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?


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Tell my why I am wrong

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.

What?

Carbon dating does not measure the age of the Earth. You are thinking of zircon or daimonds. Carbon can measure back 60,000 years. It is used to measure recent (60,000 years or less is recent) organic material.

Look, man. I am a scientist. I can explain to you how radiometry works:

Large atoms with concentrated, crowded nuclei are highly unstable. To correct the instability, they will either
a) Release a highly ionizing but low energy particle consisting of a helium nucleus with two protons and neutrons. This is called alpha radiation.
b) If the nucleon number is isotopically unstable, the atom will change a proton into a neutron or vice versa allowing an electron to be released or a positron depending on beta minus versus positive.

Another thing they can do is released an ultra-high energy wave called gamma which is irrelevant to my question below.

For instance, a carbon-14 isotope. 99.999% of all carbon is stable carbon-12. but carbon-14 isotopes are not stable and make up 1ppt (part per trillion) of all carbon. They release beta radiation to correct the nucleon instability by firing off an electron. This causes it to decay into Nitrogen-14. The great thing about radioactive decay is that it is a random process that obeys probability laws. The other good thing about it is that you can dip a radioactive material in molten lead, in acid, shoot it, burn it, fire particles at it, try to irradiate it again, pass a current through it...and none of these things will change the isotope clocks. They are fixed.

Now let me explain how we use this to measure the age of the Earth and organic material. Radioactive half-life is the amount of time it takes for the Geiger counter count rate (CPS) to fall by half. Radioactivity is a Zeno's paradox, because it falls to 1/2 then 1/4 then 1/8, but never to 0. It takes the same amount of time to fall from full to half as from half to quarter because the probability remains the same, because radioactive decay is an elemental nuclear cycle.

Depending on their isotopic properties, different isotopes and elements decay at different rates. Uranium 238 has a half life of 4500 million years...almost exactly the age of the Earth. Certain Thorium isotopes, and Polonium 221 for example, half in hours to seconds.
All life is made out of carbon, and all life is made out of roughly the same percentage of carbon-14, which is 1ppt (part per trillion). When something is alive, the amount of carbon-14 it has remains at a constant 1ppt, but once it decays, biological processes stop so the carbon influx/outflux stops too, and the C-14 starts to decay into N-14 and is not replaced. So if we examine a dead plant by giving it a radiocarbon test, and we find the amount of carbon 14 (can be calculated using the mass of total carbon) and the amount of C-14 has reduced to 1/8, it means that the plant is 18,000 years old roughly, because C-14 has a half life of 6000 years (actually about 5300 years). The N-14 that C-14 decays into is simply released into the atmosphere.

If you don’t like Carbon 14 dating, there are over 20 types of radioisotope dating, including Pb-Ur, Ar-Ar, K-Ar etc. Some of which can date back millions and billions of years because the isotope is more stable.


Radiometric dating is not exact science. However, dinosaur bone dating never drops below 65 million years. They cannot provide exact answers for ancient (millions to billions of years) dating, but using a range establishes consensus. If the Earth was only 6,000 years old, the radioactivity emitted by unstable materials would be huge. We would immediately notice it because almost none would have decayed...in fact, we would not be here because life could not survive in that environment.

 

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.

OK. So now you are saying that only literalist creationists are true Christians. Well, like I said (statistics which you did not refute) that is only 5% of Christianity. So you are wrong, and you did not refute my statement. You merely restated your position like a broken record without and evidence. 

"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


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
One thing to explain. How

One thing to explain. How did the light from stars millions and even billions of light years away manage to travel that far in 6,500 years?

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


questions
Theist
questions's picture
Posts: 49
Joined: 2007-02-10
User is offlineOffline
According to a 2005 Pew

According to a 2005 Pew Research Center poll, 70 percent of evangelical Christians believe that living beings have always existed in their present form, compared with 32 percent of Protestants and 31 percent of Catholics.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=00068F43-E189-150E-A18983414B7F0000&colID=13

This an article that is advocating evolution. The fact is that 5 percent of Christians believeing in creation is false. I don't where you get your stats. I don't even agree with these stats most I have seen had Christians believeing in creationism much more than this. But I picked a low to still prove my point. And I don't understand a Christian that doesn't believe in creation. Either God made it and the Bible is the truth. Or God is something you have made up in your head. The only Words of God is in the Bible. Many people claim to be Christian, but are not. They have no idea what the Bible says. They will tell you I believe every word in the Bible, but haven't ever read it and have no idea what it says. 

 

And I must have missunderstood what I heard about carbon dating.  

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


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

MattShizzle wrote:
One thing to explain. How did the light from stars millions and even billions of light years away manage to travel that far in 6,500 years?

thats a good question that I don't have the answer to but I will try to find what the science department at Liberty says about that. One thing that they might say is that God made the light show on earth right away. Just like if you were to look at Adam you would have said he was a man not an infant. But he is only a few minutes old. They probably have a much more scientific answer though so I will see what they say. If you believe in the God that I believe in it would be no big deal to speed up whatever law of nature he wanted to speed up.  

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


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Liberty University having a

Liberty University having a Science department is like the KKK having a diversity department.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
According to a 2005 Pew

According to a 2005 Pew Research Center poll, 70 percent of evangelical Christians believe that living beings have always existed in their present form, compared with 32 percent of Protestants and 31 percent of Catholics.

Head bangs on wall.

That survey was in the United States. I'm taking about the world. Telling me how many Evangelical Protestants believe in Creation is unimpressive because there are none outside of the United States. Michael Shermer is referring the "Christian Right", This does not exist outside of America. That survey means nothing. It is America-based. America only makes up 10% of Christianity.

This is from wikipedia in prevalence of creationism:

Most vocal strict creationists are from the United States, and strict creationist views are much less common elsewhere in the western world.

According to a PBS documentary on evolution, Australian Young Earth Creationists claimed that “five percent of the Australian population now believe that Earth is thousands, rather than billions, of years old.” The documentary further states that “Australia is a particular stronghold of the creationist movement.” [33] Taking these claims at face value, Young Earth Creationism is very much a minority position in Western countries.

In Europe, strict creationism is a less well-defined phenomenon, and regular polls are not available. However, evolution is taught as scientific fact in most schools. In countries with a Roman Catholic majority, papal acceptance of evolution as worthy of study has essentially ended debate on the matter for many people.

Get it? That POLL ONLY EXTENDS TO THE UNITED STATES. 5% of Australians believing in creation is considered "alot" outside of America. 

 

And please, Liberty University will make up some ridiculous psuedoscientific garbage. They are not an accredited Scientific insitution. There are only several arguments creationists can use against radiometry and I have defeated all of them in previous debating. It will be interesting to see whether the answer they give you will be original or whether they will just use some tired old straw man for me to crush.

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.

I'm sorry I missed this before. This is ridiculous. Hinduism is much older than Judaism. There are ancient Vedic texts 10,000 years old.

"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
Just to refute Liberty

Just to refute Liberty University is accredited. It is the largest Evangelical University in the world.

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
bloody hell. I said it is

bloody hell. I said it is not an accredited SCIENTIFIC institution

But that is pretty obvious considering they believe the Earth was created after the Sumerians learned to brew beer 

"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
http://www.religioustoleranc

http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_comp.htm

not 5% 

 

the results of a survey showing the percentage of persons who said yes to the following question: "In your opinion, how true is this? ...Human beings developed from earlier species of animals.." The results are a measure of belief in human evolution, and disbelief in creation science.

 
Country God Afterlife Bible Devil Hell Heaven Miracles Evolution
United States 62.8 55.0 33.5 45.4 49.6 63.1 45.6 <35.4
N. Ireland 61.4 53.5 32.7 43.1 47.9 63.7 44.2 51.5
Philippines 86.2 35.2 53.7 28.3 29.6 41.9 27.7 60.9
Ireland 58.7 45.9 24.9 24.8 25.9 51.8 36.9 60.1
Poland 66.3 37.8 37.4 15.4 21.4 38.6 22.7 35.4
Italy 51.4 34.8 27.0 20.4 21.7 27.9 32.9 65.2
New Zealand 29.3 35.5 9.4 21.4 18.7 32.2 23.1 66.3
Israel 43.0 21.9 26.7 12.6 22.5 24.0 26.4 56.9
Austria 29.4 24.8 12.7 11.1 10.0 20.1 27.4 N/A
Norway 20.1 31.6 11.2 13.1 11.4 23.0 17.8 65.0
Great Britain 23.8 26.5 7.0 12.7 12.8 24.6 15.3 76.7
Netherlands 24.7 26.7 8.4 13.3 11.1 21.1 10.2 58.6
W. Germany 27.3 24.4 12.5 9.5 9.3 18.2 22.7 72.7
Russia 12.4 16.8 9.9 12.5 13.0 14.7 18.7 41.4
Slovenia 21.9 11.6 22.3 6.9 8.3 9.5 13.4 60.7
Hungary 30.1 10.6 19.2 4.2 5.8 9.4 8.2 62.8
E. Germany 9.2 6.1 7.5 3.6 2.6 10.2

11.8

81.

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
This is an extremely

This is an extremely inaccurate table.

Firstly, the fact that only 12.4% of Russians believe in God and 40% in Evolution means there is an errancy. I suspect not enough people (theists and atheists alike) are educated in Russia, thus they are unsure of the question. I am not interested in how many believe in evolution. I am more interested in how many believe in creation science. This table clearly has highly misleading information because the errancy is repeated elsewhere:

20% of Norweigens believe in God, and 65% in evolution, which means that if we make the extremely unlikely assumption that all of that 20% of norwegeins were creationists (a completely untrue statement) then that still leaves 15% who did not understand the question, because if you don't believe in God, you are an evolutionist by default.

Same elsewhere. In Israel 43% of God believers and 56% evolutionist. Since Israelis are overwhelmingly secular (I would know, I've been there) the vast majority of the believers except the Orthodoxy accept evolution.

Furthermore, judging by the low scores for the amount of people who believe the Bible and the afterlife, I would say that these nations either have very low Christian populations, or very liberal Christians, or (most likely) most people were not well educated enough to answer yes to the evo question.

Find me a site that says how many people believe in creation science.

Otherwise, dont waste my time 

"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 can keep putting them up

I can keep putting them up and you will refuse to admit you were not correct in saying that only 5 percent of Christians believe in creation. Show me a poll that says only 5 %. I have just never seen one that says anything close to that. You may not believe in a God, but you are in the minority. Well over 5% believe that God created the earth.

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
I can keep putting them up

I can keep putting them up and you will refuse to admit you were not correct in saying that only 5 percent of Christians believe in creation. Show me a poll that says only 5 %. I have just never seen one that says anything close to that. You may not believe in a God, but you are in the minority. Well over 5% believe that God created the earth.

OK, let me just stop laughing.

First of all, I was not looking for an evolution table. I was looking for a Bibilical creationism table. YOu are setting up a false dichotomy again. 5% of people are creationists does not equal 95% are evolutionists.

Look at the one you just posted. In every country except the Phillipines, Ireland and the United States, believers are the minority. THe number of atheists is increasing and religion continues to lose power. look how few believe in the Bible and the afterlife! Religion has secularized, meaning that althought many people in Europe ID themselves as Catholic, they are not practicing (when you have time, you can look at the church attendance stats in Europe)

The majority believe God created the Earth

You are setting up a false dichotomy. Belief in God does not contradict evolution. Ever heard of Francis Collins and Ken Miller?

 

"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
deludedgod wrote: First of

deludedgod wrote:

First of all, I was not looking for an evolution table. I was looking for a Bibilical creationism table. YOu are setting up a false dichotomy again. 5% of people are creationists does not equal 95% are evolutionists.

Look at the one you just posted. In every country except the Phillipines, Ireland and the United States, believers are the minority. THe number of atheists is increasing and religion continues to lose power. look how few believe in the Bible and the afterlife! Religion has secularized, meaning that althought many people in Europe ID themselves as Catholic, they are not practicing (when you have time, you can look at the church attendance stats in Europe)

The majority believe God created the Earth

You are setting up a false dichotomy. Belief in God does not contradict evolution. Ever heard of Francis Collins and Ken Miller?

 

Believers in Christ were in the minority in these countries. This didnt take into account Islam or Judiaism. I do believe that Islam have the same creation story. But i agree with you a hundred percent that religion is losing ground and that there more and more athiest. And I'm not saying that believing in God means you believe in creation. But are you telling me that looking at these stats you would say that only 5 percent of these believe in creation. I was looking for stats online and it wasn't easy. I am taking a creation class right now, Dr. Marcus Ross PHD from Rhode Island is the teacher, I will see if he has any stats I can find on Tue.

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
OK. I think this is what I

OK. I think this is what I call "threadjacking". We have managed to have an offhand discussion about an irrelavent issue.

My fault.

Let us return to the issue.

I presented you with radiometry. What is your response? It completely shatters young Earth creationism.

I also presented you with ancient Vedic Hindu texts that predate the Old Testament by 4,000 years. What is your response? 

"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: Vastet,

questions wrote:
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.

 

Two things. First of all, it is physically impossible to inherit a choice. Every choice must be made by every individual. It cannot be passed from generation to generation.
Second of all, if I've done something wrong, then I'll take the punishment for it myself. It is immoral and illogical to make or let someone else take it for me. Even if jesus existed, and I don't believe he did, then I would refuse to allow his actions to atone for mine. It would be immoral for me to do so.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


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

deludedgod wrote:

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.

What?

Carbon dating does not measure the age of the Earth. You are thinking of zircon or daimonds. Carbon can measure back 60,000 years. It is used to measure recent (60,000 years or less is recent) organic material.

Look, man. I am a scientist. I can explain to you how radiometry works:

Large atoms with concentrated, crowded nuclei are highly unstable. To correct the instability, they will either
a) Release a highly ionizing but low energy particle consisting of a helium nucleus with two protons and neutrons. This is called alpha radiation.
b) If the nucleon number is isotopically unstable, the atom will change a proton into a neutron or vice versa allowing an electron to be released or a positron depending on beta minus versus positive.

Another thing they can do is released an ultra-high energy wave called gamma which is irrelevant to my question below.

For instance, a carbon-14 isotope. 99.999% of all carbon is stable carbon-12. but carbon-14 isotopes are not stable and make up 1ppt (part per trillion) of all carbon. They release beta radiation to correct the nucleon instability by firing off an electron. This causes it to decay into Nitrogen-14. The great thing about radioactive decay is that it is a random process that obeys probability laws. The other good thing about it is that you can dip a radioactive material in molten lead, in acid, shoot it, burn it, fire particles at it, try to irradiate it again, pass a current through it...and none of these things will change the isotope clocks. They are fixed.

Now let me explain how we use this to measure the age of the Earth and organic material. Radioactive half-life is the amount of time it takes for the Geiger counter count rate (CPS) to fall by half. Radioactivity is a Zeno's paradox, because it falls to 1/2 then 1/4 then 1/8, but never to 0. It takes the same amount of time to fall from full to half as from half to quarter because the probability remains the same, because radioactive decay is an elemental nuclear cycle.

Depending on their isotopic properties, different isotopes and elements decay at different rates. Uranium 238 has a half life of 4500 million years...almost exactly the age of the Earth. Certain Thorium isotopes, and Polonium 221 for example, half in hours to seconds.
All life is made out of carbon, and all life is made out of roughly the same percentage of carbon-14, which is 1ppt (part per trillion). When something is alive, the amount of carbon-14 it has remains at a constant 1ppt, but once it decays, biological processes stop so the carbon influx/outflux stops too, and the C-14 starts to decay into N-14 and is not replaced. So if we examine a dead plant by giving it a radiocarbon test, and we find the amount of carbon 14 (can be calculated using the mass of total carbon) and the amount of C-14 has reduced to 1/8, it means that the plant is 18,000 years old roughly, because C-14 has a half life of 6000 years (actually about 5300 years). The N-14 that C-14 decays into is simply released into the atmosphere.

If you don’t like Carbon 14 dating, there are over 20 types of radioisotope dating, including Pb-Ur, Ar-Ar, K-Ar etc. Some of which can date back millions and billions of years because the isotope is more stable.


Radiometric dating is not exact science. However, dinosaur bone dating never drops below 65 million years. They cannot provide exact answers for ancient (millions to billions of years) dating, but using a range establishes consensus. If the Earth was only 6,000 years old, the radioactivity emitted by unstable materials would be huge. We would immediately notice it because almost none would have decayed...in fact, we would not be here because life could not survive in that environment.

I know how radiometry works, and even I missed a few things in this description. I'd suggest your explanation went over his educations capabilities.

No offense intended to Questions.

Edit:
I suppose I'd be an ass without providing a possible alternative description in a more layman form(don't rip it apart Deluded, I think it's accurate enough).

Basically, all matter breaks down over time. Every element breaks down at a measurable rate. Some elements last for hundreds of years, some for thousands, and some for billions. Carbon doesn't last long enough to tell you how old the earth is. But some other elements do. So we don't use carbon dating to measure earths life, we use elements like: uranium with a lifetime of 4.47 billion years and samarium with 108 billion years, etc.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
I just copied and pasted

I just copied and pasted from some old thing I wrote. Couldnt be bothered to draft a new explanation in this post. Not really worth it. sry.

"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
Would you agree in principal

Would you agree in principal with mine?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Absolutely. The % of C-14 is

Absolutely. The % of C-14 is so low that the mass spectrometer cannot detect it after 60,000 years. But there are indeed isotopes which can last millions and billions of years. U238 has a half life almost precisely the age of the of the Earth. Radioactive decay can be so slow that if the Earth were 6,000 years old still, it would be blasted with deadly streams of particles. Quite frankly, the fact that people adhere to this is beyond me.

"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:  Theory

questions wrote:

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

Oh great! Another deluded Christian trying to pretend the scripts and texts of the bible have never changed or altered since it was first fabricated in 325AD.

The bible has been rewritten and revised - literally - thousands of times.

You sounds just like Muslims telling me that the Quran we have today is the one that Muhammad originally concocted - in spite of the fact that there was no Quran in existence when Muhammad died. 


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

questions wrote:
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.

So... where did Adam and Eve inherit their desire from? 


NarcolepticSun
Posts: 108
Joined: 2007-02-18
User is offlineOffline
questions wrote: I don't

questions wrote:

I don't understand a Christian that doesn't believe in creation.


They believe in Christ - but not other bullshit. They generally believe that Christ was a historical figure and that he had valuable teachings. They generally accept the fact that the bible was written by man - and thus - is full of shit.

Quote:
Either God made it and the Bible is the truth. Or God is something you have made up in your head.


The bible is absurd. God is something you have made up in your head.

Quote:
The only Words of God is in the Bible.


The bible was written by men.

Quote:
Many people claim to be Christian, but are not. They have no idea what the Bible says. They will tell you I believe every word in the Bible, but haven't ever read it and have no idea what it says.


Um... have you ever read the bible? I have. I have also read the Quran. Both are monotamous and absurd.

The earth is NOT flat. The earth spins on an axis. Bats are NOT birds. A global flood NEVER occurred. The earth is much more than 6,000 years old. Man CANNOT survive in the stomach of a fish. The sun came BEFORE the plants. Man is made out of protein - not dirt. Hares do NOT chew their cud. The Exodus of the Hyskos/Hebrews/Jews NEVER occurred. Adam, Abraham, Joseph, Moses, Jonah and Jesus are mythological characters that never actually existed.


AmericanIdle
Posts: 414
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
I love Christ becuase he

Quote:
"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".
 

I'm glad we cleared this up.  I thought christianity was going to be one of those guilt based religions.  You know the kind... the one that extracts blind obedience through threats of death, torture and subsequently rewards obedience with some some seemingly unreachable concept like immortality.  The kind that uses the concept of love and endless emotional appeals to get victims in the door. 

 Boy, I hate those.. You know what I'm talking about?  The kind that appeal to the worst part of mankind, his own destructive narcissism by offering him a "personal" relationship to the exclusion of the "others" that don't obey. Makes me want to "smite" the unbeliever right now. 

The kind that makes up ridiculous stories about invisible devils and gods that a 5th grader should be able to see right through (but apparently only intellectuals and Europeans do w/ any regularity).  The kind where its followers regurgitate silly poetic mantras that appeal to emotions rather than logic and rob the follower of his own self reliance and independent thought.

I always thought christianity was fear based.. Now I know the truth.  Thank You.

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell


questions
Theist
questions's picture
Posts: 49
Joined: 2007-02-10
User is offlineOffline
I can see i'm being

I can see i'm being attacked here so I think it's time to leave. Never want to offend anyone and I hope all will come to Christ, but I refuse to shove Christ down peoples throats. I've seen it done and it makes me sick.

 

But never judge Christianity by Christians, we have been imoral and have done horrific things to non Christians and Christians alike. Romans 2:24 THE NAME OF GOD IS BLASPHEMED AMONG THE GENTILES BECAUSE OF YOU. Paul is talking to the Jews but it is the same today we have failed. Judge Christianity about what the Bible says about Jesus. Whether you believe in it or not, the philosophy of Jesus in the BIble I believe is the way we should all live. If we atleast followed his ways I think the world would be a much better place. 

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: Whether

questions wrote:

Whether you believe in it or not, the philosophy of Jesus in the BIble I believe is the way we should all live. If we atleast followed his ways I think the world would be a much better place.

So you think it's okay to keep slaves as long as you don't beat them to death?

-Triften 


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

questions wrote:
I can see i'm being attacked here so I think it's time to leave. Never want to offend anyone and I hope all will come to Christ, but I refuse to shove Christ down peoples throats. I've seen it done and it makes me sick.

I don't think you're being directly attacked intentionally(though your beliefs certainly are), though I could be wrong. I do hope you at least learned some things in your time here either way though.

questions wrote:
But never judge Christianity by Christians, we have been imoral and have done horrific things to non Christians and Christians alike.

I judge something by taking into account all it's facets. For christianity that means not just the writings, but the followers. Without followers there can be no such thing as christianity.

questions wrote:
Romans 2:24 THE NAME OF GOD IS BLASPHEMED AMONG THE GENTILES BECAUSE OF YOU. Paul is talking to the Jews but it is the same today we have failed. Judge Christianity about what the Bible says about Jesus. Whether you believe in it or not, the philosophy of Jesus in the BIble I believe is the way we should all live. If we atleast followed his ways I think the world would be a much better place.

I do not, and find it unfortunate that anyone would think otherwise.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


questions
Theist
questions's picture
Posts: 49
Joined: 2007-02-10
User is offlineOffline
I forgot to explain Romans

I forgot to explain Romans 2:24.  Because of the horrible things the people of God were doing people were saying if that is what being a man of God is I dont want to be it. They cursed God saying this is what his followers do, what a terrible God he must be.

 

And I found this site to be very informative. I live in a Christian bubble and I don't here the other side. 

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


scientific atheist
Posts: 4
Joined: 2007-03-30
User is offlineOffline
Creation?

I always find it facinating how "theists" cannot conceptualize someting "always" exsisting unless it has some "supernatural" explantion; when they only evidence they have of the "universe" consists of entirely "natural" phenomena.