Questions about God... theists answer these!

Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Questions about God... theists answer these!

List of questions about God, religion and the supernatural have been compiled by IG over the years as well as some interesting ones by readers.

1. If Jesus fulfilled all the OT prophecies so well, why didn't the Jews recognize him as the messiah? - Francois Tremblay

2. If Gen 3:24 is true, why hasn't anyone found the Cherubims and the " flaming sword which turned every way"?

3. It's been proven that modern humans originated from Africa. Yet, the Adam and Eve story claims the first Humans lived in a garden in Eden, near 4 rivers. ( Most of which no one can find). One of these rivers mentioned is the Euphrates, which runs through Iraq, Syria and a portion of Turkey. What's the truth? Did man come out of Africa or near the Euphrates River? - The Infidel Guy

4. When the believer gets to Heaven, how can Heaven be utter bliss when people they love and care about are burning in Hell ? - The Infidel Guy - [Note: Some say God erases your memories of them, but if God erases your memory, you as Mr. Joe /Jane Smoe ceases to exist.]

5. How can a God have emotions, i.e. jealousy, anger, sadness, love, etc., if he is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent? Emotional states are reactionary for the most part. How can God react to us if he is all-knowing and has a divine plan? - IG [Note: Indeed, many religious texts display their gods this way . Listen to the An Emotional Godshow.]
6. Why would God create a place such as hell to torture sinners forever when he foreknew who would disappoint him? - IG [Note: Some say you have a choice, but this misses the point. If God hates sin so much, why create Adam and Eve when he knew they'd sin? The only conclusion I can come up with, if Yaweh exists, is that he wanted sin to enter the world.]

7. "God is all merciful," we hear quite often. Wouldn't it be more merciful of God to simply snap sinners out of existence rather than send them to hell? Or better yet, since he's all-knowing, not allow them to be born at all? - IG
ON GOD'S LOVE & HELL
1.) God's love is superlative.
2.) God's love of man exceeds man's love of self.
3.) Man's love of self prohibits torture.
4.) Considering God's greater love for us, Hell (eternal torture) is illogical.

8. Muslims are supposed to pray 5 times a day towards Mecca. Each prayer includes a variety of ritualism and posturing. If a muslim astronaut were to land on Mars. Prayer to Mecca would be ritualistically impossible due to the rotation of Earth and Mars. Are Muslims stuck here in Earth? IG [Note: Since this was first posted, a Muslim astronaut was faced with this very dilemma. The authoritative clergy informed him to pray as he normally would. I see this no where in the Koran. You see? Religions must change, or die out. It's interesting to note that, in the Koran, the moon is believed to be in the lowest Heaven, the level for those that barely made it to Heaven. Surah 71:15-16. One problem, no man can supposedly get to Heaven until they die. Yet, we've been to the moon. Our satellites beyond that.]

9. Why haven't we seen God reattach severed heads, restore someone who was burned alive or regrow amputated limbs? Surely these would be miracles difficult to deny. - Adam Majors and IG [Note: The typical answer is that man doesn't dictate God's actions. The conundrum here however is that, if God wants us to "know" him, then surely feats such as those mentioned above would be happening all over the world. Until they do, I'll remain an atheist.]

10. Why does God entrust the spreading of 'His' word to sinners? Why doesn't he do it himself? - IG [Note: Surely God would have known that not everyone would be convinced by the reality[sic] of his Bible. If God loves us so much, we are all going to Heaven. If God knew that I would be an atheist, and he doesn't like atheists, he shouldn't have allowed me to come into existence. But he did. Therefore, I must be serving the will of God, for I exist. Smiling]

11. In II Kings 2-23/24 we read about God sending 2 she-bears to attack children for calling the prophet Elisa bald, which he was, the bears killed 42 of the children. Was this a good thing to do? -- Brandon and IG[Note: I have heard some argue that the boys were a gang. So?! I didn't read anywhere in that passage where they laid a finger on the guy . Also, what kind of bears are these that can kill 42 kids? Super Bears? Surely the kids had to be running away.]

12. I have often heard from many believers that even Satan has a presence in the church, which is why even in church people can still have impure thoughts. If Satan can find his way in the church, how do Christians know that Satan didn't find his way into the Bible and twist the whole book? After all, men did vote on which books would make the Holy Bible. - The Infidel Guy

13. Why did God allow Lot and his daughters to escape from Sodom and Gomorra when he destroyed it only to later have Lot and his daughters engage in incestuous fornication. (Genesis 19:30-36) - Disillusioned [Note: To have intercourse with daddy dearest of course.]

14. Genesis 1:28-29 shows that man and all the animals were first created herbivorous. Most young-earth Christians (ones that believes the earth is less than 10,000 years old) say that the fall of man resulted in carnivorous animals ( hence death of animals). So, why did God punish the animal kingdom, making animals kill and devour each other because of man's mistake? Or, if you're an old-earth Christian (one that accepts that animals existed on earth for billions of years before man came on the scene) then how come fossils show carnivorous animals existed before man? - http://www.caseagainstfaith.com/contact.htm.

15. Many Christians believe that God is a thinking being, that he solves problems and makes a way for them when troubles come. Does God Think? If God is thinking, did he know his thoughts before he thought them? If so, again, where is his freewill and how is God thinking at all if everything seems to be one uncontrollable action/thoughts. - The Infidel Guy [Note: I'd say a God cannot think at all. To do so, would strip him of omniscience. Thinking is a temporal process.] ON GOD'S ATEMPORALITY
1.) God, an atemporal being, created the Universe.
2.) Creation is a temporal processes because X cannot cause Y to come into being unless X existed temporally prior to Y.
3.) If God existed prior to the creation of the Universe he is a temporal being.
4.) Since God is atemporal, God cannot be the creator the Universe.
[Note: I guess I should also note here that a timeless being would be without the proposition of past, and future. But to be omniscient, God must know the past and future. Hence a God that is atemporal and omniscient cannot logically exist. Smiling]

16. I have often heard that faith is all that is neccessary to believe in God and accept the Bible as true. If this is true aren't all supernatural beliefs true since they also require "faith"? - IG ON FAITH
1.) A prerequisite to believe in a Faith is faith.
2.) Having faith is all that is required to accept a Faith (belief) as true.
3.) All Faiths are true.
[Note: Of course all Faiths aren`t true, but this is the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from a person that states that, "Faith" is how one knows God.]

17. Why didn't God just kill Adam and Eve after the Fall and start from scratch? Actually, if God is all-knowing wouldn't he know that man would need to be killed eventually anyway, (the biblical flood)? Why create Adam and Eve at all? - and ON THE GARDEN OF EDEN
1.) God is omniscient (all-knowing).
2.) God knew that before he created man that they would eat of the tree of knowledge.
3.) God placed the tree of knowledge in the Garden anyway.
4.) God wanted sin to enter the world.
[Note: If God didn`t want sin to enter the world, why create Adam and Eve at all? He knew what would happen. Why place the forbidden trees in the Garden in the first place?]

18. If a spirit is non-physical but the human body is physical, how does a spirit stay in our bodies? - IG ON SPIRITS
1.) Spirits are not physical entities.
2.) Brains are physical entities.
3.) Past experiences are stored in our physical brains, we call that, Memory..
4.) Injury can damage portions of the physical brain that store memory and can alter or erase memories completely.
5.) If human spirits exist... after death, spirits can have no memory.
[Note: Some will say the spirit stores physical memories as well, but if true, the spirit would have to be physical at least to a degree. How could a non-physical spirit store, physical memories?]

19. Does God know his own future decisions? If God is all-knowing he actually shouldn't have any decisions to make at all. Nor can he choose anything over something else. For that would mean that he is neither omniscient nor omnipotent. In fact, he can't even think if this is the case. Since he can't DO anything, he might as well not exist. - IG ON GOD'S IMMUTABILITY - Unchangingness
1. If God exists, then he is immutable.
2. If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.
3. An immutable being cannot at one time have an intention and then at a later time not have that intention.
4. For any being to create anything, prior to the creation he must have had the intention to create it, but at a later time, after the creation, no longer have the intention to create it.
5. Thus, it is impossible for an immutable being to have created anything (from 3 and 4).
6. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5) - Theodore M. Drange

20. If God is all-knowing, how could he be disappointed in His creation? -- [Note: Indeed, wouldn't God know that before the creation of our Universe what creatures would disappoint him? That being the case why create those creatures at all? Also, in knowing absolutely the behavior of humans before creation, God cannot be disappointed either... for this world is exactly as he has planned it to be. If it's not, why create us at all?]

21. God struck down the Tower of Babel angry at the intent of the people that built them, if this is the case, many of the great pyramids ( which are bigger than any ziggurat) around the world should be rubble also, yet many still stand today. Were not the Egyptians and many other ancient pyramid builders reaching toward God /The Heavens? - IG [Note: In actuality, many of the Pharaoh's believed that, via their pyramids, they would become God's themselves.]

22. In the watchmaker analogy, a watch is used to show us intelligent design and compares that to the Universe as evidence of design. We know watches are designed because we have past experience with watches, as well as with other man made objects. My question is: What Universe is the Intelligent Design proponent using to compare this Universe with to draw such an analogy? What God did he see create a Universe? - IG

23. Why did God flood the earth to remove evil? It didn't work! Evil came right back, God should have known that would happen! So why did He bother? - PhineasBg [Note: A good example of how quickly sin returned, was Noah getting drunk just after they discovered land.]

24. If the garden of Eden was a perfect paradise as xians claim, then why did Eve even want to eat the fruit? Wouldn't a perfect place provide everything a person would want or desire and thus she would want nothing? - keyser soze [Note: Why were the trees there in the first place? Of course they love to throw the serpent into the equation. But ummm..who let the serpent into the Garden?... and why would God create such a creature knowing he would cause man's fall? Hmm.. God must have wanted the fall to happen.]

25. Why would an all-powerful god become flesh in order to sacrifice himself to himself so that his creation might escape the wrath of himself. Couldn't god, in his infinite wisdom, come up with something a little more efficient? - ON THE BODY OF CHRIST
1.) God?s flesh was known as Jesus.
2.) Flesh cannot enter into Heaven (according to Paul)
3.) God is no longer Jesus.
4.) Jesus doesn?t exist.

(Note: Many at this point will state that the spirit lives on so therefore Jesus lives. This really depends on what you believe about Jesus. Is Jesus the son of God or God in flesh? If Jesus is merely the son there is no problem.However, if Jesus ?is? God himself, we do. You see, Jesus is called Jesus because of the attribute of Flesh. If Jesus = God (who is spirit) then the entity known as Jesus ceases to exist. The flesh/body of Jesus, no longer exists and the spirit of God is still the unchanging spirit of God. No Jesus at that point. The Flesh, called Jesus, is dead.)

26. After 9/11 a lot of people have been tossing around " god bless america". Why do they keep saying this? From the looks of it god hasn't blessed anything. If god had blessed america, the 9/11 event would've never happened. Theists seem to give the answer of "everything is part of gods big plan". If everything is part of gods big plan, why are we after Bin Laden? Wasn't he and other terrorists just carrying out gods desired plan? So it seems that Bin Laden/ terrorism isnt our enemy, but god . - [Note: Unfortunately many religious nuts believe they are fulfilling their God's plan by going to war.]

27. Christians say that God is NOT the author of confusion. Can you say, Tower of Babel? - The Screaming Monkeys

28. If Noah's flood supposedly covered the earth for a year, regardless of whether or not all the animals could fit on the ark, what the heck happened to all the plants? Can you imagine a cactus surviving under 4 miles of water for a year? I can't either! - Kyle Giblet [Note: With God all things are possible. Oh wait, except in Judges 1:19.]

29. The highest rainfall ever recorded in a 24 hour period was 47inches in the Reunion Islands in 1947 (during a severe tropical storm). To cover the whole earth to a depth of 5.6 miles, and cover the mountain tops (i.e. Mount Everest), it would need to rain at a rate of 372 (three hundred and seventy two) inches per hour, over the entire surface of the earth. Can rain fall at such an astronomical rate? Where did all the water come from?? Where did it all go to??? And would not the dynamics of the earth be so out of balance (tides etc.) that the earth would become so unstable that it would wobble off into outer space???? -

30. What do Muslim women get in Paradise? - IG [Note: Some Muslims I have interviewed about this say that Muslim women will get the same thing men get or equal value. Smiling Oh really? So Muslim women will get 72 virgin men? lol. If Muslim men get 72 virgins, where are all these virgin women coming from? What of their freewill? Is Allah creating these women to be slaves to the men in Paradise?]

31. In the "Last Days" Jesus is supposed to appear in the clouds. How are the Christians on the opposite end of the world going to see him? Are there going to be millions of Jesus'? What about people that work underground? What about people in deep space? -

32. The Bible says that God is a jealous God . How is this an example of a moral absolute of which man is supposed to follow? - IG ON GOD`S JEALOUSY
1.) "God is love." 1 John 4:8.
2.) "Love is not jealous." 1 Cor 13:4
3.) "I, the Lord thy God, am a jealous God." Exodus 20:5.
4.) The Christian god cannot logically exist.
(NOte: Basically love is NOT jealous, yet god is jealous, then God can`t be love. But if god IS love he cannot be jealous. Be he is.)

33. A true Muslim man is not supposed to do anything that the prophet Muhammad didn't do. If one remembers there was a big debate over whether or not Muslims should eat Mangos. If this is true, why in the Hell were these Islamic Fundamentalists flying airplanes? - IG

34. If the earth was covered by a complete global flood, every living creature killed except those surviving on the ark, why are there many completely unique animal species in Australia that are found no where else indigenously on the earth? -

35. If god is omniscient and " god is love," why would he allow a child to be conceived, knowing that that child would one day reject him and spend eternity burning in a lake of fire?- TiredTurkeyProd

36. Revelations is supposed to take place on Earth. What if we colonize the moon or Mars or inhabit a self-sustaining space station? Do we escape "judgement"? -- Ray Sommers [Note: No we don't Ray... and of course we all know that if there is any intelligent life out there besides us, they are all going to Hell too. Eye-wink]

37. Isaiah 40:28 says, "...the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is he weary?" If this is true, why did God rest on the seventh day?- IG

38. Everytime I go to a funeral the preacher and guests always say that " God " has called that person to Heaven or they say, " God said it was time to come home", or some such variation. If God is calling these people "home", why are we putting the murderers of these victims in prison? How can we punish a man or woman for doing God's will? - IG

39. Does God have a gender? In most churches, God is predominately referred to as a "he"? - IG [Note: The Bible says God is male, but what does this mean? Does God have a penis? Does he have hormones that dictate his gender? Smiling]

40. Why can't we wait until we get to Heaven to worship God ? Why would it be too late? - IG

41. What is the purpose of prayer? What can a finite being on Earth possibly tell an omnipotent, omniscient deity that he doesn't know already? - IG ON PRAYER
1.) Humans can?t change God?s mind for he has a divine plan and is unchangeable.
2.) Prayer can't change God's mind.
3.) Prayer doesn't change anything.
(Prayer may make you feel better emotionally, but it doesn`t change God`s mind.)

42. Some say Jesus was the all-knowing God. Jesus would have known then that when he died he'd be in heaven in less than 3 days to rule. If Jesus is alive and ruling today, what did he sacrifice? -- Cyndy Hammond

43. God knows that men are sinners, untrustworthy and evil, why does God leave it up to fallible man (clergy..etc) to teach others about his word? Why would he put our eternal souls at risk if he loves us so much? - The Infidel Guy and Danno778

44. Did Adam have nipples? If so, how did he acquire them? In fact, why would God give "later man" nipples at all? They serve no purpose other than lactation. Some say pleasure. Where is that in Genesis exactly? All mammals have nipples as well, are theirs pleasureful for them too? Many men don't find their nipples pleasurable at all. - IG

45. How did Adam and Eve know it was wrong to disobey God if they hadn't eaten of the tree of knowledge (of good and evil) yet? You can't blame them if they didn't know. - IG

46. If God has such a tremendous problem with uncircumcised penises, why did he make man with foreskin in the first place? - IG [Note: Some say, "So God can recognize his chosen people." Recognize? Is God so stupid that he has to physically look at men's penises? If not God, do other men need to? lol.]

47. Did Noah have fish onboard? Salt or Fresh? Since fresh water fish would die in salt, and salt water fish would die in fresh, only one type of fish would survive. Yet....?" - Frank Monaco

48. Why does the omnipotent, omnipresent God need help from man or angels to spread his word or do acts? - IG [Note: Some say God doesn't need help. But apparently he does.] - IG

49. How did Jesus ascend to Heaven in the Flesh when Paul says that flesh cannot inherit the kingdom of Heaven? (1 Cor.15:50) - IG [Note: Some say, well Paul said that and not Jesus. Yet they quote Paul when it suits there purposes.]

50. If God wants us to live right and choose "the good," why did he create evil? (Isaiah 45:6,7) Not to mention he already knows which people are not going to choose "the good" so why create those people in the first place? It seems that many people are born to go to Hell. - IG ON HELL
1.) God is all-knowing.
2.) Before I was born God knew I wouldn?t believe in him.
3.) I was born to go to Hell.
(Sure you may say I have a choice, but I think I`ve proven already that I really don`t. I`m simply fulfilling the will of God by being an atheist aren`t I? If I`m not, I shouldn`t exist: For God would have known that before I was created that I wouldn`t believe in him.)

51. I hear Christians all the time speaking of a spiritual war between Heaven and Hell, if this is true does God have limitations of power? Man only conducts wars because of our limitations of power and foresight. God has both all-power and all-knowledge, no reason for war of any kind. - IG

52. The Bible is full of phrases beginning with, "and the lord saw". Didn't he know before hand? - IG

53. How can a psychologist condone belief in something not proven to exist, when people are put into mental institutions on a daily basis for the same thing? i.e. aliens, fairies, imaginary people (Multiple Personality Disorders..)? - Dan Denton [Note: I'm sure that some of the pious believe that they are improperly placed there as well Dan. Smiling]

54. If Christians say they know God exists and that he will work miracles, what do they need faith for? Faith is not knowing. - IG

55. Brain, or shall I say, body transplants, will eventually be possible, where would the soul be then? Where is the soul? - IG

56. If God really wants us to know him, why doesn't he place the knowledge of him in our minds at birth? The same way many theists believe that God implants our sense of right and wrong in us a right birth. - IG

57. If God was Jesus' father (not Joseph), then why is Jesus' family tree traced through Joseph? -- Cyndy Hammond

58. What image of God was man made from? Couldn't have been a moral one or physical one. - IG [Note: One would suspect that an image of God would be perfect and cannot sin. Oops.]

59. Why can't God appear before everyone at the same time? Everyone in the world would then "know" he exists and not have solely "believe". And please, don't say he already tried that. Surely a God knows exactly what to do to convince a measly human of his existence. - IG

60. According to the New Testament Matthew 5:17 says "Do not suppose that I have come to abolish the Law and the prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to complete. I tell you this: so long as heaven and earth endure, not a letter, not a stroke, will disappear from the Law until all that must happen has Happened." So since Jesus has not returned the "Law" is still in effect, so why aren't we still burning witches, stoning adulterers and disobedient children, killing homosexuals, ostracizing people that work on the Sabbath (nurses, doctors etc.), flinging blood onto the horns of the alter, pulling off the heads of small birds, and don't forget human sacrifice to God (Leviticus 27 P.28 )? -- Sheila L. Chambers

61. If there is freewill in Heaven yet everyone has chosen good and is happy, isn't that proof that God could have made us with freewill, choosing good ( God ) and still being happy on Earth? - Dennis Hendrix [Note: In other words, evil didn't have to exist after all. Hey wait, even in Heaven apparently, evil can exist. At least for a short while. Satan became evil and was in heaven. Apparently he even had enough time to form an Army against God. Wow. Maybe Heaven won't be as peaceful as many believe.]

62. Why does God have a plan? Man is limited in power so we make plans because we are not all-knowing nor all-powerful. If God has a plan, isn't he reduced to a mere finite being? - IG

63. How could the all-merciful/loving God watch billions of his children burn over and over again for eternity? - IG [Note: Of course this is geared to those that believe in a fiery hell. I am well aware that not all Christians believe in a fiery Hell.]

64. Before reading and writing were invented (5000BC), on what basis did God use to judge the people who died before the Hebrew and Greek text (BIBLE) were written? -- [Note: They are all roasting in Hell. Smiling]

65. Many Christians tell me that I will "burn in hell". If I have a soul, how can a soul burn? Aren't souls non-physical entities? - IG [Note: Some Christians groups believe that you will be given new bodies after judgement. However, if true, what's the significance of a spirit in the first place?]

66. How can one hold to the barbaric belief that something has to DIE in order to appease a god for a bad deed? -- Nickolaus Wing [Note: Because an old book says so Nick.]

67. Why does SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome) occur? Why would God allow a baby to live for such a short period of time? Why not just let them not be born in the first place? -- Terry Clark [Note: This actually happened to a friend of mine. Not even God himself could console her.]

68. If Jesus was nailed and died on Friday evening, and walked out of the tomb on Sunday morning, where's the 3rd NIGHT he predicted? Per Matthew 12:40: For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. -

69. Many Christians claim that hell is merely existence outside of God ?s presence (C.S. Lewis among others). If this is the case, then Jesus could not have descended into hell (being God Himself). As a result, are you sure your sins are forgiven? - Byron Bultsma

70. Ten to twenty percent of all women who discover they are pregnant suffer a miscarriage. Also, it is estimated that anywhere from 14 to 50 percent of all pregnancies end in miscarriage. Seeing this is all part of God 's plan, does this make God the world's number one abortion provider? - Jim

71. What if, when you get to Heaven, you saw God causing pain and suffering out of anger or for the purpose of entertaining himself. What if he required people in heaven to praise and worship him non-stop even to the point of causing his worshipers discomfort, pain and boredom. What if, when he was bored, angry, or jealous, he would create natural disasters to make himself feel better. Would you still follow him? - Fernando [Note: Of course they would Fernando, many people followed Hitler out of fear as well.]

72. In Leviticus, the bible condemns homosexuality as an "abomination", giving some Christians a reason to hate, harass, torture and kill gays and even picket their funderals with " God hates fags" signs. In the same book of the bible the eating of shellfish is equally an "abomination". Are these Christians planning to go after the patrons of Red Lobster next? - [Note: hee-hee, that's all I can say. Jewish Law states that eating Fish without scales is an abomination and thus the Shark is one among the list. However, sharks do have scales, Placoid scales, one of the many reasons why a shark is called a Fish .]

73. Christians will tell you that if a baby dies it goes to heaven. Why then are they so against abortion? All the child is being deprived of is the opportunity to go to hell. Either that or god expects unborn fetuses to accept Jesus. -

74. If one could prove to you incontrovertibly that Jesus and God were all human fabrications would still believe? And why? - LOGICnREASON [Note: If you say yes. Then you are not concerned with the truth, you simply WANT to believe; and if you WANT to believe, indeed, there is nothing anyone can tell you..]

75. It is often said that God allows evil because one could not meaningfully appreciate good without experiencing its opposite. Why is it necessary to experience the opposite of something in order to appreciate it? Must I experience death in order to meaningfully appreciate life? -excidius

76. Bible literalists want you to believe that God's Word in the Bible is meant to be taken literally. If this is the case, why was Jesus fond of explaining things in parable and metaphor? Was Jesus literally discussing the biology of mustard seeds, or was the mustard seed parable meant to be interpreted figuratively as faith? -excidius

77. Liberal Christians say some parts of the Bible are literally true, but much else is to be interpreted figuratively as allegory. How do you know which is which? What distinguishing criteria are used? How can you be certain "God" is a literal and not a figurative concept? -excidius

78. Consciousness is the result of a physical brain, how could God being metaphysical be said to be conscious or sentient without having a brain? - Mindless

79. Considering how Leviticus is considered old law, and that Christians do not obey it anymore, why do they always use it to defend homosexuality being an "abomination"? -Bohorquez

80. If God is omnipotent and he has a plan ... then why did he not create the universe as it will be one second after the plan has succeeded? Who or what prevented him from doing that? - Timothy Campbell (http://www.tc123.com)

81. The large majority of people who have ever existed could not have learned of the Bible or Jesus Christ. And many people afterwards have found other religions or no religion at all to be more convincing, sometimes while being very virtuous. Do all these people really deserve eternal torment because of that? -- lpetrich

82. The above arguments also apply among different sects of Christianity, many of which state that most others are not True Christianity. -- lpetrich

83. Is it reasonable for the Creator and Ruler of such a vast Universe to be preoccupied with the sexuality of a species living on a tiny little planet? -- lpetrich

84. If the Christian god was all loving and all knowing why did he let religious figures such as Mohammed or Gautama Budda be born, knowing that they would mislead people from the 'true' faith and trick the majority of the world's population into burning forever in hell (in fact, if Islam didn't start, most of the middle east would probably be Christian). It would simple to use the Holy Spirit to guide them to Jesus and spread the 'true' faith. If the Holy Spirit exits, it certainly isn't doing it's job!

85. If one is obliged to follow all the teachings of the bible then why is engaging in homosexuality or adultery any worse than "suffering a witch to live", "muzzling the ox that treadeth the corn", "reaping the corners of thy field", "marring the corners of they beard", "plowing with an oxen and an ass", "hating thy brother in thy heart" or "eating frogs, shellfish and eels" ?

86. Exactly how did the alleged worldwide flood kill off all the world's sea creatures? How does one go about drowning a fish? -- Steever

87. Why did this alleged god create humans as an animal form of life that gets sick and dies and experiences pain and has a limited mind when 'it' could have created humans as a form of pure energy or of some indestructible material or whatever, and was totally ?sinless? and had ?pure? thought? If a god was omnipotent 'it' could have easily have done this. --AI

88. If a god is omnipotent how did 'it' fail to foresee that Satan would turn against 'it'? --AI

89. What is a god supposedly made of? --AI

This list was compiled by the Infidel Guy with submissions from many members of the atheist community.

PICK THE QUESTION YOU WANT TO ANSWER, AND POST IT HERE...

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 849
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Question 36

You can throw the book out if you want. There's no specs in having to believe a thing in it. It's one guys idea in symbolism of what will happen sometime in the future. All you need to know about the end times can be found and figured out in the new testament. Some things in the old will be helpful. What the Book is about is mainly what happens to people when the coming takes place. Mainly, everyone finds out they've been wrong and are highly embarrassed. It's what happens when social structures and values are in question and being replace, and, an understanding (to everyone's embarrassment) and finding out we aren't what we thought we were. If something arrived that shows the world problems can't be solved by "the leaders) and is a solution to those problems there's going to be hell and high water. That's what the book is about. It's a time that the wisdom is the wise is confounded and the scholars are seen as fools because in all their learnings and powers they didn't see it. Here's one for you. The woman riding on the beast and noted as the harlot, mystery, Babylon the great, (the mystery is solved) is nothing other then civilization. Civilization can never solve itself, and it's the problem why people cannot get along with each other. If civilization worked it would elimniate itself.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 849
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Question 37

Rest in this case means peace. Creation in the bible is not a undertaking of material construction. The first 6 are the creation of man. All 7 are the same day (enlightenment). One cannot be left out without destroying the others. It is "complete" man (Human). In the beginning God created the spirit and the soul, and the soull was without form (Not formed as human) and ignorance was upon the face of the mind. And God said, let there be enlightenment, etc. All seven days are one understanding divided into it seven enlightenments. When the first six are intact you have a peaceful person. The 7th is the result of the first six. It's spiritual because in the physical it doesn't make sense.  You can't have light in the first day if the sun was made in the fourth.  Biblical creation is-----"you".

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5853
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Fascinating, as always, to

Fascinating, as always, to see the lengths people like Old Seer will go to to find ways to re-interpret the words of the Bible to show they aren't really just the ramblings of an ancient culture describing the myths they believed in at the time.

I must admit, this idea that Genesis is not describing the origin of the World, but the 'creation' of man, is a new one on me.

Ignorance is truly on the face of this person.

It still doesn't really make sense, sorry. Nice try...

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

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

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

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


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 849
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
That's what I thought.

You say you are one of free thought. I see the opposite. You are locked into what you've been taught and are a product of those who agree with you. There are only two ways to interpret life, plus or minus. You may want a realm of your own. Sorry there isn't any other. You won't believe the plus nor the minus. Because you encounter something you don't understand then it's not true to you. I know a batch of clergy that think like that, why criticize them when you are the same. They don't know what Gos is and can't prove it, and you're not about to prove there isn't one. So, all you can do is complain but have no drive to find a solution. Because someone believes there is a God you hate them for it (it shows). Because they say there is a God they hate you for saying that. You are complaining about people that are like you. You just encountered one who "is" free thought and the one that is free thought can easily spot some one who isn't.  If I wasn't of free thought i wouldn't be able to see you would I. You are just as locked on your side as they are on theirs----that is not free thought. If you think free thought is making up your own mind, it isn't. Free thought is accepting what  is given to you for for thought. Outright rejecting an idea of another exhibits a locked mind, there fore you can no longer claim to be a person of free thought.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 849
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
There are other things

and reasons to hate others. Why use religion. I am sure if it wasn't religion it would be something else. Religion is the easiest because you don't have to prove your side. You want "them " to prove theirs. Before admonishing them, prove yours.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote: You say you

Old Seer wrote:
You say you are one of free thought. I see the opposite.

Then you're not very perceptive. 

Bob will always juxtapose scripture next to scientific counter theories.

Old Seer wrote:
You are locked into what you've been taught...

Logical fallacy.

The 'evidence' points away from 'god/s' with every new discovery.

If you are not willing to give high probabilty to the evidence, then you are arguing from ignorance and incredulity.

Both are fallacies.

Old Seer wrote:
Because you encounter something you don't understand then it's not true to you.

So you understand the unknowable 'immaterial'?

Cool.

Let's hear it...

Old Seer wrote:
I know a batch of clergy that think like that...

We all do...

Old Seer wrote:
They don't know what Gos is and can't prove it

That's the long and the short of it.

Well said. 

Old Seer wrote:
You just encountered one who "is" free thought

Cool.

Can you assign the probabilities that 'god/s' don't exist?

I'll make it easy for you.

1- Very High

2- Somewhat High

3- Not Very High

4- Low

5- Very Low

6- Not at all

Old Seer wrote:
If you think free thought is making up your own mind, it isn't.

I'm glad you said that.

Now answer my question, and provide the evidence to justify your rate of probablity.

Old Seer wrote:
Outright rejecting an idea of another exhibits a locked mind

That's what theism does.

It outright rejects the possibility of the cosmos having 'natural' explanations, and invokes 'supernatural' ones.

 

Get with the program, already... 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 849
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Ok, mission accomplished.

I will check back from time to time. What I gave you will take time for you to understand. I have been studying the bible for 60 years and didn't get anywhere until after 1985. I joined a group of intellectuals that were adventurists (another ist, I'm tired of "ists&quotEye-wink( I don't like being an "ist" but, there again there are those forces I mentioned that we all are under) They were a club of adventurers studying many things when I joined them . I wasn't much into the bible at that time because I was sick of the darn thing and was stuck trying to figure it all out. I very seldom read in it anymore because I find it boring.  But not having anything to contribute other then physics (I am highly adept and accomplished in physics) I brought up the bile of which i was stuck on for explanations. They became interested, so, they undertook the book as another project. I am only relaying to you all what we found and determined. In June of 1992 we completed the study. I merely passed some of it on to you. I am not here to argue with any one, or purposely cause grief. I came here to let off information that the group I mentioned has found from it's study. What I posted is something new and we know it will take time to comprehend. The group is made up of a lawyer, several university professors, another physicist like myself, some from accomplished business of sorts, a bio researcher, an archaeologist, and others interested in histories an sciences, and a psychiatrist- maybe two. The object of the group was to go on explorations and find new things. I travel the western states extensively going on mountain trails and adventures. I am always going somewhere. The idea of coming here was to let off the info for your assimilation or rejection. There's a lot more but it takes 1000s of words to explain something simple.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote: I joined a

Old Seer wrote:
I joined a group of intellectuals that were adventurists 

You and I must have vastly different definitions for 'intellectual'...

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5853
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
I have also travelled a bit,

I have also travelled a bit, seen interesting things, like the Great Pyramids of Egypt, the paddy fields and deserts of China, and both ends of the Great Wall. Dived in the Red Sea, been across Kazakstan and Uzbekistan, Mongolia, Siberia, seen the new year in in Red Square in Moscow.

Does give one a perspective on different cultures.

Taken photos from the very top of a tower at the southern end of Manhattan, which I watched collapse on TV a bit over two years later.

Visited mosques, Buddhist temples, Eastern Orthodox and RC cathedrals. More cultural perspective.

I have also been up your West coast from Tijuana to Seattle.

Science is where we get knowledge, but you need to follow many areas.

You do need more than a background in Physics to understand the many ways the Bible gets things very wrong.

 

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

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

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

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


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 849
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
I.m asking-

What is this website about. Why is it here, Why does it exist. All these questions are presented to be answered. Is this just bait to set up another for character assassinations. Is this about some ego  that elevates an Atheist to a higher level if they can have a means to slander, call others stupid, laugh without an attempt to analyze the input of others, reject off hand without thought to reason someones input. Is a rational response calling someone stupid because of their point of view. Someone interjects the word "intellect" and it's another means to degrade. Am I to believe that intellect shouldn't be used to interpret a book, a tree, a sand dune, and only be used for the purpose of claiming there's no God and intellect shouldn't be used to show that there possibly is one? I am I to accept that intellect should only apply to another's point of view and not one's own. One must come to the conclusion then that if all on the planet were Atheists the world wouldn't be any different. Is the hatred of religion/idea of God because religions have fostered wars and killings and all manner of atrocities, and, if the entire world were Atheist all that would stop, when what is exhibited here is the same mental fix of those hated. It's a sureity that Atheists want to be Human like all others. Atheist, answer these questions.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote: What is this

Old Seer wrote:
What is this website about.

To be one of the best places on the internet that one can find to avoid censoring of one's thoughts, and calling bullshit on bullshit claims.

Old Seer wrote:
Why is it here

To be one of the best places on the internet that one can find to avoid censoring of one's thoughts, and calling bullshit on bullshit claims.

Old Seer wrote:
Why does it exist.

To be one of the best places on the internet that one can find to avoid censoring of one's thoughts, and calling bullshit on bullshit claims.

Old Seer wrote:
All these questions are presented to be answered.

I directly presented you questions that were presented to be answered, and you weren't courteous enough to answer them.

What's your justification for that?

Is that what you'd like to do here, is simply lecture, ignore other people's 'questions that are presented to be answered', and talk past people?

 

If so, you're being anti social.

Old Seer wrote:
I am I to accept that intellect should only apply to another's point of view and not one's own.

No one claimed that.

Are you here to talk past people and pose rhetorical questions?

 

Old Seer wrote:
  Atheist, answer these questions.

Why?

You avoid questions by others.

 

 

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 849
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Holy moly

Probabilities. Evidence is not probabilities, evidence "is" fact.  The existence of a God is not a probability it is 100 % Fact. Can you deny that you "are" created.  Is it possible that what created you could be refer ed to as "God". If you don't want to call it or name it God any name will do. You are evidence that a force/thing/energy/etc exits that created you.  So- being you don't know what that is you deny it exists. The term "God" is merely an ancient  explanation of that which one is under. The creation remains "under that which did the creating. Are you above what created you, not hardly. If you and those here are of free thought you would have by now come across the idea that  those who interpret things according to their own mind and personal whims and mental makeup got it wrong. You judge a book of history on the mere fact they someone got wrong and it never occurred to you that there is an explanation that is correct. If you have a spiritual makeup where did you get it. Isn't love a spiritual fact as well as hate. Is either of those material. Do you have any more or less then these inner elements than anyone else. Can you deny that you "aren't" under the forces of love and hate. At any time in your life have you acted according to those two elements. Did it ever occur to you that you are controlled by something. WHAT is that something that you cannot get away from. Can you run away from sorrow, happiness, caring, compassion, friendship---I don't think so. Even dogs have all that. That can be called/named God or named something else if you want. But to me ---That's God. Where did all this stuff come from that makes you. Well, you didn't get it from outer space rode in on a flying saucer. It occurred to you that there's no being in outer space that created you. Outstanding--you got that right. But is that all the further you can go with it, there isn't anymore. Do you stop to think that there doesn't have to be anyone out there in space that created you. Did it ever ocurr to you that you could have simply formed and those things that you are formed of had to have been present in the universe before you were formed and passed to you. . You definitely didn't form out of something that didn't exist. If it isn't God then what is it. If you are one of free thought you would have gone through all that by now. Here on this forum you have rules to be curtious, kind, non abusive etc. What do you think god is. You stepped on it an didn't see it. The rules are asking people to remain under those forces. Remove yourself from under those forces and see what you turn into.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Hmmm, maybe you missed it

Hmmm, maybe you missed it the first time, so I'll repost a "question that was presented to be answered".

 
Are you here to talk past people and pose rhetorical questions? 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 849
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
so-

Every body's input is bullshit claims. You all hold the patent on everything else is that it. I want you guys to come up with answers instead of degrading folks you disagree with. Answer the questions, where did you come from. Could the spiritual entity that is you be a duplicate of another. Something formed you, what is it, what did it. Or, do you claim not to have a spiritual makeup. If you do what are it's elements. If you don't how do you hate, love, grieve, be sad, be happy. If you do not have a spiritual entity do you exist. You ask questions and all answers are bullshit. Answer my questions and I will applaud you if I learned a thing or two. I will not regard your answers as bullshit.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote: Every body's

Old Seer wrote:
Every body's input is bullshit claims. 

How do you know?

 

God, is that you?

I've been waiting for a sign...

 

 

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:Could the

Hello, Old Seer.

Old Seer wrote:
Could the spiritual entity that is you be a duplicate of another. Something formed you, what is it, what did it. Or, do you claim not to have a spiritual makeup. If you do what are it's elements.

Way too many ambiguous and potentially misleading terms here.  

You need to define "spiritual entity" and what you mean by "a duplicate of another." Explain what you mean by "formed you," and "spiritual makeup." Explain what are "elements."  

Quote:
If you don't how do you hate, love, grieve, be sad, be happy.

Those are either emotions that we feel or states we are in. Phenomena produced by the brain, as far as we know. 

Quote:
If you do not have a spiritual entity do you exist.

Using the word 'I' assumes my own existence, so I cannot say 'I don't exist.'

If you want to ask questions, I would start a new thread and ask one precisely worded question at a time. That would be the best hope of having a productive discussion.

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


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 849
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
If those are misleading terms

it means you don't know and can't figure it out. Answer the questions. Nice ploys, not good enough. You don't know what a spiritual entity is. Another nice ploy for no answer. Do you have a dictionary. Emotions are aspects of your entity, they are a part of what makes you. How is entity a misleading term. The word is common. How can a question "what formed you be ambiguous". It's a simple easy question. There's nothing ambiguous about anything I posted. I use plain language and plain words. Instead of weaseling around why don't you dig in. do some research, compare this to that, Check one claim against another including your own. Question your own findings, be sure you have it correct. Do as I do, no ducking questions, I'm not skating out on any of yours. Is the entity that is you be a duplicate of another. Is love, hate, contempt, anger , happiness etc any part of you----that's not ambiguous,. yes. no. If you have love or hate and where did you get it. Answer the question, yes, no. Did you exist before you were conceived. If so where did you exist. If not then you had to begin at sometime., what caused you to begin. There's nothing there that's vague or ambiguous, they're all straight forward questions any kid asks when growing up. Is that which is produced by the brain you or not, someone else?---yes, no. If you are someone what makes you someone. If I answered all this for you would my answers be vague and ambiguous. Ambiguous is not an answer.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:it means you

Old Seer wrote:

it means you don't know and can't figure it out.

I thought you considered yourself an intellectual.

You are asking loaded questions. Loaded questions entail presuppositions.

Put those presuppositions in syllogistic form and let's have a go at them.

Old Seer wrote:
You don't know what a spiritual entity is.

It's become a banal term.

Define your terms precisely as you would argue them.

It's not our job.

Old Seer wrote:
If you are someone what makes you someone.

Thinking I'm someone.

Duhhhh....

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


CliffD
CliffD's picture
Posts: 23
Joined: 2011-11-15
User is offlineOffline
1. If Jesus fulfilled all the OT prophecies so well, why didn't

Answer - The Jews who were with Him obviously recognized Him as the Messiah. They believed so much that they were willing to suffer, persecution, ridicule, contempt, torture and death. I’m sure those who He healed believed and those who saw his miracles believed. There are many Jews today who are realizing that Jesus is the messiah they have been waiting for. The reason they didn’t get it is because the Jews were expecting a conquering Messiah that would come, vanquish their enemies and restore Jerusalem as the holy capital of God on the earth. The idea of a sacrificial messiah tortured and nailed to a cross was abhorrent to them. Would the son of God die in such a brutal and shameful way especially when their Scriptures said “cursed is anyone who hangs on a tree” They missed it because he came as a sacrificial lamb not a conquering messiah. They missed it because they don’t realize He was cursed for them. They missed it because the son of God choose Himself to suffer such a brutal death? Jesus Himself said “No man takes my life, I lay it down” Ask yourself why. They missed it because for thousands of years they believed they had the one true God. They believed that the gentiles were not part of God’s plan of redemption. They were God’s chosen people, were they not? They didn’t realize that God chose them because He had to choose a line for the Messiah to come through. He had to choose a people that it could be seen by the world were blessed when they walked with Him and cursed when they turned from His righteous standard to wickedness. He had to choose a people that it could be seen that prophecy was fulfilled through them and through them He would bless the world. They felt they had exclusive rights to God’s love and protection and were disgusted by the thought of gentiles worshipping their God. Therefore they still wait today for their conquering Messiah to come and restore Jerusalem to its former glory while those who are saved by the blood of Jesus Christ know 100% that He is the Messiah they are waiting for.

This question also completely trivializes the fact that Jesus did in fact fulfill over 300 Old Testament messianic prophecies. Here are just a few. He would be born a Jew, from the tribe of Benjamin, from the line of Jesse, a descendant of David. He would be born 483 years after the decree to rebuild Jerusalem. He would be God incarnate. He would be born to a virgin. He would be born in Bethlehem. He would flee to Egypt. He would be called a Nazarene. He would heal the sick and cure the lame. He would be sinless. He would perform miracles and speak in parables. He would be crucified (predicted before the use of crucifixion). Soldiers would cast lots for His clothes. He would be buried in a rich man’s grave. He would rise from the dead. He would atone for the sins of the world. In "Science Speaks" by Peter Stoner the probabilities of a man fulfilling just eight of the prophecies is estimated to be 1 in 10 to the 17th power which is 100,000,000,000,000,000. To fulfill 13 is 1 in 10 to the power of 280 (1 with 280 zeros after it). To put that figure into perspective there are 1 in 10 to the power of 38 stars and planets in the whole universe. To fulfill over 300 is not even worth contemplating and ridiculous to say they occurred by chance. So in answer to the question - just because the Jews didn’t recognize Him doesn’t mean He wasn’t the Messiah. Those who did recognize Him were willing to suffer the most agonizing deaths imaginable. The Jews didn’t recognize Him because Prophetic Scripture had to be fulfilled in order for the gospel to go to the gentiles to include the world in God’s plan of salvation that He set out before time began.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
CliffD wrote:Answer - The

CliffD wrote:

Answer - The Jews who were with Him obviously recognized Him as the Messiah. They believed so much that they were willing to suffer, persecution, ridicule, contempt, torture and death.

They might have believed. But why should anyone else believe that?

 

 

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


CliffD
CliffD's picture
Posts: 23
Joined: 2011-11-15
User is offlineOffline
You should believe it

You should believe it because they were eye witnesses who wouldn’t recant under threat of torture or death. So unless you saw the risen Messiah after being completely brutalized and hammered to a cross, appear to you, no way would you die for that cause. All they had to do was deny Him and they would have lived. Would you be tortured and die for a lie you knew to be a lie or would you confess before hand that you were making up lies to spread your new religion? And what did they gain by spreading their new religion? Let’s see what we have in store for the lucky men who were entrusted with spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the world. You get a lifetime of persecution, ridicule, contempt, torture and finally death. You should believe because the gospels would hold up as testimony in a court of law and be declared as truthful and their accounts accepted as truthful testimony. And their account says that Jesus Christ, the son of God lived a sinless life so that He could pay for your sins against a holy God. You should believe because even today people are being set free by the blood of Jesus Christ, me being one of them. And I can assure you all I did was bow my knee to a holy God, ask Him to forgive me and thank Him that He punished His sinless, spotless son Jesus Christ for my sins against Him. I haven’t drank, smoked, smoked weed, cursed, watched porn, fought bouncers or broken the law since that day. Born again, just like the Bible says. I have seen heroin junkies set free in an instant. Prostitutes forgiven and living righteous lives for God now! You should believe because there are fulfilled prophecies confirming He lived. Eye witness accounts confirming He was sinless “No deceit was in His mouth” and the testimony of born again Christians today confirm that Jesus Christ truly is the son of God and was butchered and nailed to a cross to atone for your sins in the eyes of a holy God. God loves you and judged His sinless son for your sins against Him so He can forgive you and pour His mercy into your born again life. You see God is holy. He has to judge sin. If you ever even told 1 lie in your life you would not be able to dwell in eternity with a holy God. So His son had to live a sinless life for God who by His very nature has to judge sin, to be able to forgive you. That is why you should believe. Because the death of a man 2000 years ago on a cross has provided a way back to God for you.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:it means you

Old Seer wrote:
it means you don't know and can't figure it out.

Wow. Normally, I believe I would end the discussion here, but today, I'll make another attempt.

Quote:
Is the entity that is you be a duplicate of another.

Again, these questions are not quite precise enough, but clearly, you will not hear any words can have multiple meanings or please clarify nonsense, so let me simply answer all the questions that I suspect you could be asking. 

Am I a clone? Not that I know of.

Am I exactly identical to an entity somewhere else? That seems impossible. But, another dimension or universe, maybe; I don't know about that stuff. 

Perhaps by entity, you don't mean physical entity, but some sort of soul or something? I don't believe in anything like that, so that would beg the question.

Quote:
Is love, hate, contempt, anger , happiness etc any part of you----that's not ambiguous,. yes. no.

Do I feel those emotions? Of course. 

Are they actual substances of sorts that exist in my brain, like a physical part of me? Well, no, because they aren't matter. That is the wrong way to categorize those terms.  

Quote:
If you have love or hate and where did you get it. Answer the question, yes, no.

Do I feel love and hate? Yes. Or, rather, I have the capacity to love and hate. 

I'm not sure what it means to "have" love and hate; I guess you could "have" those feelings, but only in the sense that you are experiencing them. 

Where did I get it? You mean why do I feel love and hate? Because of my brain and external factors.

I can't physically "get" it from someplace because they are, like in the previous question, abstractions - descriptions of how I feel.   

Quote:
Did you exist before you were conceived.

That depends on what defines an individual i.e. a person existing. 

I was not conscious, obviously. So no.

But, virtually all if not all of the matter that is present in me was present at the time. So, that could be yes.

If It's when I start to develop as a distinct organism, I guess conception could be a rough dividing line. Then, that would be a yes.  

Quote:
If not then you had to begin at sometime., what caused you to begin.

What caused me to become conscious? Hmm, I'm no neuroscientist, but I believe our consciousness gradually develops as our physical brain develops after conception, and then, after birth.   

When did the atoms that make up my body begin to exist? Perhaps they have always existed. If they began to exist at some point in the past, I do not know what may have caused them to exist or if they even had what could be considered a cause.  

What caused me to be conceived? I suppose that would be some lucky sperm reaching the egg, lol.

Quote:
Is that which is produced by the brain you or not,

Yes. As in, I am conscious and self-awareness because of my brain. Maybe it is more accurate to state that I AM my brain rather than treating the brain as an object that I possess.   

Quote:
someone else?

Well, just making the statement would be a contradiction. My brain is not someone else as I've already implied that it is me by using the word "my."

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


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 849
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Answer the questions.

The questions are not loaded. I don,t even know how to make a loaded question. What makes you "someone". The ability to think doesn't answer it. A Greek observed, "I think their-fore I am". He's right, but that doesn't explain his spiritual elements. Thinking is evidence but it does not explain "you".  Thinking is only a means to figure  out and come to a conclusion. You have a highly experienced method of avoiding questions. One aspect of your being  is- love---how did you acquire it/that. How did it become part of "you". You don't need to think to love someone or something, it happens on it's own.  Can you reply with and answer without degrading remarks.  The "Duuuuh" is not needed.  Where I submitted -you.don't know what a spiritual entity is- was meant to be in the context of  questioning. It should have ended with a question mark.  I could say the questions submitted on this forum are banal that would get me by quite easily wouldn't it---but they're not.  I find them very good direct questions. Ambiguous means the question can have more then one answer, give them all and I'll tell you which is correct.

 

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:I don,t even

Old Seer wrote:
I don,t even know how to make a loaded question.

People can commit fallacies and communicate ineffectively without knowing they are doing it. In fact, that is generally when they do it, unless they are being disingenuous. 

Quote:
A Greek observed, "I think their-fore I am".

Descartes was French and lived most of his life in the 1600s.   

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


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
CliffD wrote: You should

CliffD wrote:
You should believe it because they were eye witnesses who wouldn’t recant under threat of torture or death.

I asked you why I should believe.

Not why I would believe, like you do. I already know why people like you would believe. You choose to believe the testimonies.

I don't know why you would, which is why I choose not to.

If that thing exists, there's evidence of it existing, or having existed. If the evidence doesn't exist and all we have are testimony from people, all we know for sure is there are testimonies from people.

It doesn't matter how much one person (or many) believes (or reported) Jesus came back to life (or even existed), if he didn't. Those are testimonies.

It could be true, it could be not true, just the same.

 

I shouldn't just believe things without evidence for them, because then I could believe things like that I could fly just by flapping my arms, and I could die, or believe things that are emotionally and mentally unhealthy for me. That's being rational and using the most precise method of accumulating knowledge.

 

Your way, it seems to me, is very irrational and nowhere near mine in precision.

I would stop, if I was you...

 

 

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote: I don,t even

Old Seer wrote:
I don,t even know how to make a loaded question.

Old Seer wrote:
The questions are not loaded.

Old Seer wrote:
I don,t even know how to make a loaded question.

Old Seer wrote:
The questions are not loaded.

Old Seer wrote:
I don,t even know how to make a loaded question.

Old Seer wrote:
The questions are not loaded.

Old Seer wrote:
I don,t even know how to make a loaded question.

Old Seer wrote:
The questions are not loaded.

Old Seer wrote:
I don,t even know how to make a loaded question.

Old Seer wrote:
The questions are not loaded.

Old Seer wrote:
I don,t even know how to make a loaded question.

Old Seer wrote:
The questions are not loaded.

Old Seer wrote:
I don,t even know how to make a loaded question.

Old Seer wrote:
The questions are not loaded.

Old Seer wrote:
I don,t even know how to make a loaded question.

Old Seer wrote:
The questions are not loaded.

 

Now you know why we call people like you 'dizzy'....

 

Old Seer wrote:
What makes you "someone".

Thinking I am someone.

Old Seer wrote:
The ability to think doesn't answer it.

That's what you think, which makes you someone that thinks that the ability to think doesn't make you someone.

I think that someone thinking like you about what thinking makes you is someone thinking that someone thinking isn't someone thinking that they are someone.

Old Seer wrote:
A Greek observed, "I think their-fore I am".

That's what you think.

Old Seer wrote:
He's right, but that doesn't explain his spiritual elements.

It doesn't explain his mangina either.

What's your point?

That there are manginas and spiritual elements?

I've heard stories of both.

But I've never seen evidence of either.

Old Seer wrote:
Thinking is evidence but it does not explain "you". 

I think it does.

Old Seer wrote:
Thinking is only a means to figure  out and come to a conclusion.

Are you asserting we can conclude without thinking?

Old Seer wrote:
You have a highly experienced method of avoiding questions.

You think that.

Old Seer wrote:
One aspect of your being  is- love

That's what you think.

Old Seer wrote:
how did you acquire it/that.

Another loaded question. (ie: How did you acquire that Mercedes convertible with the tan interior?)

Old Seer wrote:
How did it become part of "you".

Who said I had a Mercedes convertible with the tan interior?

Old Seer wrote:
 Can you reply with and answer without degrading remarks. 

Can you tell me how many priests you've had willing sex with?

Old Seer wrote:
The "Duuuuh" is not needed. 

Then it wouldn't exist.

Old Seer wrote:
Ambiguous means the question can have more then one answer, give them all and I'll tell you which is correct.

1- Purple

2- Sometimes

3- 134

4- You don't know WTF you are talking about.

5- Flying Spaghetti Monster

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:Now you know

redneF wrote:

Now you know why we call people like you 'dizzy'....

Lol.

 

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


CliffD
CliffD's picture
Posts: 23
Joined: 2011-11-15
User is offlineOffline
Your way, it seems to me, is very irrational and nowhere near mi

redneF wrote:

CliffD wrote:
You should believe it because they were eye witnesses who wouldn’t recant under threat of torture or death.

I asked you why I should believe.

Not why I would believe, like you do. I already know why people like you would believe. You choose to believe the testimonies.

I don't know why you would, which is why I choose not to.

If that thing exists, there's evidence of it existing, or having existed. If the evidence doesn't exist and all we have are testimony from people, all we know for sure is there are testimonies from people.

It doesn't matter how much one person (or many) believes (or reported) Jesus came back to life (or even existed), if he didn't. Those are testimonies.

It could be true, it could be not true, just the same.

 

I shouldn't just believe things without evidence for them, because then I could believe things like that I could fly just by flapping my arms, and I could die, or believe things that are emotionally and mentally unhealthy for me. That's being rational and using the most precise method of accumulating knowledge.

 

Your way, it seems to me, is very irrational and nowhere near mine in precision.

I would stop, if I was you...

 

 

 

 


CliffD
CliffD's picture
Posts: 23
Joined: 2011-11-15
User is offlineOffline
By your logic so, no history

By your logic so, no history should be believed as much of it is based on written testimony. What you fail to understand is that we can verify the truth of historical accounts by using scientific methods. This is what they do in a court of law to build up a case against somebody or acquit somebody. Although not having witnessed an actual event take place, it can be decided beyond a reasonable doubt if somebody is lying or not. The gospel documents would hold up in a court of law as truthful testimony. If they are truthful they give an account that the son of God, who was God himself, intersected human history to atone for the sins of the world in the eyes of a holy God. He fulfills 300 prophecies so we know He is definitely the promised Messiah and this is validated by His followers and eyewitnesses of the event not recanting their testimony after being tortured and put to death. Today everyone who asks God for forgiveness become 100% convinced that Jesus Christ is indeed the son of God and start preaching the truth of the gospel to a Godless world, willing to suffer for His name. You can not deny the fulfilled prophecy. You can bring the gospel to any good lawyer friend of yours and ask him to put it through the checks that courts use to validate the truthfulness of an account and see what you find. So what would be considered evidence in a court of law is not to you. You are preloading your requirements for evidence with standards that can not be met for you. A cold, hard rational look at the facts will tell any lawyer the gospel accounts are truthful. If the evidence you are looking for is a personal visitation from the risen Messiah, you are never going to have it. That is why he forgives sinners and entrusts them with spreading the gospel. He won’t violate your freewill not to choose Him. He will however give enough of evidence to those who seek Him. Here is my question for you. You say you only believe things by way of evidence. Why then do you believe in evolution that states Billions and billions and billions of years ago the rocks melted into the water and made a stew of inanimate (sterile, lifeless, dead) matter. By an act of spontaneous combustion (unobserved by any human and never again created in an observable science experiment) the stew of inanimate matter came alive and the first simple one celled life form (which we know now to contain thousands of encyclopedias of pre programmed information) came to be. Then by way of natural selection (a blind naturalistic process which does not have the ability to create, only select) and by a series of naturally selected mutations (which do not have the ability to add extra information to the genome and in every scientifically observed case are noted as deformities with loss of information) this single cell evolved into the complex life forms that we see in the world today. My question for you is this. Where is your evidence is is this event took place? Were you there and witnessed it personally? Do you know somebody who witnessed it? Has it been created in a scientific experiment that we can observe or do you believe by faith that this magical event happened and is responsible for the unimaginably complex designs we see in life today? Is that the evidence you have for believing such an event took place? It did cos science says so. If you have proof and evidence for everything you believe I would love to see your evidence that the first cell magically combusted into a living thing. Do you not realize that yours is a religion as much as mine? I just have an account in many ways validated as the Word of the living God, to give me reason for my hope and belief. What’s yours religious belief in atheism based on? The fact science some scientists say a cell magically combusted into an organism with thousands of encyclopedias of pre - programmed information.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
CliffD wrote: A cold, hard

CliffD wrote:
A cold, hard rational look at the facts will tell any lawyer the gospel accounts are truthful.

You mean the part about hundreds of graves opening up and zombies rising and walking into the cities written in the testimonies of unknown witnesses that are copies of copies of copies of copies of translations upon translations with over a thousand words that could not be translated from the original language?

I really, really doubt it...

CliffD wrote:
You can not deny the fulfilled prophecy.

Billions of people do it everyday.

Stop listening to Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron. They have mental and emotional handicaps.

CliffD wrote:
Here is my question for you. You say you only believe things by way of evidence.

Extraordinary claims, yes.

Let me see what happens when you flap your arms...

CliffD wrote:
Why then do you believe in evolution...

Because of the evidence.

CliffD wrote:
...that states Billions and billions and billions of years ago the rocks melted into the water and made a stew of inanimate (sterile, lifeless, dead) matter.

The theory of evolution is about rocks melting into water and made a 'rock' stew??

Listen kid, stop speculating about reality and wait till you get to high school and learn what the theory actually is, and stop posting on forums with people who graduated high school before you were born, and who actually got a proper education.

 

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
300 to 0

CliffD wrote:
By your logic so, no history should be believed as much of it is based on written testimony. What you fail to understand is that we can verify the truth of historical accounts by using scientific methods.

All these witness? Funny how we don't know their names nor did they write any testimony. The oldest copy of the gospels didn't even have a name on them and we do not have the original documents. The assignment of the authors, Matthew, Mark, Luke was done later, decades later. There was only oral traditions, word of mouth, and as we know stories get bigger and bigger and after that the gospels  were composed. They also were copied from each other and from an older source called Q which is no longer exists. I learned in history classes that you need independent documentation and the further away from the actually event, the more distorted the details became. The only details we have are the gospels. Even Paul say nothing about the life of Christ except his last week. Paul's writings were the earliest. Funny how he could even quote one life story of Jesus. That was yet to be made up.

This evidence is all hearsay. It would be thrown out of court. You are believing BS espoused by Christians. Repeating it doesn't make it so. The testimony in a courtroom requires eye witnesses, not documents of unknown origin and written decades after the event.s 

CliffD wrote:
He fulfills 300 prophecies so we know He is definitely the promised Messiah and this is validated by His followers and eyewitnesses of the event not recanting their testimony after being tortured and put to death.

Entirely retro-fited and the stories are contradictory. For example, the genealogies contradict each other and they clearly say it is Joseph's lineage who apparently contributed no DNA to Jesus. The birthplace  stories are contradictory. Matthew's quotes on prophecy fulfilled were entirely lifted and twisted.

Here is one example

 

Matthew 2:13-15 wrote:

When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. “Get up,” he said, “take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him.”

So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: “Out of Egypt I called my son.” (from Hosea 11:1)

Now here is the context of Hosea 11 which Matthew unequivocally states is a prophecy of Jesus

Hosea 11:1-2 wrote:

When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. But the more I called Israel, the further they went from me. They sacrificed to the Baals and they burned incense to images.

 Did this mean while the baby Jesus was in Egypt he burned incense to false gods and ignored Jehovah? You need to read the context of those supposedly fulfilled prophecies, you will drop your 300 count down to near 0.

 

Thanks for the wall of word sermon, but please learn somethings about the scientific method.

 

 

 

Religion Kills !!!

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

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


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 849
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
If one seperates government

from religion-government kills also. Amongst our group we see government and religion to be the same.

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
CliffD wrote:You should

CliffD wrote:

You should believe it because they were eye witnesses who wouldn’t recant under threat of torture or death. So unless you saw the risen Messiah after being completely brutalized and hammered to a cross, appear to you, no way would you die for that cause. All they had to do was deny Him and they would have lived. Would you be tortured and die for a lie you knew to be a lie or would you confess before hand that you were making up lies to spread your new religion? And what did they gain by spreading their new religion? Let’s see what we have in store for the lucky men who were entrusted with spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the world. You get a lifetime of persecution, ridicule, contempt, torture and finally death. You should believe because the gospels would hold up as testimony in a court of law and be declared as truthful and their accounts accepted as truthful testimony. And their account says that Jesus Christ, the son of God lived a sinless life so that He could pay for your sins against a holy God. You should believe because even today people are being set free by the blood of Jesus Christ, me being one of them. And I can assure you all I did was bow my knee to a holy God, ask Him to forgive me and thank Him that He punished His sinless, spotless son Jesus Christ for my sins against Him. I haven’t drank, smoked, smoked weed, cursed, watched porn, fought bouncers or broken the law since that day. Born again, just like the Bible says. I have seen heroin junkies set free in an instant. Prostitutes forgiven and living righteous lives for God now! You should believe because there are fulfilled prophecies confirming He lived. Eye witness accounts confirming He was sinless “No deceit was in His mouth” and the testimony of born again Christians today confirm that Jesus Christ truly is the son of God and was butchered and nailed to a cross to atone for your sins in the eyes of a holy God. God loves you and judged His sinless son for your sins against Him so He can forgive you and pour His mercy into your born again life. You see God is holy. He has to judge sin. If you ever even told 1 lie in your life you would not be able to dwell in eternity with a holy God. So His son had to live a sinless life for God who by His very nature has to judge sin, to be able to forgive you. That is why you should believe. Because the death of a man 2000 years ago on a cross has provided a way back to God for you.

It's a real shame that these "eyewitnesses" didn't write anything. You'd think hanging out with the Messiah would have been worth talking about - I mean, didn't Jesus command them to do that?

All he got was deafening silence from the "eyewitnesses" and he had to wait for Paul and his converts to write and they ended up writing Jesus out of the story.

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


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:from

Old Seer wrote:

from religion-government kills also. Amongst our group we see government and religion to be the same.

 

You mean you love them as long as they are benefiting you?

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


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Welcome to the forum.  Can

Welcome to the forum. 

Can you use paragraphs please?

CliffD wrote:
By your logic so, no history should be believed as much of it is based on written testimony.

No, that's not our logic.

Quote:
The gospel documents would hold up in a court of law as truthful testimony.

No, asserting it doesn't make it true. Convince me, give reasons, at least try?

Quote:
He fulfills 300 prophecies so we know He is definitely the promised Messiah and this is validated by His followers and eyewitnesses of the event not recanting their testimony after being tortured and put to death.

No, asserting it doesn't make it true.

Quote:
You can not deny the fulfilled prophecy.

Deny.

There, I just denied it.

Quote:
You can bring the gospel to any good lawyer friend of yours and ask him to put it through the checks that courts use to validate the truthfulness of an account and see what you find.

Can you, like, give an example of these 'checks' and explain how the gospels fulfill it instead of just bullshitting?

Quote:
Why then do you believe in evolution that states

Oh, this will be good.

Quote:
Billions and billions and billions of years ago the rocks melted into the water

Say what?

Quote:
and made a stew of inanimate (sterile, lifeless, dead) matter.

Made a stew?

Quote:
By an act of spontaneous combustion

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spontaneous+combustion

Spontaneous combustion: the ignition of a substance or body from the rapid oxidation of its own constituents without heat from any external source.

What are you talking about?

Quote:
the stew of inanimate matter came alive

Wow, just like that?

Quote:
and the first simple one celled life form (which we know now to contain thousands of encyclopedias of pre programmed information) came to be.

Amazing. How do they know that? 

Quote:
and by a series of naturally selected mutations (which do not have the ability

Have the ability?

Quote:
to add extra information

Information?

Quote:
to the genome and in every scientifically observed case are noted as deformities with loss of information)

Loss of information?

Quote:
Where is your evidence is is this event took place?

The event you just described never took place.

Quote:
Were you there and witnessed it personally?

No, that never happened.

Quote:
Do you know somebody who witnessed it?

No one was alive at that time.

Quote:
Has it been created in a scientific experiment that we can observe

No, that can't be reproduced because it's impossible. 

Quote:
or do you believe by faith that this magical event happened

I don't believe it at all.

Quote:
If you have proof and evidence for everything you believe I would love to see your evidence that the first cell magically combusted into a living thing.

I would love to see evidence for that too. Too bad it doesn't exist because "the first cell" never "combusted into a living thing."

Quote:
What’s yours religious belief in atheism based on?

Atheism is not a religion. It's not even necessarily a positive belief. 

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


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 849
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
It is apparent

that none of you can answer a question or any sequence of questions without being snide, rude, degrading. I am not a theist, atheist or a Deist. Yes, such a one does,  exist, and others. I do not believe you, or the pope. But it is clear that what-ever I am ---I am of a higher moral and ethical character then you all combined. Morals is that which regulates one's relationship with others as to reason how refrain from harming another. Ethics is that which regulates one's dealings with others to be honest. You've made everything you do or say moral and ethical. Black magic.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:that none of

Old Seer wrote:

that none of you can answer a question or any sequence of questions without being snide, rude, degrading. I am not a theist, atheist or a Deist. Yes, such a one does,  exist, and others. I do not believe you, or the pope. But it is clear that what-ever I am ---I am of a higher moral and ethical character then you all combined. Morals is that which regulates one's relationship with others as to reason how refrain from harming another. Ethics is that which regulates one's dealings with others to be honest. You've made everything you do or say moral and ethical. Black magic.

You say while not answering my question and being snide, rude and degrading. Hypocrite much, O one of higher moral and ethical character?

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


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:it means you

Old Seer wrote:

it means you don't know and can't figure it out. Answer the questions. Nice ploys, not good enough. You don't know what a spiritual entity is. Another nice ploy for no answer. Do you have a dictionary. Emotions are aspects of your entity, they are a part of what makes you. How is entity a misleading term. The word is common. How can a question "what formed you be ambiguous". It's a simple easy question. There's nothing ambiguous about anything I posted. I use plain language and plain words. Instead of weaseling around why don't you dig in. do some research, compare this to that, Check one claim against another including your own. Question your own findings, be sure you have it correct. Do as I do, no ducking questions, I'm not skating out on any of yours. Is the entity that is you be a duplicate of another. Is love, hate, contempt, anger , happiness etc any part of you----that's not ambiguous,. yes. no. If you have love or hate and where did you get it. Answer the question, yes, no. Did you exist before you were conceived. If so where did you exist. If not then you had to begin at sometime., what caused you to begin. There's nothing there that's vague or ambiguous, they're all straight forward questions any kid asks when growing up. Is that which is produced by the brain you or not, someone else?---yes, no. If you are someone what makes you someone. If I answered all this for you would my answers be vague and ambiguous. Ambiguous is not an answer.

1. It also means you don't know either and are trying to goad people into doing your homework. What the hell, I'll give it a go.

2. We don't know how you wish to use the term "spiritual entity". Your definition may be different from mine. Why should anyone get into a discussion until the topic is known?

3. Again, "entity" can be a misleading term because I don't know how you intend to use it. Who wants to go through a discussion with you just so you can say "Oh that's not what I meant" without saying what you actually mean?

4. Good - not ducking out on these would be a great start.

5. Emotions are electochemical states in the brain. They've been measured and occur because external stimuli existing in reality trigger them.

6. No I didn't exist before I was conceived. I began when I was conceived and became someone when I understood that I was someone. Nothing "made" it so.

 

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


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote: But it is

Old Seer wrote:
But it is clear that what-ever I am ---I am of a higher moral and ethical character then you all combined.

So, what would you like for that? A coconut?

Two coconuts?

 

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 849
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Well that answers that.

I can be insulting, snide, degrading, (even worse) But I'll refrain from that because I am self controlled by proper respect for others and their opinions. I see there's a great deal of intellectual discourse here, but I care not to partake of the direction it is used. I will simply go to posting on things and take them as you will. But before I move on-- Entity is "the individual" and the properties of which the individual is of. A corporation being made of of many people and items is an entity. The many on this case is seen as a single entity, but each within it, all are a single entity. In the singular use of "entity" it can denote the spiritual items of ones person. Thinking is not a person. It is a compulatory process to understand different components of any particular subject and combine them to a final result. Thinking is a neutral. The end result can (with certain knowledge)  produce a kind of person once the entities components are understood. The components are obtained automatically by nature during one's creation. Thinking allows one to choose a direction. A computer can programed to produce a mathematical result. The computer is housed within a box, the computer does the calculation, but the result is not the computer. The computer is a neutral because it can calculate many different things.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:I can be

Old Seer wrote:

I can be insulting, snide, degrading, (even worse) But I'll refrain from that because I am self controlled by proper respect for others and their opinions. I see there's a great deal of intellectual discourse here, but I care not to partake of the direction it is used. I will simply go to posting on things and take them as you will. But before I move on-- Entity is "the individual" and the properties of which the individual is of. A corporation being made of of many people and items is an entity. The many on this case is seen as a single entity, but each within it, all are a single entity. In the singular use of "entity" it can denote the spiritual items of ones person. Thinking is not a person. It is a compulatory process to understand different components of any particular subject and combine them to a final result. Thinking is a neutral. The end result can (with certain knowledge)  produce a kind of person once the entities components are understood. The components are obtained automatically by nature during one's creation. Thinking allows one to choose a direction. A computer can programed to produce a mathematical result. The computer is housed within a box, the computer does the calculation, but the result is not the computer. The computer is a neutral because it can calculate many different things.

OK so far. So now you have to define what you mean by "spirit " as you've incorporated it in your definition of "entity".

Your claim that "thinking is a neutral" has nothing to do with what you were discussing earlier as one does not need to think about emotions to trigger the electro-chemical states in the brain that are associated with them.

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


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote: I'll

Old Seer wrote:
 I'll refrain from that because I am self controlled

You are obviously doing things like acting like an ignorant fool on purpose then, by talking past people and not answering their questions.

Your self analysis is biased, self serving, and not worth much.

Old Seer wrote:
...by proper respect for others and their opinions.

Respect is something you earn from others, kid.

So is scorn and ridicule.

So is love and a blowjob.

Just because you expect or demand it, doesn't mean you'll get it.

You're not our priest, and this isn't a church.

You don't like it?

Lump it.

Old Seer wrote:
...I care not to partake of the direction it is used.

I seriously doubt anyone here would miss you or your intellectual ideas...

Old Seer wrote:
The computer is a neutral because it can calculate many different things.

Non sequitur.

Your conclusion that a computer is neutral because it calculates different things, doesn't follow.

If you think that statement is logically coherent, put it in the form of a syllogism.

 

P1- Computers are machines made from many different parts.

P2 - Computers can be used to calculate many different things.

C- Therefore computers are neutral.

 

Your conclusion about computers being 'neutral' doesn't follow.

 

Maybe you don't understand what the RRS is about.

The RRS values 'rationality' tremendously, because we care immensely whether our 'beliefs' are true, or justifiable.

We debunk illogical claims about the cosmos that we inhabit, and expose idiots and bullshitters for who they are.

 

You are being an idiot.

You are not contributing anything worthwhile to discuss with us if you aren't logically coherent, and/or can't express your ideas with proper syntax and grammar.

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


CliffD
CliffD's picture
Posts: 23
Joined: 2011-11-15
User is offlineOffline
What’s yours religious belief in atheism based on?

You have no idea what education I have. You attack the suggestion that yours is a religion the same way every pseudo scientist in the world attacks it. Not with scientific evidence but with insults and a weak attempt at wit on those who ask to see the evidence. Did you learn about irreducible complexity in your enlightened studies? Did they ever teach you that something like a car has to have many of its components in place before it will work? How does evolution get past the irreducible complexity problem? Please furnish me with a scientific answer and not an attack on my wanting to view such hard evidence that you should be only too happy to give. You see, this is how evolution is passed as a proven scientific theory. Imagine 2 super computers in a room. Suppose they wanted to come up with a theory of how they came to be and they can not mention man created them. This leaves only naturalistic processes. The evolutionist (follower of evolutionism) says “we believe that creation happened after inorganic matter spontaneously developed into life. We believe this to be the case because the thought that God created us is repugnant to our super intelligent minds. We believe it to be a series of incremental mutations over billions and billions and billions of years because we don’t believe in God so it can’t have been God.” You will notice that the creation scientist has no pre loaded bias or pre - supposition loaded into his interpretation of the facts. He looks at evolution and the creation theory and rightly concludes that a cell with thousands of encyclopedias full of information could not possibly be explained by evolution.
I’d love to hear your theory which you learned in your enlightened studies as to how inorganic matter can spontaneously develop into life or even how the first cell came to be. Can you supply such an answer or do you believe by faith that the first cell magically developed into a living organism with thousands of encyclopedias full of pre programmed information? Did your high school teacher start the story with the words “millions and millions and millions of years ago?” Here in Ireland where I live we begin stories like that with “once upon a time in a land far away.” Did the first cell grow from the same bean that Jack grew a beanstalk out of? So either scientific answer or declaration of faith should be provided on this one. Judging by your weak attempt to ridicule me I’m guessing you won’t be able to provide a scientific answer as to how the first living cell came to be. Nor do you have any answers as to how that cell could function without the amount of information that’s needed to get passed irreducible complexity. Yes, did you not know a cell contains information? That’s a proven scientific fact now. You should check it out. It puts a real dampener on the theory of evolution. Look, if all you have is faith in evolution, that’s o.k. Just admit it. It’s a simple question. How did the first cell come to be and how does natural selection account for the complexity of a cell. If you can’t provide the answer I’ll just chalk it up as one - nil to me. I will answer the rest of your criticisms over the next couple of days.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:I am not a

Old Seer wrote:
I am not a theist, atheist or a Deist.

Okay, so you don't believe in any gods. And you don't not believe in any gods. Okaaaayyyy.

Do you consider yourself agnostic?

Old Seer wrote:
But it is clear that what-ever I am ---I am of a higher moral and ethical character then you all combined.

Let me guess. You think you're the reincarnation of Plato or something like that?

Old Seer wrote:
But before I move on-- Entity is "the individual" and the properties of which the individual is of. A corporation being made of of many people and items is an entity. The many on this case is seen as a single entity, but each within it, all are a single entity. In the singular use of "entity" it can denote the spiritual items of ones person. Thinking is not a person. It is a compulatory process to understand different components of any particular subject and combine them to a final result. Thinking is a neutral. The end result can (with certain knowledge) produce a kind of person once the entities components are understood. The components are obtained automatically by nature during one's creation. Thinking allows one to choose a direction. A computer can programed to produce a mathematical result. The computer is housed within a box, the computer does the calculation, but the result is not the computer. The computer is a neutral because it can calculate many different things.

By writing this, your definition of 'entity' is an even bigger mystery than before!

 

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


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Cliffd wrote:How does

Cliffd wrote:
How does evolution get past the irreducible complexity problem?

There are no biological systems shown to be irreducibly complex, only intuitively irreducibly complex systems - the uninformed observing multiple parts that are necessary for the system to function. It's an argument from ignorance, based on an oversimplification of the evolutionary process. Essentially, it is stating: I don't understand how this could have evolved; therefore, it couldn't have. Many if not most of Behe's and Creationists' examples have already been reduced anyways, even his mousetrap. Just google it, noob. 

Cliffd wrote:
We believe this to be the case because the thought that God created us is repugnant to our super intelligent minds.

Yes, that's why only atheists are proponents of evolution.

Cliffd wrote:
You will notice that the creation scientist has no pre loaded bias or pre - supposition loaded into his interpretation of the facts. He looks at evolution and the creation theory

Oh, of course not. The "creation scientist" (assuming that it's possible for anyone to fit that description) is not biased at all as to whether Creationism or evolution best matches the Bible, eh...available evidence.

Cliffd wrote:
Yes, did you not know a cell contains information?

Nope, I have never heard that before. And I certainly haven't communicated with literally hundreds of people that have made the exact same semantic fallacy you are now trying to commit.

Cliffd wrote:
That’s a proven scientific fact now. You should check it out.

Wow, thanks. I'll certainly look that up. 

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


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
CliffD wrote:You have no

CliffD wrote:
You have no idea what education I have. You attack the suggestion that yours is a religion the same way every pseudo scientist in the world attacks it. Not with scientific evidence but with insults and a weak attempt at wit on those who ask to see the evidence. Did you learn about irreducible complexity in your enlightened studies? Did they ever teach you that something like a car has to have many of its components in place before it will work? How does evolution get past the irreducible complexity problem? Please furnish me with a scientific answer and not an attack on my wanting to view such hard evidence that you should be only too happy to give. You see, this is how evolution is passed as a proven scientific theory. Imagine 2 super computers in a room. Suppose they wanted to come up with a theory of how they came to be and they can not mention man created them. This leaves only naturalistic processes. The evolutionist (follower of evolutionism) says “we believe that creation happened after inorganic matter spontaneously developed into life. We believe this to be the case because the thought that God created us is repugnant to our super intelligent minds. We believe it to be a series of incremental mutations over billions and billions and billions of years because we don’t believe in God so it can’t have been God.” You will notice that the creation scientist has no pre loaded bias or pre - supposition loaded into his interpretation of the facts. He looks at evolution and the creation theory and rightly concludes that a cell with thousands of encyclopedias full of information could not possibly be explained by evolution. I’d love to hear your theory which you learned in your enlightened studies as to how inorganic matter can spontaneously develop into life or even how the first cell came to be. Can you supply such an answer or do you believe by faith that the first cell magically developed into a living organism with thousands of encyclopedias full of pre programmed information? Did your high school teacher start the story with the words “millions and millions and millions of years ago?” Here in Ireland where I live we begin stories like that with “once upon a time in a land far away.” Did the first cell grow from the same bean that Jack grew a beanstalk out of? So either scientific answer or declaration of faith should be provided on this one. Judging by your weak attempt to ridicule me I’m guessing you won’t be able to provide a scientific answer as to how the first living cell came to be. Nor do you have any answers as to how that cell could function without the amount of information that’s needed to get passed irreducible complexity. Yes, did you not know a cell contains information? That’s a proven scientific fact now. You should check it out. It puts a real dampener on the theory of evolution. Look, if all you have is faith in evolution, that’s o.k. Just admit it. It’s a simple question. How did the first cell come to be and how does natural selection account for the complexity of a cell. If you can’t provide the answer I’ll just chalk it up as one - nil to me. I will answer the rest of your criticisms over the next couple of days.

Did you learn that irreducible complexity was laughed out of court in Dover, PA? did you know that precursor structures can still have functions (or do you believe that a motor can't run unless there is a car surrounding it)?

Are you by any chance a Poe?

 

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


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
Zero fulfilled bible prophecies

CliffD wrote:
You have no idea what education I have. You attack the suggestion that yours is a religion the same way every pseudo scientist in the world attacks it. Not with scientific evidence but with insults and a weak attempt at wit on those who ask to see the evidence. Did you learn about irreducible complexity in your enlightened studies? Did they ever teach you that something like a car has to have many of its components in place before it will work? How does evolution get past the irreducible complexity problem? Please furnish me with a scientific answer and not an attack on my wanting to view such hard evidence that you should be only too happy to give. You see, this is how evolution is passed as a proven scientific theory. Imagine 2 super computers in a room. Suppose they wanted to come up with a theory of how they came to be and they can not mention man created them. This leaves only naturalistic processes. The evolutionist (follower of evolutionism) says “we believe that creation happened after inorganic matter spontaneously developed into life. We believe this to be the case because the thought that God created us is repugnant to our super intelligent minds. We believe it to be a series of incremental mutations over billions and billions and billions of years because we don’t believe in God so it can’t have been God.” You will notice that the creation scientist has no pre loaded bias or pre - supposition loaded into his interpretation of the facts. He looks at evolution and the creation theory and rightly concludes that a cell with thousands of encyclopedias full of information could not possibly be explained by evolution. I’d love to hear your theory which you learned in your enlightened studies as to how inorganic matter can spontaneously develop into life or even how the first cell came to be. Can you supply such an answer or do you believe by faith that the first cell magically developed into a living organism with thousands of encyclopedias full of pre programmed information? Did your high school teacher start the story with the words “millions and millions and millions of years ago?” Here in Ireland where I live we begin stories like that with “once upon a time in a land far away.” Did the first cell grow from the same bean that Jack grew a beanstalk out of? So either scientific answer or declaration of faith should be provided on this one. Judging by your weak attempt to ridicule me I’m guessing you won’t be able to provide a scientific answer as to how the first living cell came to be. Nor do you have any answers as to how that cell could function without the amount of information that’s needed to get passed irreducible complexity. Yes, did you not know a cell contains information? That’s a proven scientific fact now. You should check it out. It puts a real dampener on the theory of evolution. Look, if all you have is faith in evolution, that’s o.k. Just admit it. It’s a simple question. How did the first cell come to be and how does natural selection account for the complexity of a cell. If you can’t provide the answer I’ll just chalk it up as one - nil to me. I will answer the rest of your criticisms over the next couple of days.

 

Such bravado. Since you changed the subject, I accept your defeat. There are no bible prophecies that have been fulfilled. Just made up and the sheeple follow.

 

Religion Kills !!!

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

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


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
CliffD wrote: You have no

CliffD wrote:
You have no idea what education I have.

It's obviously not as good as mine. Duhhh... 

CliffD wrote:
You attack the suggestion that yours is a religion

An absence of religion, is not another religion. Being 'healthy' is the absence of disease. It's not another disease.

CliffD wrote:
Did they ever teach you that something like a car has to have many of its components in place before it will work?

It still has many functions if it has most of the other components missing.

CliffD wrote:
How does evolution get past the irreducible complexity problem?

Coral

CliffD wrote:
Imagine 2 super computers in a room. Suppose they wanted to come up with a theory of how they came to be and they can not mention man created them. This leaves only naturalistic processes.

Why would computers 'want' anything?

Your analogy fails.

CliffD wrote:
The evolutionist (follower of evolutionism) says “we believe that creation happened after inorganic matter spontaneously developed into life.

No. Evolution describes biodiversity of life and speciation.

You're talking about Abiogenesis.

CliffD wrote:
We believe this to be the case because the thought that God created us is repugnant to our super intelligent minds.

No. Scientists believe this because the evidence is completely in line with the theory, and gives a much, much higher probablity that organic matter formed from inorganic matter due the nature of the environment.

Many theists who worship gods are scientists.

Look up Francis Collins (theist) who was the head of the Human Genome Project, who fully accepts that the evidence for evolution is 'true'.

CliffD wrote:
We believe it to be a series of incremental mutations over billions and billions and billions of years because we don’t believe in God so it can’t have been God.

No.

Because we've seen it in the lab.

It's the evidence which reveals itself.

CliffD wrote:
You will notice that the creation scientist has no pre loaded bias or pre - supposition loaded into his interpretation of the facts.

He's a 'supernaturalist', by definition. By definition he cannot provide 'supernatural' evidence. Yet he believes in something being present, that couldn't be distinguished from being absent.

That's not only biased, it's delusional.

CliffD wrote:
He looks at evolution and the creation theory

Why isn't he looking at the Martian theory as well? I thought you said he wasn't biased?

Does the theist bring all the evidence to show everyone at church?

The church should be giving classes on evolution if they weren't biased. There's a LOT of evidence to look at.

CliffD wrote:
I’d love to hear your theory which you learned in your enlightened studies as to how inorganic matter can spontaneously develop into life or even how the first cell came to be.

It could have happened a multitude of ways. Look up Abiogenesis.

If we built another universe like this one and observed it for millions of years, I have little doubt that we wouldn't find many instances under different conditions of organic life forming from inorganic matter.

Abiogenesis could be occurring right now, which will evolve into a more superior being than humans (after time) and you're not even aware.

Can you people prove that that didn't just happen a few seconds ago, or yesterday, or just a few seconds ago, and yesterday, and twice last Sunday etc, etc...?

 

You haven't proven or revealed anything except your supreme creationist ignorance.

CliffD wrote:
Can you supply such an answer or do you believe by faith that the first cell magically developed into a living organism

I actually deal with polymers, acids and chemistry, son. So I have a good base to understand the complex chemical linking and geometry that can occur 'naturally'.

I can't teach you all that I know without giving up my day job, so you're on your own, just like I was.

CliffD wrote:
either scientific answer or declaration of faith should be provided

The science is in on the topic.

I can't help you with your supreme ignorance of the science.

You should just admit that you are merely 'hoping' the science is wrong, and that we didn't evolve; because you don't even have the scientific understanding necessary, understand the different avenues of scientific investigation, or are even aware of all the data if you are asking such naive questions.

If there was ANY proof that contradicted the possibility of organic life occurring spontaneously, your Creationist Scientists would provide it.

Arguments from incredulity and ignorance only prove incredulity and ignorance.

This is the stock and trade of Christianity.

Science would test the evidence for god if Christians could provide anything other than their ideas, hopes and fears.

CliffD wrote:
 I’m guessing you won’t be able to provide a scientific answer as to how the first living cell came to be.

So? 

I'm guessing that you won't be able to provide a scientific answer as to how the first living cell COULD NOT POSSIBLY have occurred 'naturally'.

Two can play that game, kid.

CliffD wrote:
It puts a real dampener on the theory of evolution.

Cause you ignorant Christ nuts don't even understand what the evidence shows?

Put that alongside all your other dreams, and let the world of knowledge pass you by while other Christians accept the theory of evolution because they have looked at the evidence and can understand what the evidence shows.

Like Francis Collins.

CliffD wrote:
  If you can’t provide the answer I’ll just chalk it up as one - nil to me.

That's not how it works, kid.

You have to PROVE that you are correct. You Christnuts really have your work cut out for you, and the (evidence) workload is increasing.

There is no burdern of 'disproof'.

You'd have to show that something other than the god you imagine is real, could NOT have been the reason organic matter formed 'naturally', and evolved.

That's why you freaks got bitchslapped down in Kitzmiller v. Dover, and why so many of the Discovery Institute's 'witnesses backed down when they faced prison sentences for trying to claim 'non science' as science.

Arguments from incredulity and ignorance are not science. The evidence supports the theory of Evolution, and the theory of Abiogenesis is extremely well justified, and we are getting closer and closer to being able to actually replicate it, without any supernatural 'incantations' like the biblical myth and legend.

CliffD wrote:
Look, if all you have is faith in evolution, that’s o.k. Just admit it.

Look, Cliff, if all you want to do is to gobble the goo of a man named Jesus for eternity, that's o.k. Just admit it.

I know you want to be 'one' with him for eternity. I know you want that more than anything.

 

It's ok to be homosexual.

It's ok to be ignorant.

It's ok to be Christian.

 

Just admit it.

And stop imagining you're smart, when you're just a below average Christian intellect...

 

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


CliffD
CliffD's picture
Posts: 23
Joined: 2011-11-15
User is offlineOffline
Question. Provide scientific answer of how first cell came to be

Question. Provide scientific answer of how first cell came to be? Describe how evolution gets passed the problem of irreducible complexity with thousands of encyclopedia’s full of pre programmed information. Show evidence.

Rational answer- That's why you freaks got bitchslapped down in Kitzmiller v. Dover, and why so many of the Discovery Institute's 'witnesses backed down when they faced prison sentences for trying to claim 'non science' as science.

ClIFFD 1 Rednef 0

I already told you. I believe by faith that a highly intelligent being is the only logical answer for the creation of such a complex structure that because of irreducible complexity must have come fully functional. So the burden of proof is on the atheist side, who are so sure how it happened and apparently must have the evidence. So you either believe by faith or you have the scientific answer. Let’s look at your scientific answer. The evidence supports the theory of Evolution, and the theory of Abiogenesis is extremely well justified, and we are getting closer and closer to being able to actually replicate it, without any supernatural 'incantations' like the biblical myth and legend. That’s it. That’s your scientific answer for how the first cell came to be. You call that science? I particularly like the statement “we are getting closer to be being able to replicate it.” In other words you don’t know! We’re not any closer than we were when Darwin speculated that a cell was basically a glob of goo that gelled together with other cells. In fact, we are getting further away from it with every discovery of how extremely complex a cell is. The more we discover, the more we are sure it definitely wasn’t by way of evolution. This is also in line with what God (there’s that word you hate so much) says about the last days “but they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water” .I mean don’t insult our intelligence. Without even mentioning God we can come up with an intelligent design theory that better fits the evidence because evolution doesn’t work. Find another theory. They might have backed out in Kitzmiller Vs Dover. You don’t see me backing out, do ya? I’m made of a bit rougher stuff than you’d think. I was no angel before I got saved. I’d have eaten punks like you for breakfast. We have an admission that it’s by faith you believe how the first cell came to be. That’s why I chalked the 1 up on the right,


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 849
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
A Christian should not

be arguing the material side. (of course you can if you want to) Christianity deals with ones spiritual condition. You have to go to where an Apostle says-first there was the physical and then the spiritual. There can be no mistake, If one uses New Testament information, that the material came first because the physical is material. Christianity is about the spiritual things that make up ones person and making choices as to what manner of person one "is". Christianity deals with the sciences of the mind and person, not the sciences of physics and material composition. At this time we can deduce that the science of the origin of material is incomplete, and even those delving into that science are themselves (at this time) in and ongoing debate over particulars. It became very apparent to our team that all (even us in the past) are under misinterpretations and translations of the books. One of the problems we found was that  We are victims (very likely unintended) dark age, medieval  mind sets. We found translations that could have been another way but apparently if they don't comprehend it and made it fit their idea. JC doesn't fit their mentality but very little, so they made him fit their world instead of understanding his.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.