts: 49
Joined: 2007-02-10
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod

deludedgod wrote:

deludegod, an finite man can not explain an infinite God.

Really? Theists certianly think they can. They think the understand God so well they know what sex she is. They think they understand God so well that they have killed other people with other Gods for her.

Ah, but God has revealed Himself through scripture. If it were not for the Bible I would have no answers to who God is. And if I were to tell you that God was infinite because the Bible said He was, I think I might get some kind of sarcastic response.

As to the sex of God, most would say He has no human form. Christ did and He was a man and He called God the Father (male). God also called Himself a He. So it's not like the male chauvinists came up with it. The Bible was written in human terms. And He is a personal being so He didn't call Himself an "it" or come up with some other way of refering to Himself.

deludedgod wrote:

Plato use to say that the most real things are thoughts.

He was right. Everything around us is an illusion/experience created by our brains. 100 billion nuerons creating the feeling (or illusion) that we exist and are concious.

I'll remember that next time I stubb my toe. It's merely an illusion.

deludedgod wrote:

God thought and said let their be light and it was.

Not possible. If there is one thing that definitely cannot be conjured up, it is light. Also, what makes you think God is sentient? (ie a thinking being)

Are you saying a God could maybe make the world and the anmals, the dna in your body give everyone there own design down to their own finger prints. He could make the atoms that make up the world, and the stars in the sky. But He could never make light. If God is the creator then He can create anything he likes.

deludedgod wrote:

Let there be animals and there were.

Actually, animal life comes from 700 million years of divergent evolution

Of course we disagree on this matter, but its not the point.

deludedgod wrote:

We are a creation of his thoughts and words.

Words? Who was he talking to? Himself?

Most would say the Trinity. The 3 were talking. But also the Bible was written in human terms. We can use telepathy to see what God was thinking.

deludedgod wrote:

I would say it is much more logical to say that a supernatural being made nature.

You have failed to define "supernatural" which is concept which essentially means nonexistant, because you failed to give a definition of existance. I have already given a defintion, by which supernatural would be deemed nonexistent because it is inherently meaningless.

su·per·nat·u·ral ('pər-năch'ər-əl) pronunciation
adj.

  1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
  2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
  3. Of or relating to a deity.
  4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
  5. Of or relating to the miraculous.

WWW.Answers.com

If you are trying to define God by existing by natural laws, you would say that there is no God. But if you can see He is outside of nature, then you would say He doesn't have to live by the laws of science that we know.

deludedgod wrote:

Oppose to say that nature made nature. Nature would say that things couldn't have existed forever.

Meaningless concept. Time only exists if matter exists.

Newton says that for something to move their must be a mover. The mover must be God.

Newton was a genius, but in the 17th century men were not quite up to speed on quantum physics.

And if we make it to the 24th century they will be saying the same thing about the scientist today. If Christ comes back before then, it probably won't be a topic of debate.

Mod: Two-Day Timeout for Lying 3/23/2007


questions
Theist
questions's picture
Posts: 49
Joined: 2007-02-10
User is offlineOffline
RationalSchema wrote: I

RationalSchema wrote:

I have two questions and one statement about your question.

Questions

1. Why did the universe have to be created? Created implying that there was an intention by something to make something else.

I have never sat down and talked with an Atheist I did not know that some held a view that it wasn't created. Now I know.  

RationalSchema wrote:

2. How does any flaw in an atheist view of the origins of the universe equate to evidence for the Judeo-Christian creation story?

It doesn't, but it makes people seek for the truth.  

RationalSchema wrote:
 

Statement:

1. Time is a man made construct.

 

It's strange that the day is always 24 hours and that we always have the 4 seasons at around the same time each year.

Although I will try this one on my boss next time I'm late.  

Mod: Two-Day Timeout for Lying 3/23/2007


RationalSchema
RationalSchema's picture
Posts: 358
Joined: 2007-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Yup and this is based on

Yup and this is based on science. The way the earth spins and moves around the sun determines the time the sun comes up and the seasons. No mystical reasoning here. Did you know that days and years last longer on planets farther from the sun?? How could that be?

Again, we could have made up any unit of time and weather it is 24  18.5, or 365 of something. Time has nothing to do with the son rising and falling and the seasons. It has to do with where the earth is on it's axis and it's place in orbit around the sun. Which, yes, may take a matter of time. An amount of time that we made up and called it minutes, seconds, and hours.

"Those who think they know don't know. Those that know they don't know, know."


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
With all due respect, I'm

With all due respect, I'm sensing a case of St. Michael syndrome ("Most would say"..."revealed through scripture"...)

 

questions wrote:

Ah, but God has revealed Himself through scripture. If it were not for the Bible I would have no answers to who God is.

Agreed. And even with the bible, you have no answers to who god is. Until you demonstrate why the bible is trustworthy, it should be treated as nothing more than a piece of fiction alongside the qu'ran and Harry Potter. And please don't say the bible is true because it's inspired by god. You cannot simultaneously say that the bible proves god, and that god proves the bible is true.

questions wrote:
And if I were to tell you that God was infinite because the Bible said He was, I think I might get some kind of sarcastic response.

I'll see to it personally that you do.

questions wrote:
As to the sex of God, most would say He has no human form.

First of all: "...most would say..." is a worthless phrase to use. It in no way advances the truthfulness of your statement. Kindly discontinue its use.

questions wrote:
Christ did and He was a man and He called God the Father (male). God also called Himself a He. So it's not like the male chauvinists came up with it. The Bible was written in human terms. And He is a personal being so He didn't call Himself an "it" or come up with some other way of refering to Himself.

So he is a male. Does he have the appropriate male anatomy?  If so, is it infinitely long?

questions wrote:

Plato use to say that the most real things are thoughts.

Quote:
He was right. Everything around us is an illusion/experience created by our brains. 100 billion nuerons creating the feeling (or illusion) that we exist and are concious.

I'll remember that next time I stubb my toe. It's merely an illusion.

Remember that also the next time you pray to god and nothing happens.

questions wrote:

deludedgod wrote:

We are a creation of his thoughts and words.

Words? Who was he talking to? Himself?

Most would say the Trinity.

See above about "...most would say...". Just consider that a thousand years ago, most would say the earth is flat.

questions wrote:
The 3 were talking.

So there are 3 gods, not one.

questions wrote:
But also the Bible was written in human terms. We can use telepathy to see what God was thinking.

TELEPATHY?!?!!!

questions wrote:

deludedgod wrote:

Newton says that for something to move their must be a mover. The mover must be God.

Newton was a genius, but in the 17th century men were not quite up to speed on quantum physics.

And if we make it to the 24th century they will be saying the same thing about the scientist today.

But right now in the 21st century, using Newton's laws to "prove" god is nothing short of inane.

questions wrote:
If Christ comes back before then, it probably won't be a topic of debate.

Don't worry. He won't.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


questions
Theist
questions's picture
Posts: 49
Joined: 2007-02-10
User is offlineOffline
When i said "most would say"

When i said "most would say" I am talking about Bible scholars. A lot like when you use evidence by other scientist. You usually take the majority view. Usually.

 

And to the 3 Gods question, I think you are just picking a fight. Being the kind of site this is and you being involved in it I'm sure you have heard about the Trinity. 

Mod: Two-Day Timeout for Lying 3/23/2007


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Ah, but God has revealed

Ah, but God has revealed Himself through scripture. If it were not for the Bible I would have no answers to who God is. And if I were to tell you that God was infinite because the Bible said He was, I think I might get some kind of sarcastic response.

I do not see any evidence that the scripture is anything but worthless mythology. Please provide evidence that scripture is valid (and don't quote bible verses, here we call that reasoning in a circle)

As to the sex of God, most would say He has no human form. Christ did and He was a man and He called God the Father (male). God also called Himself a He. So it's not like the male chauvinists came up with it. The Bible was written in human terms. And He is a personal being so He didn't call Himself an "it" or come up with some other way of refering to Himself.

If you admit God has no human form you have just admitted he is sexless. The Bible (and the Quran, and the Torah) were written by male chauvanistic cultures. I suggest you study Feuerbach philiosophy. God should be called "it". You are once again reasoning in a circle: Calling upon scripture to validate itself, because the only "evidence" we have for these myths you post is scripture.

 

Are you saying a God could maybe make the world and the anmals, the dna in your body give everyone there own design down to their own finger prints. He could make the atoms that make up the world, and the stars in the sky. But He could never make light. If God is the creator then He can create anything he likes.

 

Are you saying a God could maybe make the world and the anmals, the dna in your body give everyone there own design down to their own finger prints. He could make the atoms that make up the world, and the stars in the sky. But He could never make light. If God is the creator then He can create anything he likes.

No. I am saying God did not create anything. Nothing at all. I was merely pointing out that creating light is especially impossible due to physics. Theists are more or less relying on magical ex nihlo in this sense.

Most would say the Trinity. The 3 were talking. But also the Bible was written in human terms. We can use telepathy to see what God was thinking.

Sounds to me like you are just reasoning in a circle again. Furthermore, the trinity is pure myth. Simply made up out of thin air in 400AD by Roman authorities trying to impose Christianity in the midst of the Byzantine split. The Christians needed to appease the pagans, so the inserted the pagan trinity mythology into the Christian monotheism.

 

  1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
  2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
  3. Of or relating to a deity.
  4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
  5. Of or relating to the miraculous.

 

You see! The only definitions you can give for the supernatural are some vague meaningless negatives! Beyond natural forces refers to outside of space, time and matter, and as I told you three times, such a concept is inherently meaningless and self-contradictory. Supernatural is a realm that exists only in the mind of the delusional. It literally means "outside of existence". It has no verifiable, emipiracal basis in reality, because if it did then ipso facto it would be natural. It is meaningless.

Furthermore, if God is supposedly so mysterious and "outside of nature" then by the same definition above, it means the concept is not verifiable, not emprical, not demonstrable, and relies on a logical fallacy known as Loki's wager (a concept cannont be defined ergo cannot be discussed). This is because all you can give are some vague, self-contradictory, meaningless definitions about a realm that does not exist.

And if we make it to the 24th century they will be saying the same thing about the scientist today. If Christ comes back before then, it probably won't be a topic of debate.

"if Christ comes back before then?" I swear it never ends. It just never ends. How many times over the past 2000 years has Christ be prophecized to return? He is long dead. He has been dead for 2000 years. He is not coming back.

 

Of course we disagree on this matter, but its not the point.

What's your take? Intelligent Design? Old Earth Creationism? Young Earth creationism? I'd be happy to debate evolution with you if you wish to discuss it in another thread.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


NarcolepticSun
Posts: 108
Joined: 2007-02-18
User is offlineOffline
questions wrote:

questions wrote:

Ah, but God has revealed Himself through scripture. If it were not for the Bible I would have no answers to who God is. And if I were to tell you that God was infinite because the Bible said He was, I think I might get some kind of sarcastic response.

As to the sex of God, most would say He has no human form. Christ did and He was a man and He called God the Father (male). God also called Himself a He. So it's not like the male chauvinists came up with it. The Bible was written in human terms. And He is a personal being so He didn't call Himself an "it" or come up with some other way of refering to Himself.


God has revealed himself through scripture? What makes you think the scripture is most certainly the word of a deity? The bible is political propaganda from Constantine and Eusebuis.

questions wrote:
deludedgod wrote:


Plato use to say that the most real things are thoughts.

He was right. Everything around us is an illusion/experience created by our brains. 100 billion nuerons creating the feeling (or illusion) that we exist and are concious.



I'll remember that next time I stubb my toe. It's merely an illusion.


I say plato is just a philosophe (like myself) - however - more than 90% of your experience is generated by your mind. Your sense organs only capture a fraction of what your brain is interpreting... you mind generates the overall majority of what you see/hear/taste/touch/smell.

Quote:
Are you saying a God could maybe make the world and the anmals, the dna in your body give everyone there own design down to their own finger prints. He could make the atoms that make up the world, and the stars in the sky. But He could never make light. If God is the creator then He can create anything he likes.


Yay! Another backward-logical appeal to ignorance.

Quote:
Of course we disagree on this matter, but its not the point.


What isn't the disagreement the entirety of the reason for this discussion?

Quote:
Most would say the Trinity. The 3 were talking. But also the Bible was written in human terms. We can use telepathy to see what God was thinking.


Telepathy?!?! Please step away from the bong...

Quote:
su·per·nat·u·ral (sū'pər-năch'ər-əl) pronunciation
adj.

1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
3. Of or relating to a deity.
4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
5. Of or relating to the miraculous.

WWW.Answers.com

If you are trying to define God by existing by natural laws, you would say that there is no God. But if you can see He is outside of nature, then you would say He doesn't have to live by the laws of science that we know.


The reason why we desire natural explanation is because the entire realm of the supernatural is a realm of fantasy that does not truely exist. If god does exist - then he must be a product of or at least part of nature. If god is outside nature, entirely - then he DOES NOT EXIST.

Everything that exists IS a part of nature. Simply because something cannot be currently explained - does not make such a thing "supernatural" it simply means it is a natural phenomena that has an unkown explanation.

Quote:
And if we make it to the 24th century they will be saying the same thing about the scientist today. If Christ comes back before then, it probably won't be a topic of debate.


Is this relevant? Get a clue! Science is pointing nowhere near the direction of validating the alleged existence of God! The more we get into science - the further it takes us away from such silly ideas.

Christ coming back? OH! don't make me laugh!


questions
Theist
questions's picture
Posts: 49
Joined: 2007-02-10
User is offlineOffline
If you do not believe in

If you do not believe in God, then why are arguing where I get my evidence for the sex of God or any other evidence of God. God calls Himself a He because "it" is not personal. Christ called Him the Father. Christ was a man.

As to the Trinity, Jesus called Himself God, He called the Father God. So right there you see 2. It is not like they changed the Bible in 400 A.D. What silly statement made out of a lack of understading of Christian history.

The definition I gave:   I typed "supernatural" in google and that was the definition that came up. It was exactly what I thought it would be. Something outside of nature. Not contradictory.

And anybody that prophises the date of the coming of Christ is a fool. No one knows. He said it will be like a thief in the night. 

And I am a young earth creationist, of course.  

Mod: Two-Day Timeout for Lying 3/23/2007


kmisho
kmisho's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-08-18
User is offlineOffline
questions wrote:If you do

questions wrote:

If you do not believe in God, then why are arguing where I get my evidence for the sex of God or any other evidence of God. God calls Himself a He because "it" is not personal. Christ called Him the Father. Christ was a man.

As to the Trinity, Jesus called Himself God, He called the Father God. So right there you see 2. It is not like they changed the Bible in 400 A.D. What silly statement made out of a lack of understading of Christian history.

The definition I gave:   I typed "supernatural" in google and that was the definition that came up. It was exactly what I thought it would be. Something outside of nature. Not contradictory.

And anybody that prophises the date of the coming of Christ is a fool. No one knows. He said it will be like a thief in the night. 

And I am a young earth creationist, of course.  

There was never nothing. So there has never been a need for anything to come from it.

Nothing (no Thing) is outside of nature. To reword, in order for a something to be called a "thing" iT must be part of nature. God is nothing in exactly the same sense. Again, to call god supernatural is to say that he does not exist because it's the same as saying that god is not a thing.

If you're a young earther, YOU have no understanding of Christian history. Bishop Ussher counted up all the generations of the bible to arrive at the young earth number. But nowhere in the bible does it say all those generations listed are totally continuous. The implication that it does is not Biblical. It's Ussherian. And all young earthers are therefore idolaters because they worship Ussher more than they worship the Bible or even their own ability to read the bible for themselves!


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
The definition I gave: I

The definition I gave: I typed "supernatural" in google and that was the definition that came up. It was exactly what I thought it would be. Something outside of nature. Not contradictory.

It is contradictory because only negative definitions can be given. Supernatural, being only defined by qualities such as "outside of such and such", "a substance which lacks such and such". The realm described by the supernatural is self-contradictory because it is synonomyous with nonexistent. If it could be verified to exist, it would be called natural. I just thought you could figure it ou yourself. If you admit God is supernatural then God does not exist. If you admit God exists, it must be natural ergo it would be finitely contained by space time and matter, and thus would not be God QED. But if such a being were, it would be empirically verifiable. It is not. How much philosophy have you bothered to study.

And anybody that prophises the date of the coming of Christ is a fool. No one knows. He said it will be like a thief in the night.

I did not prophecise the date. He is not coming back.

And I am a young earth creationist, of course.

You know, it is not an "of course" thing. Not everyone here is American. Outisde of the US, no one takes creationist garbage seriously. Thankfully, people like you make up a tiny minority. So don't say of course. I'd love to see what you would say to the evidence assembled from biochemistry, geology, petrology, paleontology, molecular biology, astrophysics and indeed every field of science. If you wish to debate this with us, the scientists on this forum (of which I am one) will crush you.

 

I love the way you called us having " a creation story". We base our "creation story" on theoretical physics, universal constants, Stephen Hawking's ultra-accelerative universe theory

you think God created the heavens in one day (the first day)? Let me tell you how unimpressive that is: At the moment of mathematical singularity whereby time approaches an asymptote along the x-y axis graph of space time, the ultra-compression and electromagnetic formation of energy/matter constants happened in a single planck second (0.000 followed by 35 zeroes then a one) the universal expansion, which blasted outwards with such extreme momentum that instead of collapsing on itself, it expanded, and continues to do so in less than one trillionth of a trillionth of a second.

I'll remember that next time I stubb my toe. It's merely an illusion.

Pain is merely a survival instinct handed down over evolution to keep us alive. It is an illusion, it is the generation of an electric current through a voltage-gated ion channel across motor neurons to produce an effect of ion flux that we call "pain" when in fact it is merely ultra-excitabiliy stimulation of sensitive motor neurons. It is nothing but electrical effect of neuretransmission. So yeah, it is an illusion.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


questions
Theist
questions's picture
Posts: 49
Joined: 2007-02-10
User is offlineOffline
kmisho wrote:

kmisho wrote:

If you're a young earther, YOU have no understanding of Christian history. Bishop Ussher counted up all the generations of the bible to arrive at the young earth number. But nowhere in the bible does it say all those generations listed are totally continuous. The implication that it does is not Biblical. It's Ussherian. And all young earthers are therefore idolaters because they worship Ussher more than they worship the Bible or even their own ability to read the bible for themselves!

Actually it is you that does not understand Christian history or the Bible. The Bible does have a complete list of years between Adam and Jesus. You have to search through the Bible to get the dates. In my Bible classes I have seen it and how they prove it. It is all in the Bible. Which the Bible says the world is about 6500 years old.

Mod: Two-Day Timeout for Lying 3/23/2007


questions
Theist
questions's picture
Posts: 49
Joined: 2007-02-10
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote: It is

deludedgod wrote:

It is contradictory because only negative definitions can be given. Supernatural, being only defined by qualities such as "outside of such and such", "a substance which lacks such and such". The realm described by the supernatural is self-contradictory because it is synonomyous with nonexistent. If it could be verified to exist, it would be called natural.

 

Actually it is not contradictory. It does not mean nonexistant it means it is something that you can not difine. It is outside of nature.

deludedgod wrote:

You know, it is not an "of course" thing. Not everyone here is American. Outisde of the US, no one takes creationist garbage seriously. Thankfully, people like you make up a tiny minority. So don't say of course. I'd love to see what you would say to the evidence assembled from biochemistry, geology, petrology, paleontology, molecular biology, astrophysics and indeed every field of science. If you wish to debate this with us, the scientists on this forum (of which I am one) will crush you.

 

Actually most Christians do believe in a Young Earth Creation. Even outside of this country. If you take a literal interpretation of the Bible then you would say that the earth is about 6500 years old. I do know PHD Scientist who are young earth creationist. But I am no scientist so crushing me would be no big deal.  

Mod: Two-Day Timeout for Lying 3/23/2007


NarcolepticSun
Posts: 108
Joined: 2007-02-18
User is offlineOffline
questions wrote: ...the

questions wrote:

...the Bible says the world is about 6500 years old.

Oh, excuse us! Ahem... the BIBLE does not understand history or science. Tongue out


rexlunae
rexlunae's picture
Posts: 378
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
questions wrote:Actually

questions wrote:
Actually most Christians do believe in a Young Earth Creation. Even outside of this country. If you take a literal interpretation of the Bible then you would say that the earth is about 6500 years old.

The Roman Catholic Church has officially accepted the theory of evolution, so that's more than a billion Christians that don't. That's more than any other denomination. Lutherans, and Anglicans don't support the "literal" interpretation you're using either. And I would imagine some of the more moderate Christians don't either.

questions wrote:
I do know PHD Scientist who are young earth creationist.

Given some of the Ph.D.s that I know, I don't find that surprising. I've even met a geologist who believes in both young earth creationism and geological time, by compartmentalizing them, and he freely admits they cannot both be true. But such anecdotal examples don't contradict the biology, geology, and cosmology that prove very definitively that the Earth is much older than 6500 years. In fact, there is history dating back early than that. For instance, the Sumerians began practicing agriculture 3000 years earlier.

Believing the world is anything like 6500 years is ridiculously absurd. It's no less absurd than believing that the moon is made of cheese or the sun is a blazing chariot.

It's only the fairy tales they believe.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Actually it is not

Actually it is not contradictory. It does not mean nonexistant it means it is something that you can not difine. It is outside of nature.

Thank you for admitting it is outside of nature. Now, by that definition QED, you have admitted God cannot be verified to exist, so why believe God exists?

Actually most Christians do believe in a Young Earth Creation. Even outside of this country. If you take a literal interpretation of the Bible then you would say that the earth is about 6500 years old. I do know PHD Scientist who are young earth creationist. But I am no scientist so crushing me would be no big deal.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Perhaps in the United States, a nation inhabited by dim-witted individuals where I thankfully do not live, a lot of Christians accept Young Earth because they are stupid. However, the Roman Catholic Church has officially accepted evolution, and that makes up 1.1 billion Christians. Furthermore, every creationist website is attached to a US domain. There are none outside of America. Please educate yourself in global affair, you twit.

Also, I'd just love the names of those PhDs, and if they got their doctarates in science or not.

I see you failed to respond to my comment about how the universe was created or the pain mechanism.

You wish for me to crush you? Try and answer the two questions in the short post I wrote:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/5465

Of course you will not be able to answer it because you are not a scientist. As such, you have no right to comment on the age of the earth because you have no idea. Please educate yourself and spare yourself from embaressment

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote: ...the

deludedgod wrote:
...the United States, a nation inhabited by dim-witted individuals where I thankfully do not live...

LOL...so this is what religion does to our image in the world.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


questions
Theist
questions's picture
Posts: 49
Joined: 2007-02-10
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote: Thank

deludedgod wrote:

Thank you for admitting it is outside of nature. Now, by that definition QED, you have admitted God cannot be verified to exist, so why believe God exists?

Why believe, because I don't want to rot in Hell for the rest of eternity

deludedgod wrote:

You have no idea what you are talking about. Perhaps in the United States, a nation inhabited by dim-witted individuals where I thankfully do not live, a lot of Christians accept Young Earth because they are stupid. However, the Roman Catholic Church has officially accepted evolution, and that makes up 1.1 billion Christians. Furthermore, every creationist website is attached to a US domain. There are none outside of America. Please educate yourself in global affair, you twit.

 

 

A lot Christians accept a Young Earth because they believe in the Bible. The Roman Catholic Church does not take the Bible literaly. It was founded on the Bible but now it has moved away from it which is sad. And I don't understand why you would be a rude jerk and call me a twit. I don't find you intelligent I find you to be rude and arrogant.

 

Mod: Two-Day Timeout for Lying 3/23/2007


Conn_in_Brooklyn
Conn_in_Brooklyn's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2006-12-04
User is offlineOffline
questions wrote: It's

questions wrote:
It's strange that the day is always 24 hours and that we always have the 4 seasons at around the same time each year.

Although I will try this one on my boss next time I'm late.  

Why are theists often so egocentric?  Questions, ask someone is Fairbanks, Alaska or Siberia if a day is always 24 hours long ... or ask someone who lives in Equatorial Guinea if there are 4 seasons.  You need to think outside of the narrow box that would posit something that shallow ...

I'm off myspace.com so you can only find me here: http://geoffreymgolia.blogspot.com


rexlunae
rexlunae's picture
Posts: 378
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
questions wrote: Why

questions wrote:
Why believe, because I don't want to rot in Hell for the rest of eternity

I love fear-based systems. They just inspire so much honesty.

[/sarcasm]

questions wrote:
A lot Christians accept a Young Earth because they believe in the Bible. The Roman Catholic Church does not take the Bible literaly. It was founded on the Bible but now it has moved away from it which is sad. And I don't understand why you would be a rude jerk and call me a twit. I don't find you intelligent I find you to be rude and arrogant.

The Roman Catholic Church does not claim to be Bible-based. They have always based their claims on the authority of the church.

It's only the fairy tales they believe.


questions
Theist
questions's picture
Posts: 49
Joined: 2007-02-10
User is offlineOffline
Conn_in_Brooklyn

Conn_in_Brooklyn wrote:
questions wrote:
It's strange that the day is always 24 hours and that we always have the 4 seasons at around the same time each year.

Although I will try this one on my boss next time I'm late.

Why are theists often so egocentric? Questions, ask someone is Fairbanks, Alaska or Siberia if a day is always 24 hours long ... or ask someone who lives in Equatorial Guinea if there are 4 seasons. You need to think outside of the narrow box that would posit something that shallow ...

24 hrs and 4 seasons is true for most of the world not just the country I live in.  

Mod: Two-Day Timeout for Lying 3/23/2007


questions
Theist
questions's picture
Posts: 49
Joined: 2007-02-10
User is offlineOffline
rexlunae wrote:

rexlunae wrote:
questions wrote:
Why believe, because I don't want to rot in Hell for the rest of eternity
I love fear-based systems. They just inspire so much honesty. [/sarcasm]
questions wrote:
A lot Christians accept a Young Earth because they believe in the Bible. The Roman Catholic Church does not take the Bible literaly. It was founded on the Bible but now it has moved away from it which is sad. And I don't understand why you would be a rude jerk and call me a twit. I don't find you intelligent I find you to be rude and arrogant.
The Roman Catholic Church does not claim to be Bible-based. They have always based their claims on the authority of the church.

acutally the apostles teaching is the basis for the church. They claim that Peter started it and they hold to his and the other apostles teachings. In the 1500's some realized how far away they had went from the Bible so they broke off. Christianity starts with God and the Bible is God's word. The apostles believed that.

 

And the fear of God and his wrath is the beginning of wisdom.  

Mod: Two-Day Timeout for Lying 3/23/2007


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
questions wrote:

questions wrote:
It's strange that the day is always 24 hours and that we always have the 4 seasons at around the same time each year.

Yes, it's amazing there is 24 hours. How we retrofit the day as 24 hours.

But you seem to ignore that our calander isn't up to scratch (Every fourth year needs an extra day), or the fact that the earth is getting slower (Thus will obsolete the 24 hours).

rexlunae wrote:
questions wrote:
Why believe, because I don't want to rot in Hell for the rest of eternity
I love fear-based systems. They just inspire so much honesty. [/sarcasm]

Be afraid of things you don't believe in. Honestly questions you sound as if god is a drug.

 

*is reminded of a story that he once thought up of.*

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
questions wrote: Why

questions wrote:

Why believe, because I don't want to rot in Hell for the rest of eternity

How do you know you will rot in hell for not believing?  How do you even know there is a hell?  How do you know you won't rot in Allah's hell or Cthulu's hell for not beliving in them?  

questions wrote:
 

A lot Christians accept a Young Earth because they believe in the Bible.

And if they were to second-guess the bible's dating of the earth (in the face of overwhelming evidence contrary to a young earth), they would also have to second-guess the bible's stance on god and jesus.  And since they can't let go of jesus, they can't let go of any other illogical belief spewed by the bible. 

questions wrote:
The Roman Catholic Church does not take the Bible literaly. It was founded on the Bible but now it has moved away from it which is sad.

And yet centuries after the reformation, the catholic church has more members than all other 'christian' denominations combined.  Strange.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


triften
atheist
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
questions wrote: Why

questions wrote:

Why believe, because I don't want to rot in Hell for the rest of eternity

Pascal's wager has landed.

 

Also, you claim that the Bible is the word of god. This requires proving that God exists (which you've prevented yourself from doing by putting god outside of nature) AND proving that the Bible is actually divinely inspired.

Evidence that the Bible was written by ignorant men thousands of years ago lies on the first page of the OT. One the first day god makes night and day but he doesn't make the sun until the fourth day. Why is that? Perhaps because its authors thought the sun was just a few feet across and nothing special?

-Triften 


questions
Theist
questions's picture
Posts: 49
Joined: 2007-02-10
User is offlineOffline
triften wrote: questions

triften wrote:
questions wrote:

Why believe, because I don't want to rot in Hell for the rest of eternity

Pascal's wager has landed.

 

Also, you claim that the Bible is the word of god. This requires proving that God exists (which you've prevented yourself from doing by putting god outside of nature) AND proving that the Bible is actually divinely inspired.

Evidence that the Bible was written by ignorant men thousands of years ago lies on the first page of the OT. One the first day god makes night and day but he doesn't make the sun until the fourth day. Why is that? Perhaps because its authors thought the sun was just a few feet across and nothing special?

-Triften

 

Jesus quoted the OT so He believed in it. I believe in Jesus. You don't, but if you're asking why I belive the Bible is the inspired word of God, this is my reasoning. It's been around for thousands of years, and it has lasted through many different theories of how this earth began. I don't expect you to believe but I was explaining why I believe. Science says things can't be proven or disproven. There is no real thing as proof. Yet many scientist claim they know there is no God. Thus making all arguments theories.

This is all I will say in this thread. I only wanted to learn why Atheist believe what they believe. Don't ever judge Christianity by Christians, judge it by Christ. I pray that all come to Christ, sorry for your bad experiences with Christians, but we all aren't bad. I pray for you all. 

Mod: Two-Day Timeout for Lying 3/23/2007


triften
atheist
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
questions wrote:   Jesus

questions wrote:
 

Jesus quoted the OT so He believed in it. I believe in Jesus. You don't, but if you're asking why I belive the Bible is the inspired word of God, this is my reasoning. It's been around for thousands of years, and it has lasted through many different theories of how this earth began. I don't expect you to believe but I was explaining why I believe. Science says things can't be proven or disproven. There is no real thing as proof. Yet many scientist claim they know there is no God. Thus making all arguments theories.

And taking the reasoning back one step, why do you believe in Jesus?

So the reason you believe in God is because it's the best explanation for how the earth was created? "We don't know, therefore God did it"? If this is true, how do you jump from that to Jesus was the son of god?

No real thing as proof? Seems a tad nihilistic to me.

 

questions wrote:

This is all I will say in this thread. I only wanted to learn why Atheist believe what they believe. Don't ever judge Christianity by Christians, judge it by Christ. I pray that all come to Christ, sorry for your bad experiences with Christians, but we all aren't bad. I pray for you all.

I have no belief in a god because I don't think believing things without evidence is a good way to go about life. It destroys the possibility for rational discourse and leads to violence and suffering. 

Jesus never condemned slavery and, in fact, gave advice on proper treatment of slaves (and it wasn't "Let them go&quotEye-wink, so I think he was a bit of a jerk. 

-Triften 


kmisho
kmisho's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-08-18
User is offlineOffline
questions wrote: kmisho

questions wrote:
kmisho wrote:

If you're a young earther, YOU have no understanding of Christian history. Bishop Ussher counted up all the generations of the bible to arrive at the young earth number. But nowhere in the bible does it say all those generations listed are totally continuous. The implication that it does is not Biblical. It's Ussherian. And all young earthers are therefore idolaters because they worship Ussher more than they worship the Bible or even their own ability to read the bible for themselves!

Actually it is you that does not understand Christian history or the Bible. The Bible does have a complete list of years between Adam and Jesus. You have to search through the Bible to get the dates. In my Bible classes I have seen it and how they prove it. It is all in the Bible. Which the Bible says the world is about 6500 years old.

You can hardly be expected to get an impartial viewof this question in a bible class. You function in a biased realm and of course you are going to get bias.

You are quite wrong.

Human civilization is 'about' 6500 years old. The thing that people 3000 OR LESS years ago writing the bible didn't know is that the earth had been around for billions of years before WE came along. As such, it's no surprise just how wrong they were about this.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
questions wrote: Vastet

questions wrote:

Vastet wrote:
questions wrote:
I watch a kid who is staring at a piece of candy he is not allowed to have. I know when no one is looking he is going to take that piece of candy. But I didn't make him take it.
But you didn't make the child, or give him a desire for the candy or the willingness to take it in the first place. Therefore you're not responsible.

Once again God gave Adam choice. Once Adam sinned the desire for sin came into the world we got that from Adam.  We inherited  the desire for sin.

You cannot inherit a desire. And we do not desire your definition of sin. Most people don't. Your whole argument collapses on itself at every turn.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


questions
Theist
questions's picture
Posts: 49
Joined: 2007-02-10
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:

Vastet wrote:
You cannot inherit a desire. And we do not desire your definition of sin. Most people don't. Your whole argument collapses on itself at every turn.

Everyone has the desires that the Bible says we shouldn't have. I am what the world would call a very nice and good person. But I sin constantly. My mind wanders. And there are many things that I don't do that I want to do. It is completely logical. Now some would say that the Bible gives standards that can not be held up. And their right. Christians say we inherited that from Adam, a non-believer I would guess would say that it isn't sin, it's nature. Sin isn't just murder or stealing. It's have you ever lusted after another person. Have you ever told a lie. I don't think anybody has ever went through life without doing these things.

Mod: Two-Day Timeout for Lying 3/23/2007


questions
Theist
questions's picture
Posts: 49
Joined: 2007-02-10
User is offlineOffline
kmisho wrote: You can

kmisho wrote:

You can hardly be expected to get an impartial viewof this question in a bible class. You function in a biased realm and of course you are going to get bias.

You are quite wrong.

Human civilization is 'about' 6500 years old. The thing that people 3000 OR LESS years ago writing the bible didn't know is that the earth had been around for billions of years before WE came along. As such, it's no surprise just how wrong they were about this.

The question was does the Bible have a list of dates from Adam to Jesus and I said "yes". No bias about that, it really says that in the Bible. And I disagree with you about the age of the Earth. I didn't think that evolutionist had human life start only 6500 years ago. I thought they said it was much longer than that. Theory after Theory has come and gone about the beginnings, but the Bible remains the same. That doesn't make it right becuase it's old, but don't ever claim that science can't be wrong. I believe most scientist have this one wrong. 

Mod: Two-Day Timeout for Lying 3/23/2007


rexlunae
rexlunae's picture
Posts: 378
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
questions wrote:And I

questions wrote:
I didn't think that evolutionist had human life start only 6500 years ago. I thought they said it was much longer than that.

Human civilization is not nearly as old as human life.

questions wrote:
Theory after Theory has come and gone about the beginnings, but the Bible remains the same.

Yeah, the Bible hasn't changed much in the last 400 years. But rigid adherence to disproven (and never-proven) theories doesn't make for clear understanding. By the same logic, we should hold the works of Plato to be more accurate than the Bible. After all, they haven't changed either.

questions wrote:
I believe most scientist have this one wrong. 

Why? Because of your deep scientific understanding, or your faith in a book that couldn't even state a beginning before the invention of agriculture. Science may conceivably be wrong about the age of the Earth, but 6500 years is so far off that it can only be entertained in a complete ignorance of science. It is orders of magnitude off. There is ample evidence that humans have existed much longer then that, and the Earth longer still, and no creationist has ever been able to offer a solid scientific refutation of any of it.

It's only the fairy tales they believe.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
What was the figure Richard

What was the figure Richard Dawkins gave for how big the error is claiming that the Earth is 6,000 yrs old? It was the distance between New York and LA - something like saying it was only a few feet.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Why believe, because I

Why believe, because I don't want to rot in Hell for the rest of eternity

That is the ultimate reasoning in a circle. There is no evidence that God exists because it is not a verifiable concept otherwise it would be self-contradictory or natural versus supernatural QED. Therefore, therefore is definitely no evidence that hell exists. Your leap of faith is colossal and astounding. Furthermore, you have essentially validated every objection I have ever had to religion. You have validated my claims that it is fear-based. You have validated my claims that people who believe are ignorant and cannot think for themselves. You have validated my claim that it is inherently self-subjugatory.

A lot Christians accept a Young Earth because they believe in the Bible. The Roman Catholic Church does not take the Bible literaly. It was founded on the Bible but now it has moved away from it which is sad.

Your first claim is dead wrong. There are 2.1 billion Christians. The Catholics accept evolution. So 1 billion left. The Orthodox Church does too. Do not argue with me about that as I have extensively travelled in Russia. The Greek/Slavic interpretation of the Bible and canonical texts is eloquent and sophisticated and they do not take the creation literally. There are 400 million Orthodox. That leaves 600 million Protestants. However, you still ignored my point that every creation website is attached to American domains. And even in America the figure is pinned somewhere at 40%, which is about 50 million people. That is 5% of Christianity.

Still think that "most Christians believe in creationism"?

And I don't understand why you would be a rude jerk and call me a twit. I don't find you intelligent I find you to be rude and arrogant.

Oh please. Don't be so condescending. You think I haven't put up with ridiculous shit like "atheists cant be moral" and "your all going to burn in hell". You don't think that offends me? If you say ridiculous things you will get insulted. Fucking deal with it!

And you completely ignored my link, my challenge, and my explanation of the universe, and the pain mechanism. So I will post them again and this time I Expect a response.

I love the way you called us having " a creation story". So ignorant. We base our "creation story" on theoretical physics, universal constants, in other words, evidence and science. I favor Stephen Hawking's ultra-accelerative universe theory

you think God created the heavens in one day (the first day)? Let me tell you how unimpressive that is: At the moment of mathematical singularity whereby time approaches an asymptote along the x-y axis graph of space time, the ultra-compression and electromagnetic formation of energy/matter constants happened in a single planck second (0.000 followed by 35 zeroes then a one) the universal expansion, which blasted outwards with such extreme momentum that instead of collapsing on itself, it expanded, and continues to do so in less than one trillionth of a trillionth of a second.

And the evolution thing:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/5465

Of course you will not be able to answer it because you are not a scientist. As such, you have no right to comment on the age of the earth because you have no idea. Please educate yourself and spare yourself from embaressment

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
questions wrote:Everyone

questions wrote:
Everyone has the desires that the Bible says we shouldn't have.

So what? All that proves is that people are observant.

questions wrote:
I am what the world would call a very nice and good person. But I sin constantly. My mind wanders.

Gods fault for making your mind wander in such a way.

questions wrote:
And there are many things that I don't do that I want to do.

How is that a sin?

questions wrote:
It is completely logical.

No it isn't.

questions wrote:
Now some would say that the Bible gives standards that can not be held up. And their right.

Not just standards, contradictions.

questions wrote:
Christians say we inherited that from Adam, a non-believer I would guess would say that it isn't sin, it's nature.

Then if there's a god, it's his fault for making nature that way. Not yours. Not mine. Not anyones.

questions wrote:
Sin isn't just murder or stealing.

Sin only exists if you're a theist. Otherwise we call it like it is: crime.

questions wrote:
It's have you ever lusted after another person.

Nothing wrong with imagination.

questions wrote:
Have you ever told a lie.

Everything capable of lying lies. It's a self defense mechanism so ingrained as to be instinct. Again, if it's wrong, then god is to blame for making us that way.

questions wrote:
I don't think anybody has ever went through life without doing these things.

Of course not. Which makes it gods fault. We don't have a choice but to do these things. They are in our nature. If we were created by a god, then that god bears complete and total responsibility for his acts. Projecting that onto us is as immoral and irresponsible as you can get, and I refuse to follow such a hypocritical moron as such a god would be.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


questions
Theist
questions's picture
Posts: 49
Joined: 2007-02-10
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote: Why

deludedgod wrote:

Why believe, because I don't want to rot in Hell for the rest of eternity

That is the ultimate reasoning in a circle. There is no evidence that God exists because it is not a verifiable concept otherwise it would be self-contradictory or natural versus supernatural QED. Therefore, therefore is definitely no evidence that hell exists. Your leap of faith is colossal and astounding. Furthermore, you have essentially validated every objection I have ever had to religion. You have validated my claims that it is fear-based. You have validated my claims that people who believe are ignorant and cannot think for themselves. You have validated my claim that it is inherently self-subjugatory.

I love Christ becuase he died for me on a cross because I am an evil man. As he died on the cross He put the sins of the world on His shoulders. Before I loved Him, He died for me. I love Christ because is with me in my darkest hour. I love Christ becuase He is my fortress an ever present help in trouble. Satan doesn't want to go to Hell, but that doesn't save him. Fear of hell is not what saves people. It is not a fear based religion. But at the same time, getting to go to heaven over hell is a plus.  

deludedgod wrote:

A lot Christians accept a Young Earth because they believe in the Bible. The Roman Catholic Church does not take the Bible literaly. It was founded on the Bible but now it has moved away from it which is sad.

Your first claim is dead wrong. There are 2.1 billion Christians. The Catholics accept evolution. So 1 billion left. The Orthodox Church does too. Do not argue with me about that as I have extensively travelled in Russia. The Greek/Slavic interpretation of the Bible and canonical texts is eloquent and sophisticated and they do not take the creation literally. There are 400 million Orthodox. That leaves 600 million Protestants. However, you still ignored my point that every creation website is attached to American domains. And even in America the figure is pinned somewhere at 40%, which is about 50 million people. That is 5% of Christianity.

Still think that "most Christians believe in creationism"?

Yea, your dead wrong, I am a biblical studies grad. I know the stats, anyone who believes in the Bible says that the time from Adam to Jesus is about 4500 years. And most creation websites are attached to American domains. So? Most websites have an attached American domain. And that doesn't make it wrong.  

deludedgod wrote:

And I don't understand why you would be a rude jerk and call me a twit. I don't find you intelligent I find you to be rude and arrogant.

Oh please. Don't be so condescending. You think I haven't put up with ridiculous shit like "atheists cant be moral" and "your all going to burn in hell". You don't think that offends me? If you say ridiculous things you will get insulted. Fucking deal with it!

 

I have never said that atheists aren't moral. I said you were moral. Where did these morals come from. And I am not trying to condemn anyone, I am more than sorry if I offended you. The Bible says that anyone that does not accept Jesus Christ is lost, and they will go to hell. No, I hope you do come to Christ. I pray for you especially every day. I was very glad to meet you. I pray that you have a great life and that someone is able to convience you of God. But I do not want to be one of those people who comes off snobish or arrogant. I am not. I am evil and not deserving of anything. Lukcily God has revealed Himself to me.  

deludedgod wrote:
 

And you completely ignored my link, my challenge, and my explanation of the universe, and the pain mechanism. So I will post them again and this time I Expect a response.

I love the way you called us having " a creation story". So ignorant. We base our "creation story" on theoretical physics, universal constants, in other words, evidence and science. I favor Stephen Hawking's ultra-accelerative universe theory

you think God created the heavens in one day (the first day)? Let me tell you how unimpressive that is: At the moment of mathematical singularity whereby time approaches an asymptote along the x-y axis graph of space time, the ultra-compression and electromagnetic formation of energy/matter constants happened in a single planck second (0.000 followed by 35 zeroes then a one) the universal expansion, which blasted outwards with such extreme momentum that instead of collapsing on itself, it expanded, and continues to do so in less than one trillionth of a trillionth of a second.

And the evolution thing:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/5465

Of course you will not be able to answer it because you are not a scientist. As such, you have no right to comment on the age of the earth because you have no idea. Please educate yourself and spare yourself from embaressment

My question of how do the athiest explain the creation of the earth was said in ignorance. I have never sat and talked with an athiest. I did not know thier was another view of our universe. I did read it the first time. It made no since to me. I am not a scientist. I wasn't ignoring it, I just didn't understand it. Their are young earth creation scientist and they can debate you. Not me. I get my information of the creation of the earth from the Bible.  

Tell my why I am wrong though, but I have heard if you use carbon dating, it would say that the earth is about 6500 years old. 

 

 

 

 

Mod: Two-Day Timeout for Lying 3/23/2007


questions
Theist
questions's picture
Posts: 49
Joined: 2007-02-10
User is offlineOffline
Vastet, Adam and Eve did not

Vastet, Adam and Eve did not have this nature. They chose sin. We inherited this nature from them and not from God.  Many will say that we don't deserve this sin nature and it's condemnation. But we don't deserve the salvation that Jesus has offered. We do have an out. Believe in Jesus and you will be saved from the condemnation.

 

Mod: Two-Day Timeout for Lying 3/23/2007