Writing a thesis on why theism is more rational... need GOOD opposing viewpoints.

brave theist
Theist
brave theist's picture
Posts: 58
Joined: 2008-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Writing a thesis on why theism is more rational... need GOOD opposing viewpoints.

My thesis statement is, "In contrast to atheism, a belief in God is rational because it is logically consistent, empirically adequate and experientially relevant."

Please feel free to throw any arguments against me within those topics. In other words, I am not even touching on the accuracy of the Bible or the person of Jesus and likewise, i am not using the Bible in any of my arguments. Here is a broad outline of my paper so far. (I have only just begun my thesis)

I. Logically Consistent

     A. Law of Causality

          1. I'm asserting that the universe is not eternal based on science, it had a beginning,

              and logic states that everything with a beginning had a cause.

          2. logic does not say that a cause needs a cause, therefore it is more logical to say that a eternal

              being created the universe than to say a creation had no cause.

     (a have a few other points but a am no where near finished, the causality is more complete)

II. Empirically adequate

     A. Atheists are constantly reevaluating their beliefs in the origin of the universe while Theists have

         remained unchanged for centuries.

          1. Atheists claim to rely on science to explain the universe but their only explanation is the

               unscientific evolution THEORY.

          2. Science relies on repeating, observing, and measuring, none of which can be applied to evolution.

     B. in the THEORY of evolution, a fundamental law of biology must opperate in direct opposition with a

        fundamental law of physics.

          1. how can biological systems become more and more complex while the natural world descends into

              disorder?

     C. Microevolution verses Macroevolution

          1. Microevolution can be observed and involves the adaptation of species to it environment. for

              example the well known example of the moths turning gray to blend in with the ash covered trees

              whole the weaker black moths were eaten. Microevolution speaks of small changes WITHIN a

              species and never outside of the species.

          2. Macroevolution claims that organisms can evolve into completely new species over long periods of

              time to adapt to their surroundings and causes by random genetic mutations. However there is 

              NO proof of this in observable nature or ever found in the fossil record.

III. experientially relevant (I have not put to much into this section yet)

     A. Atheism is a very dangerous belief to guide ones life.

          1. Hitler is one such example of someone who lived out the teachings of Atheism

          2. Atheism does not answer such important life questions such as purpose, hope, what happens

           after death, or moral absolutes.

     B. Theism on the other hand certainly does answer all of these questions.

 

If anyone read through that all, thank you for your time. Please critique it as you see fit and feel free to be brutal. i have much more depth to each of those topics but as i said here is an outline, not my paper.

 

 

 

 

- Jordan -


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
This is supposed to be a

This is supposed to be a thesis? In what subject, and at what sort of institution? Because it reads like an outline of any generic apologist website.


brave theist
Theist
brave theist's picture
Posts: 58
Joined: 2008-02-22
User is offlineOffline
its not a specific class.

its not a specific class. each student in my class must pick any topic they wish, as long as its debateable and has two sides, and we must write a 20ish page paper on the topic. its a semster long profect and im still just beginning which is why I posted it so that i could get opposing viewpoints.

my outline does not come from any specific apologist. iv been researching for quite a while reading many books and essays from both sides and taking notes. now im compiling those notes. this outline is mine, but that doesn't mean all of my arguments are new by any means. but why change what is broken? especially since the atheist essays on thess topics, that iv been able to find, don't answer this questions at all and if they do, not very well. i figured the rational responders would have the answers

- Jordan -


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
brave theist wrote: My

brave theist wrote:
My thesis statement is, "In contrast to atheism, a belief in God is rational because it is logically consistent, empirically adequate and experientially relevant."

Please feel free to throw any arguments against me within those topics. In other words, I am not even touching on the accuracy of the Bible or the person of Jesus and likewise, i am not using the Bible in any of my arguments. Here is a broad outline of my paper so far. (I have only just begun my thesis)

I. Logically Consistent

     A. Law of Causality

          1. I'm asserting that the universe is not eternal based on science, it had a beginning,

              and logic states that everything with a beginning had a cause.

This is just the Cosmological Argument, which is self-contradictory. It says everything has a cause, and immediately commits special pleading to explain why a god wouldn't.

brave theist wrote:

          2. logic does not say that a cause needs a cause, therefore it is more logical to say that a eternal

              being created the universe than to say a creation had no cause.

Case in point.

brave theist wrote:

     (a have a few other points but a am no where near finished, the causality is more complete)

II. Empirically adequate

     A. Atheists are constantly reevaluating their beliefs in the origin of the universe while Theists have

         remained unchanged for centuries.

You seem to be using 'atheist' to mean 'scientist,' which is wrong, but I will use the latter word from here where I think it's appropriate. Your statement is false, because your own apologetics indicate how theistic positions have evolved. Religion didn't originally contain logical contortions to deal with contradictions, it merely asserted. Unlike science, however, theistic claims evolve to avoid falsification, whereas scientific claims are falsified constantly, with theories being updated to better describe the world based on currently available information.

brave theist wrote:

          1. Atheists claim to rely on science to explain the universe but their only explanation is the

               unscientific evolution THEORY.

Evolutionary theory has nothing to do with the origin of the universe. Pretty basic mistake there. Atheists also don't necessarily accept scientific consensus, nor are they necessarily aware of it. You seem to be conflating science and atheism into a straw-man.

brave theist wrote:

          2. Science relies on repeating, observing, and measuring, none of which can be applied to evolution.

False. Evolutionary theory is foundational to biological science.

brave theist wrote:

     B. in the THEORY of evolution, a fundamental law of biology must opperate in direct opposition with a

        fundamental law of physics.

Your emphasis of the word theory tells me your equivocating the colloquial and scientific uses of the term, where the former is a guess, and the latter is a model of how something works, made up of many mutually-dependent hypotheses.

brave theist wrote:

          1. how can biological systems become more and more complex while the natural world descends into

              disorder?

Ugh, the 2nd law of thermodynamics applies to closed systems.

brave theist wrote:

     C. Microevolution verses Macroevolution

These are terms coined by apologists and have no application in science.

brave theist wrote:

          1. Microevolution can be observed and involves the adaptation of species to it environment. for

              example the well known example of the moths turning gray to blend in with the ash covered trees

              whole the weaker black moths were eaten. Microevolution speaks of small changes WITHIN a

              species and never outside of the species.

          2. Macroevolution claims that organisms can evolve into completely new species over long periods of

              time to adapt to their surroundings and causes by random genetic mutations. However there is 

              NO proof of this in observable nature or ever found in the fossil record.

False all around. List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia

brave theist wrote:

III. experientially relevant (I have not put to much into this section yet)

     A. Atheism is a very dangerous belief to guide ones life.

It's not necessarily a belief.

brave theist wrote:

          1. Hitler is one such example of someone who lived out the teachings of Atheism

There are no teachings. Hitler was Christian.

brave theist wrote:

          2. Atheism does not answer such important life questions such as purpose, hope, what happens

           after death, or moral absolutes.

Neither does religion.

brave theist wrote:

     B. Theism on the other hand certainly does answer all of these questions.

No, it does not.

brave theist wrote:

If anyone read through that all, thank you for your time. Please critique it as you see fit and feel free to be brutal. i have much more depth to each of those topics but as i said here is an outline, not my paper.


brave theist
Theist
brave theist's picture
Posts: 58
Joined: 2008-02-22
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote: This is just

magilum wrote:
This is just the Cosmological Argument, which is self-contradictory. It says everything has a cause, and immediately commits special pleading to explain why a god wouldn't.

yeah i anticipated you saying that, almost any atheist i talk to says that. hopefully you'll see the difference in my argument. I am not saying everything in existence has a casue. thats not what the law of causality says. im saying everything that has a beginning has a cause. please tell me you see the difference in what i am saying. my point is that the universe has a beginning, the beginnig is debateable but it had one. logic says in order for it to have a beginning then there was a cause. becasue chrsitians claim God to be eternal, he simply exists and didn't have a beginning thus didn't need a cause. that is not contradictory.

magilum wrote:
You seem to be using 'atheist' to mean 'scientist,' which is wrong, but I will use the latter word from here where I think it's appropriate. Your statement is false, because your own apologetics indicate how theistic positions have evolved. Religion didn't originally contain logical contortions to deal with contradictions, it merely asserted. Unlike science, however, theistic claims evolve to avoid falsification, whereas scientific claims are falsified constantly, with theories being updated to better describe the world based on currently available information.
i use the term atheist a little freely ill admit. atheists belive that there in no god and usually rely on science. anyway, my point was that theists arguments may evolve in order to combat the opposition but our facts never change. we may come up with different arguments but never change the fact that we belive that God created the universe. Atheists arn't sure how the universe was created and they stick with one belief untill it seems irrational faced with "new" evidence so they change it a little.

 

magilum wrote:
Evolutionary theory has nothing to do with the origin of the universe. Pretty basic mistake there. Atheists also don't necessarily accept scientific consensus, nor are they necessarily aware of it. You seem to be conflating science and atheism into a straw-man.
my mistake, i realize evolution only explains the growth of the universe and not the origin, when i say atheists belive in evolutino i mean the whole kit n kaboodle. natural selection, and whatever goes with that and any creation theories they have may it bee the big bang, or the crunch theory or that the universe has always existed etc.

magilum wrote:
False. Evolutionary theory is foundational to biological science.
how so? people seem to thing that theism and science can't coexist. evolution os one theory to explain biological science, its not in any way proven. and i mean actually scientifically proven.

magilum wrote:
Ugh, the 2nd law of thermodynamics applies to closed systems.
ill look into that... this is why i posted this, to work out the kinks. fortunately this is a minor point.

magilum wrote:
These are terms coined by apologists and have no application in science.
funny since these terms are in secular science books. and even if they were only used by apologists, atheists use them as well saying that macroevolution is the combinatioin of years of microevolution.

magilum wrote:
False all around. List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia
first off, wikipedia is by no means a scholarly source, its quite biased against theism and almost anyone can puy what they want. secondly there wasn't a single missing link fossil. most of the examples have long since been proven as conspiracies. especially the examples of the evolution to man.

magilum wrote:
It's not necessarily a belief.
atheism is indeed a belief that there is no god

 

magilum wrote:
There are no teachings. Hitler was Christian.

ugh, i have heard this way too many times. Hitler was raised catholic but denounced his belives very early on. Hitler was atheist. he did not belive in a god. i don't mean teachings as in there is some book that atheists follow. i mean that atheism has many logical conclusions. if there is no god and no purrpose to live, and only the strongest survive then Hitler wasn't evil or even bad. he was simply destroying the weak links.

 

magilum wrote:
Neither does religion.
seriously? even if you don't belive in a god, you have to admit religions give answers to these questions. especially Christianity.

 thanks for your response!

 

 

 

- Jordan -


inspectormustard
atheist
inspectormustard's picture
Posts: 537
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
brave theist wrote:

The universe as we know it had a beginning (known as the big bang). As far as we know, however, what makes up the universe is eternal. The big bang is merely a change in the organization of things, possibly as a result of the entropic death of a previous universe. However, there are a multitude of theories regarding this the most likely so far is the "Many worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics.

brave theist wrote:

I. Logically Consistent

A. Law of Causality

1. I'm asserting that the universe is not eternal based on science, it had a beginning, and logic states that everything with a beginning had a cause.

Logic does not state anything. Logic is a method of relating facts to eachother in truthful ways. Indeed, this is simply a bald assertion. It may not be possible to know how the big bang began, just as you must admit that you do not know where your god comes from. In this respect they are equal save for the evidence that there was a big bang where none exists for the source of your particular god, which is only one of many supposed gods.

Quote:

2. logic does not say that a cause needs a cause, therefore it is more logical to say that a eternal being created the universe than to say a creation had no cause.

Again, logic does not say anything unless you compose a statement that makes it so. The notion of causality comes from the physical theory of the arrow of time: a video of a cup falling off of a table and breaking makes sense in physics, while a cup forming itself from pieces of ceramic and floating back onto a table does not.

The ultimate question in science is "Where did everything come from?" If you add a god to the equation, everything would necessarily include god. So we must ask where this god came from. In order to even begin to answer this, we must know what this god thing is. You have given no definition for this god, so we must assume the null solution.

Perhaps it will be more clear why this doesn't work without a definition this way. You've constructed a multiple term argument with undefined and therefore equivalent variables and set about relating them via their identity:

a=1a+2a+3a+4a

The only possible way you can relate these is if the relation is null or, in terms of the equation, zero. Without a definition, you can't be said to be talking about anything at all. Definitions of gods vary. State the intrinsic properties of this one, then prove them.

For example:

1. God is

1a. defined as something.

1b. that which created everything that exists.

2. Anything that is something is a member of the identity "everything."

3. If an existant thing cannot exist before its creation, then god does not exist.

4. If an existant thing can exist before its creation, then nothing needs to be created because everything exists without being created.

5. Not everything exists.

6. An existant thing cannot exist before its creation. (From 4 and 5)

7. God does not exist. (From 3 and 6)


Mr. Atheist (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote: yeah i anticipated

Quote:

yeah i anticipated you saying that, almost any atheist i talk to says that. hopefully you'll see the difference in my argument. I am not saying everything in existence has a casue. thats not what the law of causality says. im saying everything that has a beginning has a cause. please tell me you see the difference in what i am saying. my point is that the universe has a beginning, the beginnig is debateable but it had one. logic says in order for it to have a beginning then there was a cause. becasue chrsitians claim God to be eternal, he simply exists and didn't have a beginning thus didn't need a cause. that is not contradictory.

That is the ‘special pleading’.

Quote:

i use the term atheist a little freely ill admit. atheists belive that there in no god and usually rely on science. anyway, my point was that theists arguments may evolve in order to combat the opposition but our facts never change. we may come up with different arguments but never change the fact that we belive that God created the universe. Atheists arn't sure how the universe was created and they stick with one belief untill it seems irrational faced with "new" evidence so they change it a little.

You don’t just use it freely, you use it to cover a lot of theist groups a swell.  Perhaps you should focus on “non-Christian” since that appears to be your target.

Quote:

my mistake, i realize evolution only explains the growth of the universe and not the origin, when i say atheists belive in evolutino i mean the whole kit n kaboodle. natural selection, and whatever goes with that and any creation theories they have may it bee the big bang, or the crunch theory or that the universe has always existed etc.

Evolution does not explain the growth of the universe, nor the origin.  You clearly don’t know a thing about it and I suggest picking up some books prior to writing this.  What he intended was that it doesn’t explain the origin of life.  Assuming that evolution has anything to do with the universe is a mistake you would probably avoid by doing any reading on the subject at all which I would hope you would do prior to writing your thesis.

There is a ton of material on here on the subjects once you have at least a basic understanding.

(This is not meant to be insulting, just true)

Quote:

how so? people seem to thing that theism and science can't coexist. evolution os one theory to explain biological science, its not in any way proven. and i mean actually scientifically proven.

Evolution is accepted as a fact by the great majority of science.  The reason that it is a theory is essentially because they don’t know the exact mechanism by which it works.  The currently favored mechanism is Darwin’s Natural Selection.  Evolution is an accepted reality in scientific circles and even by most religious sects including the Vatican at last check (which is a fairly conservative sect).  Pope John Paul emphasized the need pluralize the mechanisms of evolution.

Quote:

ill look into that... this is why i posted this, to work out the kinks. fortunately this is a minor point.

It’s only a minor point if you come to this with the presupposition that it is a minor point.  It demonstrated a clear lack of understanding which is a major point if you’re going to discuss it at all.

Quote:

funny since these terms are in secular science books. and even if they were only used by apologists, atheists use them as well saying that macroevolution is the combinatioin of years of microevolution.

The terms get used because people use them.  From a scientific perspective there is no difference between the two and the accepted evidence of microevolution is the same as evidence required for macroevolution.

Quote:

first off, wikipedia is by no means a scholarly source, its quite biased against theism and almost anyone can puy what they want. secondly there wasn't a single missing link fossil. most of the examples have long since been proven as conspiracies. especially the examples of the evolution to man.

Every fossil is a transitional fossil.  Each one found, creates 2 more. 

I have a feeling you’re going to just write off anything that does not agree with your faith as ‘biased’ but the facts don’t agree with your faith and you just need to learn to accept that.  You can google this subject and get tens of thousands of links on the subject.

Here’s one:
http://www.holysmoke.org/tran-icr.htm

Quote:

atheism is indeed a belief that there is no god

It is not a hardline stance for most atheists (who are agnostic atheists).  It is a disbelief in the existance of god regardless of reasoning.  Subtle difference there, but I hope you understand my meaning. 

Atheism is not a statement about life in anyway shape or forms about any other topic other than the existence of god.  To suggest that atheism is a dangerous belief system you would be attributing other factors to it which are not strictly atheistic in nature.

Quote:

ugh, i have heard this way too many times. Hitler was raised catholic but denounced his belives very early on. Hitler was atheist. he did not belive in a god. i don't mean teachings as in there is some book that atheists follow. i mean that atheism has many logical conclusions. if there is no god and no purrpose to live, and only the strongest survive then Hitler wasn't evil or even bad. he was simply destroying the weak links.

That is a pretty brutal summary of Hitler.  His religious stance is constantly debated, so not one that you should really focus on.  There are far clearer atheists out there that did horrible things.  That said, no more horrible than any theist did.  Regardless of what guys like Stalin did, they did not do it in the name of atheism.  Stalin, for example, did it in the name of communism.  The opposition that there was anything seen as a higher source of power than his government.  It was about replacing religion with his own regime, not so much about killing religious people just because he could.  As for Hitler, you really need to do more reading on the subject.  He was not simply destroying the “weak links”.

As for some other just simply nasty comments like “if there is no god and no purpose to live” that is a brutal opinion of a rather large and peaceful portion of the population.  Living is a purpose for living.  God is a reason for dying.   Neither atheism nor evolution have any link to “the strongest survive” and is a misunderstanding of the topic if that is what you were implying.

Quote:

seriously? even if you don't belive in a god, you have to admit religions give answers to these questions. especially Christianity.

It does not answer all of them.

I’ll just on one of them.  The morals that Christianity teaches are not morals that Christianity setup, they are human morals and they have adapted to human morals which are there regardless of religious belief.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
brave theist

brave theist wrote:

magilum wrote:
This is just the Cosmological Argument, which is self-contradictory. It says everything has a cause, and immediately commits special pleading to explain why a god wouldn't.

[...] I am not saying everything in existence has a casue. thats not what the law of causality says. im saying everything that has a beginning has a cause. please tell me you see the difference in what i am saying. my point is that the universe has a beginning, the beginnig is debateable but it had one. logic says in order for it to have a beginning then there was a cause. becasue chrsitians claim God to be eternal, he simply exists and didn't have a beginning thus didn't need a cause. that is not contradictory.

Everything has a cause except for the thing I'm saying doesn't have one. That's your argument. And now you're referring to a specific religion, as you said you would not. I don't see how you could have kept that promise, anyway, since it's really the only way these ideas are transmitted.

brave theist wrote:

magilum wrote:
You seem to be using 'atheist' to mean 'scientist,' which is wrong, but I will use the latter word from here where I think it's appropriate. Your statement is false, because your own apologetics indicate how theistic positions have evolved. Religion didn't originally contain logical contortions to deal with contradictions, it merely asserted. Unlike science, however, theistic claims evolve to avoid falsification, whereas scientific claims are falsified constantly, with theories being updated to better describe the world based on currently available information.
i use the term atheist a little freely ill admit. atheists belive that there in no god and usually rely on science.

Slight distinction between not believing in a god and making a positive claim that there isn't one. Without evidence specifically for something, the justifiable position is that it probably is not so.

brave theist wrote:
anyway, my point was that theists arguments may evolve in order to combat the opposition but our facts never change.

You use the term 'facts' loosely, as well. Religious claims are never concrete or substantiated, so whether they change or not isn't terribly important. This was famously lampooned in the question of angels dancing on the point of a needle.

brave theist wrote:
we may come up with different arguments but never change the fact that we belive that God created the universe. Atheists arn't sure how the universe was created and they stick with one belief untill it seems irrational faced with "new" evidence so they change it a little.

It's not what you can believe, it's what you can substantiate. If the substance of an argument changes, it affects the validity of an argument. Religious arguments have no substance, so it's purely a word game.

brave theist wrote:

 

magilum wrote:
Evolutionary theory has nothing to do with the origin of the universe. Pretty basic mistake there. Atheists also don't necessarily accept scientific consensus, nor are they necessarily aware of it. You seem to be conflating science and atheism into a straw-man.
my mistake, i realize evolution only explains the growth of the universe and not the origin,

BZZZZT, WRONG. Look it up at a non-apologetics site for once. Evolutionary theory has nothing to do with cosmology.

brave theist wrote:
when i say atheists belive in evolutino i mean the whole kit n kaboodle. natural selection, and whatever goes with that and any creation theories they have may it bee the big bang, or the crunch theory or that the universe has always existed etc.

Those are all different fields (cosmology, evolutionary theory, abiogenesis). Referring to them as "evolution" is completely, utterly wrong.

brave theist wrote:

magilum wrote:
False. Evolutionary theory is foundational to biological science.
how so? people seem to thing that theism and science can't coexist. evolution os one theory to explain biological science, its not in any way proven. and i mean actually scientifically proven.

magilum wrote:
Ugh, the 2nd law of thermodynamics applies to closed systems.
ill look into that... this is why i posted this, to work out the kinks. fortunately this is a minor point.

magilum wrote:
These are terms coined by apologists and have no application in science.
funny since these terms are in secular science books. and even if they were only used by apologists, atheists use them as well saying that macroevolution is the combinatioin of years of microevolution.

I withdraw my statement about the use of the term, as I see it's sometimes used legitimately. However, it is used differently by apologists to portray a straw-man of evolutionary theory that doesn't contradict Special Creation, while being able to acknowledge the undeniable facts of selection, inheritance and mutation. This mainly concerns "young earth creationists," since their timeline wouldn't allow life to evolve to this point.

brave theist wrote:

magilum wrote:
False all around. List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia
first off, wikipedia is by no means a scholarly source, its quite biased against theism and almost anyone can puy what they want. secondly there wasn't a single missing link fossil. most of the examples have long since been proven as conspiracies. especially the examples of the evolution to man.

You're simply poisoning the well. Look up chromosome 2.

brave theist wrote:

magilum wrote:
It's not necessarily a belief.
atheism is indeed a belief that there is no god

 

magilum wrote:
There are no teachings. Hitler was Christian.

ugh, i have heard this way too many times. Hitler was raised catholic but denounced his belives very early on. Hitler was atheist. he did not belive in a god. i don't mean teachings as in there is some book that atheists follow. i mean that atheism has many logical conclusions. if there is no god and no purrpose to live, and only the strongest survive then Hitler wasn't evil or even bad. he was simply destroying the weak links.

You can take Hitler's word on being a Christian or not. It's of little importance. I don't even know where to begin with the rest of what you're saying. It's so riddled with straw-man arguments.

brave theist wrote:

 

magilum wrote:
Neither does religion.
seriously? even if you don't belive in a god, you have to admit religions give answers to these questions. especially Christianity.

 thanks for your response!

The word 'answer' to me is an important one, and I don't lend it to just anything.


Cali_Athiest2
Cali_Athiest2's picture
Posts: 440
Joined: 2008-02-07
User is offlineOffline
I think your research paper

I think your research paper could have some relevence in an academic setting outside of a religious school if you do things correctly. My thesis for my masters was 50 pages, so I know how frustrating it can be to start. Many of the people here are more intelligent than I am and hold bigger and better degress than I do, but hope I can offer some help.

Your thesis statement looks good for starters. Who is your target audience for this paper? I won't touch on some of your arguments because I see others have all ready.  However I do have some problems with your subheading on experientially relevence. Also, if you have a stronger background in cosmology or anthropology, I would approach it from that angle instead. These arguments are more interesting anyways. The evolution thing encompasses so much and natural bias in your target audience may turn them off before you get to the good stuff. 

In your second sub-heading you attack atheists changing their mind on the origin of the universe as a bad thing. I am not sure where you're going with this, but it sounds like the way science is supposed to work. Theories change over time based on new data. If I was reading it, I would think that the scientists are more open-minded if they are open to new ideas than someone who's ideas haven't changed in centuries. I guess it would just depend on your target audience.  B. 1.) should also not be a question, but should be a statement instead. If you decide to use A. 1.) and A. 2.) I would find examples of experiments on evolution, trust me there are plenty and compare them to the scientific method. You can then attempt to tear them apart by citing discrepancies in the experiments performed and the scientific method, etc....

In your third subheading I wouldn't use the Hitler arguement. His beliefs weren't founded on Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, but a social darwinism concept started before Darwin wrote his book.  Social darwinism wasn't really coined until the 1940s, but the concepts it was built on were around since the early 1800s. Herbert Spencer and Francis Galton borrowed on ideas from Darwin and Thomas Malthus. Actually social darwinism was probably more influenced by Malthus, an English Anglican clergyman than Charles Darwin. Basically social darwinism is a belief that competition between individuals and groups drive social evolution in a society. I guess you could clarify that by saying the rich or powerful have more right to survive than the poor because of their position in society. In evolution, this type of system provides less genetic variance in a species. If only certain members of society mate, the variance isn't as viable and this makes evolution incompatible with social darwinism. I am hardly an expert on this subject but just do a little research and I think you'll find Hitler wasn't a big "Darwinist".

I would definitely change III A.) There is no proof that atheism is dangerous. I would say that evidence points to the contrary but that isn't what I am here to do.  There are no teachings of atheism, well that I know of anyways. Must be like the gay agenda, people say there is one but damned if it can be found online anyways. Maybe you could just state something like, "Atheism fails to answer many philisophical questions."Then, go on to list your sub-topics (i.e. purpose, hope, etc...)

 

"Always seek out the truth, but avoid at all costs those that claim to have found it" ANONYMOUS


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Some problems immediately present themselves

 "In contrast to atheism, a belief in God is rational because it is logically consistent, empirically adequate and experientially relevant"

Just to get the definitions out of the way, we'll start with your invisible friend God. You're stating that it's rational to believe in something unmeasurable by any means available. K. That could actually make for a fun thesis. You might want to address that first.

Second, logic does not state anything. It's a process. Saying "logic says ..." doesn't actually mean anyting. Logic does not imply causality, only relationships between statements.

II A. As more empirical evidence becomes available, an empiricist will change his/her mind. That's sort of the point of empiricism. Sticking with something in the face of evidence would be ... well, something other than empiricism.

II A 1. Evolution doesn't explain the universe, you're right. Not sure where you got that one. It's a really good theory for the development of species, though. Lots of evidence to back it up and stuff.

II A 2. Evolution is a pretty well documented process. If you're looking for examples, it won't be difficult to find them. You give examples in "microevolution".

II B 1. Not sure what this even means. Evolution doesn't dictate whether species become more or less complex. The second part of your statement is more interesting, in that life does seem to be the opposite of entropy. That's neat, but it doesn't mean that it's rational to believe in an invisible friend.

II B 2. It's possible that you're confused here. The process you describe is simply more likely than any other that has been presented. The beauty of science is that if you come up with something better, biologists will be all ears. Belief in an invisible friend named God is not an alternative theory.

III - this whole section is weak. If you're going to make an argument here, at least follow some of those who have come before you and argue against atheism itself. Bring your A game, not this Hitler stuff. Just because "atheism doesn't answer ... questions" doesn't mean that believing in an invisible friend named God is rational. That's a logical jump. If Hitler actually was an atheist, how did he follow the "teachings of atheism" (of which there are none)? Honestly, from a rational perspective, you seem to be babbling. Your sections are unconnected to your thesis and don't strengthen it very well.

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


brave theist
Theist
brave theist's picture
Posts: 58
Joined: 2008-02-22
User is offlineOffline
inspectormustard wrote:The

inspectormustard wrote:
The universe as we know it had a beginning (known as the big bang). As far as we know, however, what makes up the universe is eternal. The big bang is merely a change in the organization of things, possibly as a result of the entropic death of a previous universe. However, there are a multitude of theories regarding this the most likely so far is the "Many worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics.

this is my point, im glad you at least agree it had a beginning. the key wor din this whole thesis is rational and im sure you would agree that what is rational must also be logical. one rule of logic is that everything that had a beginning had a cause. not to be confused with everything that exists has a cause. something can exist and not have a cause. logic doesn't have a cause, neither does love. however you agree that the universe had a beginning so if were being logical/rational, there MUST be a cause. now unless you want to say their is an infinite amount of causes then that there is illogical. there must be some sort of eternal cause, one without a beginning, one that always existed. the theists response would be a god, i'm going further and specifying the only God, the one of the Bible. Christians would belive that he is eternal and all powerfull which certainly fullfills the laws of logic and is in no way contradictory or illogical. therfore it is indeed more rational, based on logic, to say that an all powerful eternal being created the universe than to say it sprang out of nothing and was self casued. also, there were no materials that were eternal that started it because the universe and everything in it decays, which means it had some starting point.

 

inspectormustard wrote:
Logic does not state anything. Logic is a method of relating facts to eachother in truthful ways. Indeed, this is simply a bald assertion. It may not be possible to know how the big bang began, just as you must admit that you do not know where your god comes from. In this respect they are equal save for the evidence that there was a big bang where none exists for the source of your particular god, which is only one of many supposed gods.

logic does in a way state something, you are correct that logic is just a way to make sure our arguements are rational, but in doing so logic can say something. but i don't admitt that i don't know where God came from, He always existed. I realize you all think its illogical to believe in something unseen that has no proof and that i'm holding a double standard. to say that he could be eternal but the universe can't. science shows us that the universe can't be eternal and ill admitt science can't prove anything for or against God. so using science's conclusion and logic in conjuction with eachother, a eternal God is more rational and the only choice thats not illogical. as for evidence for Him, i do see evidence, it may not be scientific but I see it. in the same way that something falling is evidence for gravity. yes yes i know graity is science thats not he point. the point is i see much more evidence for God then against, especially since iv seen NON against.

 

inspectormustard wrote:
The ultimate question in science is "Where did everything come from?" If you add a god to the equation, everything would necessarily include god. So we must ask where this god came from. In order to even begin to answer this, we must know what this god thing is. You have given no definition for this god, so we must assume the null solution.

 

this is a mistake i see made all the time. God did not come from anywhere, he always existed thus logically he needs no cause. I'll admitt i did not define God seeing how there are many many false definitions. it would be pointless for me to argue any of the false gods so I'll be arguing for the One of the Bible. He is eternal, all powerful, all seeing, everywhere, and personal. i think this are the most important properties for this topic though i could give many more.

 

 

 

 

 

- Jordan -


fluffz
Superfan
Posts: 63
Joined: 2008-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Frankly if you're writing

Frankly if you're writing this for a religious school, I'd say keep it like this.

I don't think you made a claim that can't be countered, but then again I don't really know of a proof for the existence of god that can't be.


Subdi Visions
Bronze Member
Subdi Visions's picture
Posts: 278
Joined: 2007-10-29
User is offlineOffline
So you're studying to be

So you're studying to be your area's new youth pastor and want to bone up on all the arguments that your potential sheep are going to throw at you? Sounds like fun. I wish I had the lack of morals to do something like that. In any event I'm no where near the scholar of many here but what the hell.

1.

brave theist wrote:

I. Logically Consistent

A. Law of Causality

1. I'm asserting that the universe is not eternal based on science, it had a beginning, and logic states that everything with a beginning had a cause.

 

Because I know you have no proof, would you please explain why you believe the universe is not eternal. What science did you use to come up with your assertion?

Why does it have to have had a beginning?

Your statement that "logic states that everything with a beginning had a cause" seems like nonsense. It seems like your talking about a point in time, "beginning", and trying to state that there must be a reason for a point in time to exist.

Respectfully,
Lenny

"The righteous rise, With burning eyes, Of hatred and ill-will
Madmen fed on fear and lies, To beat and burn and kill"
Witch Hunt from the album Moving Pictures. Neal Pert, Rush


brave theist
Theist
brave theist's picture
Posts: 58
Joined: 2008-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Mr. Atheist wrote:That is

Mr. Atheist wrote:
That is the ‘special pleading’.

i agree its special but id like you to be a little more specific. Im not in anyway twisting anything. my causality argument is logical, and if you want to disagree with it without proof for why its wrong than your going to have to admit your illogical. and i think i win the rationality award if you don't mind being illogical.

 

Mr. Atheist wrote:
You don’t just use it freely, you use it to cover a lot of theist groups a swell.  Perhaps you should focus on “non-Christian” since that appears to be your target.

I wasn't aware that i was including any theist groups. i realize some weak chirsitans try to blend evolution and God but I am focusing on atheists. if some theists belive some of the same theories as atheists i can't really help that but I am focusing on atheists.

 

Mr. Atheist wrote:
Evolution does not explain the growth of the universe, nor the origin.  You clearly don’t know a thing about it and I suggest picking up some books prior to writing this.  What he intended was that it doesn’t explain the origin of life.  Assuming that evolution has anything to do with the universe is a mistake you would probably avoid by doing any reading on the subject at all which I would hope you would do prior to writing your thesis.

 

There is a ton of material on here on the subjects once you have at least a basic understanding.

(This is not meant to be insulting, just true)

hey now, calm down. i just didn't explain that clearly. I do know what evolution is all about. I admitt i use certain terms to broadly but this is why im practicing now. im trying to get out of the habit of linking evolution and the big bang although if you belive in one you usually belive the other. and likewise, don't take anything i say as insulting, just true.

 

Mr. Atheist wrote:
Evolution is accepted as a fact by the great majority of science.  The reason that it is a theory is essentially because they don’t know the exact mechanism by which it works.  The currently favored mechanism is Darwin’s Natural Selection.  Evolution is an accepted reality in scientific circles and even by most religious sects including the Vatican at last check (which is a fairly conservative sect).  Pope John Paul emphasized the need pluralize the mechanisms of evolution.

it is accepted as fact but I can't imagine why. almost everything about it is a guess. science requires testing. you look at something, hypothesize how it works then test your hypothesis to see if its correct. they can do nothing but hypothesize about evolution. not to mention explain how the very gradual growth produces such complex systems that can only work after its finished evolving. I'd hate to be part of the millions that must have died waiting for my heart to fully evolve. i belive this is called irreducible complexity.

 

Mr. Atheist wrote:
Every fossil is a transitional fossil.  Each one found, creates 2 more. 

 

I have a feeling you’re going to just write off anything that does not agree with your faith as ‘biased’ but the facts don’t agree with your faith and you just need to learn to accept that.  You can google this subject and get tens of thousands of links on the subject.

have you actually looked at those fossils yourself. have you seen what they put together and calim to have a transitional fossil. its not like this happens rarely. anti=evolutionists have just gotten tired of showing how the fossils or bones were falsified. when the first big "transitional" fossil was found, all the science books began claiming that the missing link was found. 20 years later scientists proved that the jaw was put on wrong and it was just a man. yes thats just one example but i shows how unreliable the "reconstruction" is. they take extra bone fragments, slap it on a fish and say look! we discovered the missing link. Im sorry, but those fossils prove nothing. and i promise i won't write anything off becasue it is biased. i was simly mointing out that anyone could put that on wikipedia, and that anyone was atheist.

 

Mr. Atheist wrote:
It is not a hardline stance for most atheists (who are agnostic atheists).  It is a disbelief in the existance of god regardless of reasoning.  Subtle difference there, but I hope you understand my meaning.
i understand. i know that their are several subcategories under atheist but im including them all. either you belive in a god-theist, you don't belive in a god-atheist, or you don't know-agnostic (yes those are extreamly broad but it gets the point across)

 

 

Mr. Atheist wrote:
Atheism is not a statement about life in anyway shape or forms about any other topic other than the existence of god.  To suggest that atheism is a dangerous belief system you would be attributing other factors to it which are not strictly atheistic in nature.
i know its not a statement of life but you can't deny that certain conclusions must come from a belief in no God. for instance there are NO moral absolutes for atheists. if everyone is atheist, i don't see how you could blame anyone for anything. there is no difference between right and wrong, and theres no punishment or consequences for your actions. there is no purpose for life, and living is not a purpose. if we are all just the result of evolution and are born with no purpose, thats quite depressing. no wonder suicide rates are so high. AS for Hitler, like you said i could use stalin or any number of other dictators. no they weren't running around yelling hail atheism, but as i said atheists have no guiding principles, you can't fault hitler or stalin or anyone else for what hey do. and yes many have done horrible things in the name of God. this is off my topic but all those horrible things were done by "christians" who were christians in name only. i hate how broad that term is becasue christian refers to catholics, protestants, mormans, etc... and even worse it makes it seem as if calling yourself a christian makes you one. no horrible acts have EVER been done by True Christians and if you disagree then please give an example.

 

Mr. Atheist wrote:

It does not answer all of them.

I’ll just on one of them.  The morals that Christianity teaches are not morals that Christianity setup, they are human morals and they have adapted to human morals which are there regardless of religious belief.

ummm not quite. without a God there are no morals. theres no such thing as human morals as you can see by the vastly differnt cultures and customs. if morals exist at all there must be some moral absolute. the Christians's answer is God. the atheists have no answer. so as i said Christinaity does answer all our questions.

- Jordan -


brave theist
Theist
brave theist's picture
Posts: 58
Joined: 2008-02-22
User is offlineOffline
subdi visions wrote:So

subdi visions wrote:
So you're studying to be your area's new youth pastor and want to bone up on all the arguments that your potential sheep are going to throw at you? Sounds like fun. I wish I had the lack of morals to do something like that. In any event I'm no where near the scholar of many here but what the hell.

just wanted to say this did make me laugh, though there would be no market for a youth pastor like me, id be kicked out to quick. the reason atheists have such an easy job of making Chrisitians look dumb is becasue most the ones you know probably are. if you ever happen to see one of those small churches with 20 members i bet you they have more real Christians then the ones with 20,000 members.

subdi visions wrote:
Because I know you have no proof, would you please explain why you believe the universe is not eternal. What science did you use to come up with your assertion?
well considering you base your whole life on the belief that our science has disproved God i would be careful telling me science is flawed. science has proven that the amount of energy in the universe is constant, that it isn't made or destroyed. however it is converted, and the problem is its converted into energy we can't use. science tells us that the ammount of usable energy declining. now in order for it to be declining, it must have had some starting point. if your saying the universe is infinite than all the energy would have been used up an infinte time ago.

- Jordan -


brave theist
Theist
brave theist's picture
Posts: 58
Joined: 2008-02-22
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote:Everything has

magilum wrote:
Everything has a cause except for the thing I'm saying doesn't have one. That's your argument. And now you're referring to a specific religion, as you said you would not. I don't see how you could have kept that promise, anyway, since it's really the only way these ideas are transmitted.

please keep in mind were being rational about this. i didn't say my God is the only thing without a cause. i said only something eternal can be without a cause. my God is eternal, so is logic and love. they don't need a casue, logically. so don't twist my argument, you must either try to argue that the universe is eternal or that your illogical becasue any theory you have about the universe self creating is illogical based on the law of causality. and i don't remember saying i won't pick a specific religion but if i did i retrat that staement. my God is the only one that fits all the requirements. of course it makes sense that He does since He's the only real one but we'll worry about that some other time.

 

magilum wrote:
Slight distinction between not believing in a god and making a positive claim that there isn't one. Without evidence specifically for something, the justifiable position is that it probably is not so.[.quote] i realize that. i still think its dumb that atheists can so confidently deny God's existence without proof against but this isn't the palce for that argument. i also realize you simply don't belive in one. and thats the point of my thesis. to prove that its more rational to belive in God then to not belive in God. and even if i havn't succeded yet, i can't fail since atheist have no evidence against or can even prove why its irational.

 

(i answered the rest of your argument in the above post by Mr. Atheist, sorry but i don't feel like recopying them.)

- Jordan -


HC Grindon
High Level DonorModerator
Posts: 198
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Threads like this are so

Threads like this are so very depressing.  To see a young mind like Jordan's poisoned with all of that creationist nonsense and misinformation is just plain sad.


brave theist
Theist
brave theist's picture
Posts: 58
Joined: 2008-02-22
User is offlineOffline
cali_Atheist2 wrote:I think

cali_Atheist2 wrote:
I think your research paper could have some relevence in an academic setting outside of a religious school if you do things correctly. My thesis for my masters was 50 pages, so I know how frustrating it can be to start. Many of the people here are more intelligent than I am and hold bigger and better degress than I do, but hope I can offer some help.

yes its admitedly a religious school but that in no way effects the grade. they ignore our personal arguments and grade souly on the way we argue, so whether they agree with me or not does not make my job easier. i wish i had 50 pages to write, we have to do it in 20, thats not to make it easier for us, its to teach us to write consisely. we'd all love to have no page limit. don't worry about what kind of degrees you do or don't have, you've got me beat becasue im still in high school. However, don't discrimanate based on my age, I promise you that nothing here goes over my head or level of understanding. i many have to do a little reaserch when these gus bring up certain arguments and experiments and what not but i am quite prepared to stand up for my beliefs. thank you for the help though!

 

cali_Atheist2 wrote:

Your thesis statement looks good for starters. Who is your target audience for this paper? I won't touch on some of your arguments because I see others have all ready.  However I do have some problems with your subheading on experientially relevence. Also, if you have a stronger background in cosmology or anthropology, I would approach it from that angle instead. These arguments are more interesting anyways. The evolution thing encompasses so much and natural bias in your target audience may turn them off before you get to the good stuff. 

my experientially relevent heading will have to do with pragmatism. I think i have a good argument for theism being a better belief to base a nation off of than atheism. the romans knew this well, i read a good deal of the fall and decline of the Roman empire. (my favorite empire by the way) most of their leaders were atheists but they knew new the cultural effects of atheism and desided to promote theism. they didn't care what gods they used they just wanted there people believing in something becasue they knew it would improve the culture. as for which backround im stronger in, either one works becasue im competely even in my understanding of all areas, im pretty well rounded which is useful since i can understand the philosophical and scientific areas equally. i agree though that evolution is very broad and involves a bit of bias but i think its important to bring up that the most popular and generally accepted theory is fatally flawed.

 

cali_Atheist2 wrote:
In your second sub-heading you attack atheists changing their mind on the origin of the universe as a bad thing. I am not sure where you're going with this, but it sounds like the way science is supposed to work. Theories change over time based on new data. If I was reading it, I would think that the scientists are more open-minded if they are open to new ideas than someone who's ideas haven't changed in centuries. I guess it would just depend on your target audience.  B. 1.) should also not be a question, but should be a statement instead. If you decide to use A. 1.) and A. 2.) I would find examples of experiments on evolution, trust me there are plenty and compare them to the scientific method. You can then attempt to tear them apart by citing discrepancies in the experiments performed and the scientific method, etc....
thats not in my outline i have on paper it was just somthing extra that came to me while i was typing it. it does depend on the reader becasue i see where your coming from but i feel that if we have a answer that has withstood time and scientific evidence, that theres no need to change it. i like the idea about finding the experiments though, that will add some more substance.

 

cali_Atheist2 wrote:
In your third subheading I wouldn't use the Hitler arguement. His beliefs weren't founded on Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, but a social darwinism concept started before Darwin wrote his book.  Social darwinism wasn't really coined until the 1940s, but the concepts it was built on were around since the early 1800s. Herbert Spencer and Francis Galton borrowed on ideas from Darwin and Thomas Malthus. Actually social darwinism was probably more influenced by Malthus, an English Anglican clergyman than Charles Darwin. Basically social darwinism is a belief that competition between individuals and groups drive social evolution in a society. I guess you could clarify that by saying the rich or powerful have more right to survive than the poor because of their position in society. In evolution, this type of system provides less genetic variance in a species. If only certain members of society mate, the variance isn't as viable and this makes evolution incompatible with social darwinism. I am hardly an expert on this subject but just do a little research and I think you'll find Hitler wasn't a big "Darwinist".
i messed that up. i didn't mean to say that Hitler was a darwinian but that he was a good example of where atheism leads. his lack of moral value is a logical conclusion of atheism and he shouln't be critisized for what he did. without a moral absolute (GOD) he did nothing wrong. i bring up darwin to say that his theory of evolution was not made to replace God and yet Atheists took it as such which i couldn't blaim them since they were looking for any theory that didn't use God.

 

cali_Atheist2 wrote:
I would definitely change III A.) There is no proof that atheism is dangerous. I would say that evidence points to the contrary but that isn't what I am here to do.  There are no teachings of atheism, well that I know of anyways. Must be like the gay agenda, people say there is one but damned if it can be found online anyways. Maybe you could just state something like, "Atheism fails to answer many philisophical questions."Then, go on to list your sub-topics (i.e. purpose, hope, etc...)

i think there is proof that atheism is dangerous especially bringing in the issues of morality and pourpose and anytihng else but i do at least see where your coming from. once again thanks for your help! you actually gave me some advice other than just making fun of my God. i appreciate it.

- Jordan -


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
   Interesting thread

   Interesting thread ,

.... the thing that really bugs me is why a "beginning" could even be reasonable debate? The word concept "Zero" is a place of measurement. Our math is revealing of our mental limitation. In math there is no absolute ZERO. There is Infinity. The rule of division, .... no zero !

Philosophy/Math is freaking wild ! .... "who is a Zero believer" ??? Buddha laughed alot ....


brave theist
Theist
brave theist's picture
Posts: 58
Joined: 2008-02-22
User is offlineOffline
HC Grindon wrote:Threads

HC Grindon wrote:
Threads like this are so very depressing.  To see a young mind like Jordan's poisoned with all of that creationist nonsense and misinformation is just plain sad.

 

thanks for your concern but I'll be ok. despite what you guys say, were not all brainwashed. God actually tells us to think for ourselves, to study and learn all that we can. its actually sinful to live ignorantly. seriously think God would tell us to learn all the facts if all the facts lead away from him? i find it intersting that i could use your quote with some minor edidting. "Threads like this are so very depressing.  To see a young mind like yours poisoned with all of that evolutionist nonsense and misinformation is just plain sad."

- Jordan -


brave theist
Theist
brave theist's picture
Posts: 58
Joined: 2008-02-22
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:the

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:
the thing that really bugs me is why a "beginning" could even be reasonable debate? The word concept "Zero" is a place of measurement. Our math is revealing of our mental limitation. In math there is no absolute ZERO. There is Infinity. The rule of division, .... no zero !]

i would definately agree that we are not made to understand everything around us. i feel like your argument helps mine though, sort of. we can have a beginning, in fact most things have a beginning. to say the universe had no beginning is saying that it is eternal. science simply does not supprt an eternal universe.

- Jordan -


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
   "ALL IS ONE", the

   "ALL IS ONE", the religious don't get it .... ??? Suspend language, meditate !


brave theist
Theist
brave theist's picture
Posts: 58
Joined: 2008-02-22
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote: 

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:
  "ALL IS ONE", the religious don't get it .... ??? Suspend language, meditate !
im confused.... you sound pantheistic now... whci would be slightly ironic on an atheistic site.

- Jordan -


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
I haven't advertised myself

I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
     Jordan  "science

  

   Jordan  "science simply does not supprt an eternal universe." 

----------------------------------------------

???   Science does not pretend, It loudly says I don't know. But the math does say eternal .... ????????????????????? !


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
   Jordan, "you sound

   Jordan, "you sound pantheistic now"

--------------------------------------------

  Well the word GOD is the problem, the P stuff is an encouraging improvement over dogma God religions ..... 


AmericanIdle
Posts: 414
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
brave theist wrote:HC

brave theist wrote:

HC Grindon wrote:
Threads like this are so very depressing.  To see a young mind like Jordan's poisoned with all of that creationist nonsense and misinformation is just plain sad.

 

thanks for your concern but I'll be ok. despite what you guys say, were not all brainwashed. God actually tells us to think for ourselves, to study and learn all that we can. its actually sinful to live ignorantly. seriously think God would tell us to learn all the facts if all the facts lead away from him? i find it intersting that i could use your quote with some minor edidting. "Threads like this are so very depressing.  To see a young mind like yours poisoned with all of that evolutionist nonsense and misinformation is just plain sad."

Just to make this clear for the gazillionth time.  MANY of the persons on or involved in this website were former christians (including the founders).  I myself was once Student Body Chaplain for a christian school who also attended a christian college, went to seminary, have read the bible all the way thru, attended church literally over a thousand times, etc. etc.

Which puts me (and most others here) in the position of having been able to look at both sides of the issue.  This examination has also put me in the unique position of calling all religion (Yours included) as complete and utter bullshit.  

Is there a god ?  Possibly.  Is there evidence for one ?  Absolutely not. Is there evidence that points to all religious ideology as man-made rather than from some divine source ? Absolutely. 

Humans have been worshipping gods for thousands of years.  There are two possibilities here: 

- Every god ever mentioned exists despite there not being evidence for any of them...or

- Humans have been making up (creating) their own gods to fill a perceived need within them and/or to counter their fears/insecurities.  AND human ego convinces each theist to discount all other gods in favor of... you guessed it THEIR OWN !!

To the believer of every god in history.... THEIR OWN is the only one important.  The only REAL one.  Your god is a reflection of your own ego and by the looks of it your god is not pretty !

You want to be able to say that you think for yourself.  Dogma by its very nature does not allow this.  Most every religion (as in most clever man-made ideologies created w/ the purpose of control) provides answers to the adherent that cannot be questioned.  This leaves you trapped to those "answers" and you have no choice but to try and make evidence fit them, rather than letting evidence itself form your truth.  Which incidentally which is what you've been doing throughout this entire thread.    

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


brave theist
Theist
brave theist's picture
Posts: 58
Joined: 2008-02-22
User is offlineOffline
id fully agree, theism and

id fully agree, theism and science should and do go hand in hand


brave theist
Theist
brave theist's picture
Posts: 58
Joined: 2008-02-22
User is offlineOffline
thats quite interesting

thats quite interesting since i would say the same to you. don't try to fit the evidence to your conclusions but let the conclusions follow the evidence. as to the rest of your post. Christianity is quite different from all the others, its not tollerant of other religions, unlike other religions. im just glad you admitted that there is possibly a God. most atheists make the mistek of assuming they know enough to say confidently "there is no God." any person would admit that out of all the religions Christianity is the most reasonable and thats why atheists do their best to discount christianity. Why don't you all bash budhists, muslums hindus, etc... becasue they are no threat. whether you admeit it or not, Christinaity is mor reasonable than any other religion, and try as hard as you want but you can't discount it other than using logical fallacies such as becasue every other religion is wrong so is yours.

- Jordan -


AmericanIdle
Posts: 414
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Christianity is quite

Quote:
Christianity is quite different from all the others,

How sad that you think this.

Quote:
im just glad you admitted that there is possibly a God.

I'm glad you're glad.  Does Thor exist ?  Possibly.

Quote:
most atheists make the mistek of assuming they know enough to say confidently "there is no God." 

I guess if you can say... There is no Thor.. then I can say.. there is no god.

Quote:
 any person would admit that out of all the religions Christianity is the most reasonable

I'd like that generalization super-sized.  Is it the talking snakes, the unicorns, the dragons, the satyrs, the dead coming back to life, the survival in a whale for several days, the big boat that collected 5-20 million pairs (or is it 7) species from all over the world (and continents that no one even knew existed) or "there were giants in the land in those days" that you think is the most reasonable ?  An no, that wasn't Harry Potter.

Quote:
why atheists do their best to discount christianity
  Actually I have a much lower opinion of Islam as do probably many here....but that doesn't seem to be real pervasive in this country.  Of course, if you let the christian religious inclined have their way... it could regain its status as one of our founding  fathers and former Presidents pointed out.. as the bloodiest religion that has ever existed.

Quote:
Why don't you all bash budhists, muslums hindus, etc... becasue they are no threat.

I'd draw a cartoon of Muhammad but you know how batshit crazy the religious can be if you just let them follow their ideology to the letter.

Quote:
Christinaity is mor reasonable than any other religion

Would you like a list of all the things that the bible says we are supposed to punish w/ death by stoning ?

I hope you've never worked on Sunday or...disobeyed your parents for starters.. 

You were actually trying to be serious w/ that one, right ?

   

 

 

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


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
   Jordan says

   Jordan says Christinaity is more reasonable than any other religion

--------------------------------

  I say, All religion is total blasphemy devil shit .... of wrong "separation" thinking. 

You are not god ? How so ????? 


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
brave theist wrote: magilum

brave theist wrote:

magilum wrote:
Everything has a cause except for the thing I'm saying doesn't have one. That's your argument. And now you're referring to a specific religion, as you said you would not. I don't see how you could have kept that promise, anyway, since it's really the only way these ideas are transmitted.

please keep in mind were being rational about this.

Rhetoric.

brave theist wrote:
i didn't say my God is the only thing without a cause.

Then you've wrecked your inductive argument. The terminus to the infinite regress could be any arbitrary point. There could be a hundred billion cause and effect statements preceding the formation of the universe, none of which are answered by the arbitrariness of speculative ad hocs relating to a deliberate agent.

brave theist wrote:
i said only something eternal can be without a cause. my God is eternal, so is logic and love.

Look up reification, cos that's what you're doing.

brave theist wrote:
they don't need a casue, logically. so don't twist my argument, you must either try to argue that the universe is eternal

Bifurcation.

brave theist wrote:
or that your illogical becasue any theory you have about the universe self creating

Straw-man of cosmology, and begging the question by calling it "created."

brave theist wrote:
is illogical based on the law of causality.

Which you arbitrarily define and violate with special pleading.

brave theist wrote:
and i don't remember saying i won't pick a specific religion but if i did i retrat that staement.

LOL.

brave theist wrote:
my God is the only one that fits all the requirements. of course it makes sense that He does since He's the only real one but we'll worry about that some other time.

The bus you take to school... it's somewhat... short?

 


Mazid the Raider
Rational VIP!Science Freak
Mazid the Raider's picture
Posts: 128
Joined: 2007-12-28
User is offlineOffline
You guys only left me one!

Awww, you guys only left me one point to make! I guess I'll have to get in on these a little sooner. But anyways, on to the point.

What's this "beginning of the universe" you keep bringing up? I know you keep on mentioning some sort of beginning, and then you tend to say something about the Big Bang, but do you think they're the same thing? I know someone else mentioned it, but they added a very important qualification: as we know it.

So the Big Bang is the beginning of the universe as we know it. The logical questions to ask are "what's the difference?" and "well, then what came before that?". (If you have others feel free to chime up.) The difference is an important one. The Big Bang didn't create anything - it was a transfer of matter and energy from one condition to another. The matter was existed prior to the Bang. This is an important distinction from saying that that was the vaunted Beginning because it eliminates the "need" for a theos to poof things into existence.

The second question is much more interesting, but we have no way of knowing for sure. I have an interesting hypothesis (NOT a theory), but I lack the math to disprove it so I won't even explain my idea. Unless the distribution of matter reflects a sort of FIFO (first in first out) distribution of the forming of the singularity from which the Big Bang exploded (imploded?) and we can calculate a rough picture of what that universe looked like we'll never know what came before.

I'm sure there are a few physicist types out there who are muttering about the meaningless use of time related words like "before" while referring to something as fundamentally disruptive to time itself as the collapse of such a monumental singularity, but you'll have to forgive me: Where I lack the math to describe such an event, I also lack the terminology with which to step out of time.

 

"But still I am the Cat who walks by himself, and all places are alike to me!" ~Rudyard Kipling

Mazid the Raider says: I'd rather face the naked truth than to go "augh, dude, put some clothes on or something" and hand him some God robes, cause you and I know that the naked truth is pale, hairy, and has an outie
Entomophila says: Ew. AN outie


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3616
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
brave theist wrote:id fully

brave theist wrote:

id fully agree, theism and science should and do go hand in hand

Could science be used to effectively explain how Adam and Eve came into existence ?

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"The best government is a benevolent tyranny tempered by an occasional assassination." Voltaire ( 1694-1778 )


brave theist
Theist
brave theist's picture
Posts: 58
Joined: 2008-02-22
User is offlineOffline
AmericanIdle

AmericanIdle wrote:

Quote:Christianity is quite different from all the others,

 

How sad that you think this.

any in depth study would show that the underlying priniciples of Christianity are far different then any other religion. any simmilarities come from the fact the other religions have stolen ideas.

 

AmericanIdle wrote:
I guess if you can say... There is no Thor.. then I can say.. there is no god.
ooo good one. im surprised you didn't use your flying purple spaghetti monster analogy, thats popular among atheists. the fact that your trying to equate any other god or "invisible friend" with God is quite naive. there is proof of God. no its not the scientific concrete proof that you want but its there. everyone sees the proof of a God, they just don't like the idea of being accountable to someone who knows their thoughts and sees every thing they do. despite all your confident bashing of God, i know that deep down you truly do fear Hm and have done your best to "logically" get rid of him. which by the way your not o good at. your only argument against God is that there is no proof. guess what, there is no prrof for most things we observe. there is only evidence. evidence that may not point directly to one source but evidence that certainly does illude to a God.

 

AmericanIdle wrote:
I'd like that generalization super-sized.  Is it the talking snakes, the unicorns, the dragons, the satyrs, the dead coming back to life, the survival in a whale for several days, the big boat that collected 5-20 million pairs (or is it 7) species from all over the world (and continents that no one even knew existed) or "there were giants in the land in those days" that you think is the most reasonable ?  An no, that wasn't Harry Potter.
i never understand why people find it so hard to belive that an ALL powerful God can make this stuff happen. and by the way there are no unicorns, dragons, or satyrs in my Bible. the rest sounds about right. your little ark "contradiction" with the 2 or 7 is also evidence to your ignorance of that which you refute.

 

AmericanIdle wrote:
it could regain its status as one of our founding  fathers and former Presidents pointed out.. as the bloodiest religion that has ever existed.
and because they said it its true..... ha, ever hear the fallacy about a radical example that is not normally true. just becasue people did bad things in the name of God a few times does not mean Chistianity is bloody. they were not Christians and there are radicals to every religion or belief. it doesn't describe the whole.

AmericanIdle wrote:

Would you like a list of all the things that the bible says we are supposed to punish w/ death by stoning ?

I hope you've never worked on Sunday or...disobeyed your parents for starters.. 

this drives me crazy.... we are not supposed to punish anthing by stoning, we are not condemned from doing any work sunday and disobeying parents is wrong but thats not irratioinal at all in any culture. don't pretend like you understand at all what Christians are told to live like. you just made it very clear that you do exactly what yyou accuse Christians of doing. think for yourself. read it for yourself. You've obviously just found that on some wbsite, out of context. and based your life off the hope that your right.

- Jordan -


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
brave theist wrote:id fully

brave theist wrote:

id fully agree, theism and science should and do go hand in hand

 

I think you missed the point.


brave theist
Theist
brave theist's picture
Posts: 58
Joined: 2008-02-22
User is offlineOffline
I AM AS GOD wrote:I say, All

I AM AS GOD wrote:
I say, All religion is total blasphemy devil shit .... of wrong "separation" thinking. 

You are not god ? How so ?????

as i said before... i have no idea what your saying. its complete jiberish. please tell me english isn't your native language.

- Jordan -


brave theist
Theist
brave theist's picture
Posts: 58
Joined: 2008-02-22
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote:Which you

magilum wrote:
Which you arbitrarily define and violate with special pleading.

i do no such thing. i defined the law exactly the way it is defined. i also did not make up anytihng special exceptions are twist any words.  admit there is one weekness to logic, its only as good as its users. you obviously have a good grasp on logical terms and what not, far greater than my 2 years produced (which were several years ago anyway) and yet you can't seem to apply your logic.

 

magilum wrote:
The bus you take to school... it's somewhat... short?
actually i drive to school, but i fond it interesting that iv debated with you for a day and you have already reverted to personal attacks. that kind of just destroyed any credibility you may have had

- Jordan -


brave theist
Theist
brave theist's picture
Posts: 58
Joined: 2008-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Mazid the Raider wrote:Awww,

Mazid the Raider wrote:
Awww, you guys only left me one point to make! I guess I'll have to get in on these a little sooner. But anyways, on to the point.

thats a good oint and iv heard it before in a little more detail. i still beg the question that in order for everything to explode (or implode) there still must have been something to start with. i heard an atheist try to tell me that anti-matter exploded. he was trying to say anti-matter is less then nothing so that the world didn't come from nothing exploding it came from less then nothing exploding. i found this funny since anti matter is not less than nothing. anyway my point is the stuff still had to come from somewhere unless it was infinite. I don't see how any kind of matter could be infinite. that seems like quite a leap and is certainly not concrete proof of anytihng. its all just a theory to explain that we didn't need a God.

- Jordan -


brave theist
Theist
brave theist's picture
Posts: 58
Joined: 2008-02-22
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:Could

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
Could science be used to effectively explain how Adam and Eve came into existence ?
God works two ways, usually he uses hes power to effect something using natural explainable things. he wanted to wipe out some village, he caused a tidal wave instead of wiping it out like he did sodom and gamorrah. other times he acts outside of nature. He's all powerful, so to say he must act withing science is rediculous. however he created science, which is why science does not disprove him. there called miracles for a reason.

- Jordan -


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
brave theist wrote: magilum

brave theist wrote:

magilum wrote:
Which you arbitrarily define and violate with special pleading.

i do no such thing. i defined the law exactly the way it is defined.

As defined by what -- an interpretation of a scripture?

Recall:

brave theist wrote:
Please feel free to throw any arguments against me within those topics. In other words, I am not even touching on the accuracy of the Bible or the person of Jesus and likewise, i am not using the Bible in any of my arguments. Here is a broad outline of my paper so far. (I have only just begun my thesis)

So you're begging the question here. Your 'proof' contains the conclusion, that the schizophrenic biblically 'defined' god is necessary, in the premise, which has to assume biblical accuracy.

brave theist wrote:
i also did not make up anytihng special exceptions are twist any words.

You didn't invent the cosmological argument, but special pleading is its format. In addition to being an argument from ignorance, since the honest answer is we don't know what was before the universe -- assuming terms like 'before' are even applicable to that model. Your religion was invented by semi-literate goat farmers, refined by low rung philosophers, and preserved by rote repetition; it should not surprise you to find these holes in the incredibly common apologetics you're rehashing.

brave theist wrote:
admit there is one weekness to logic, its only as good as its users. you obviously have a good grasp on logical terms and what not, far greater than my 2 years produced (which were several years ago anyway) and yet you can't seem to apply your logic.

LOL.

brave theist wrote:

magilum wrote:
The bus you take to school... it's somewhat... short?
actually i drive to school, but i fond it interesting that iv debated with you for a day and you have already reverted to personal attacks.

Sorry, I get snippy when I'm presented with arguments that don't hold my interest.

brave theist wrote:
that kind of just destroyed any credibility you may have had

If only it was that easy.

 


brave theist
Theist
brave theist's picture
Posts: 58
Joined: 2008-02-22
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote:So you're

magilum wrote:
So you're begging the question here. Your 'proof' contains the conclusion, that the schizophrenic biblically 'defined' god is necessary, in the premise, which has to assume biblical accuracy.
ok ok i see where your coming from now. i did assume its accuracy but i my argument is that the God of the Bible is more rational not that any God is. so naturally i must use the Bible to define my God.

 

magilum wrote:
You didn't invent the cosmological argument, but special pleading is its format. In addition to being an argument from ignorance, since the honest answer is we don't know what was before the universe -- assuming terms like 'before' are even applicable to that model. Your religion was invented by semi-literate goat farmers, refined by low rung philosophers, and preserved by rote repetition; it should not surprise you to find these holes in the incredibly common apologetics you're rehashing.
actually, the honest answer is that we do know what was before the universe. Christians don't have to wonder and hope, we know what happened. the reason i said i wasn't brining up the Bible or Jesus was simply because i don't feel like bring up the dbate right now. i belive i have very good arguments for both the person of Jesus and the accurac of the Bible. your description of its writers is quite uninformed. and atheists always seem to use the fact that the writers wern't brilliant men to negate the fact that the BIble is in fact amazing, whether its true or not. I don't see how you can read it cover to cover and seriously not admit that it if nothing else is an awesome story, and it has some cool aspects to it. no atheist can explain how the old testament so perfectly predicted the the life of Jesus when it was written hundreds of years earlier.

- Jordan -


AmericanIdle
Posts: 414
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
Quote:any in depth study

Quote:
any in depth study would show that the underlying priniciples of Christianity are far different then any other religion. any simmilarities come from the fact the other religions have stolen ideas.

That's what more contemporary religions do...they steal ideas from the older ones.  How unfortunate that your ego does not let you apply this well known fact to your own religion.

- A shockingly large number of biblical stories/themes are not original.  In fact, it's pretty hard to imagine that your religion did not steal their ideas.

Quote:
there is proof of God.

There's not.. but I'll call your bluff.  show me !

Quote:
they just don't like the idea of being accountable to someone who knows their thoughts and sees every thing they do

If accountability actually led to Immortality and an omnipotent friend as opposed to eternal torture, I think everyone here (and who wouldn't) would make that sacrifice. That was a stupid statement.  

Quote:
i know that deep down you truly do fear Hm and have done your best to "logically" get rid of him.

I think you got me... Wait !  Fuck your christian god right in his fucking christian ass!  Now may god strike me down for saying that.  Guess what ?  Still here.  It's as if the invisible friend that you were indoctrinated to believe in doesn't exist... What a surprise !   Again, I love the idea of all powerful friend who will grant me immortality.. There's not much I wouldn't do for that.. doesn't make the crap true though does it ?

Quote:
and by the way there are no unicorns, dragons, or satyrs in my Bible

Unicorns:  nine references in the KJV.  Re-writers have changed this to "wild ox".. We call this a covered up lie in the real world.

Satyrs: Twice in the KJV.  See above.

Dragons: Like 25 times.. See above.

Quote:
read it for yourself. You've obviously just found that on some wbsite, out of context.

Did you even bother to read the post where I explained to you that I've read the bible all the way through.. That I attended a christian college just as you do and have spent countless hours in bible classes ?  

Quote:
 think for yourself

This is called projection.  And once again religious dogma does not allow you to crucify the ego but compels one to completely surrender to it. 

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


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
brave theist wrote: magilum

brave theist wrote:

magilum wrote:
So you're begging the question here. Your 'proof' contains the conclusion, that the schizophrenic biblically 'defined' god is necessary, in the premise, which has to assume biblical accuracy.
ok ok i see where your coming from now. i did assume its accuracy but i my argument is that the God of the Bible is more rational not that any God is. so naturally i must use the Bible to define my God.

So you've violated your original parameters, and committed a fallacy.

brave theist wrote:

magilum wrote:
You didn't invent the cosmological argument, but special pleading is its format. In addition to being an argument from ignorance, since the honest answer is we don't know what was before the universe -- assuming terms like 'before' are even applicable to that model. Your religion was invented by semi-literate goat farmers, refined by low rung philosophers, and preserved by rote repetition; it should not surprise you to find these holes in the incredibly common apologetics you're rehashing.

actually, the honest answer is that we do know what was before the universe. Christians don't have to wonder and hope, we know what happened.

If a researcher develops a theory that the surface features of the skull relate to specific personality traits, which can then be systematically mapped and used in profiling people for their aptitude to given professions, how do we confirm or falsify this? Well, we can check. As long as we can agree on what certain personality traits manifest as, though I'll admit it's something of a soft science, and we can agree what areas of a person's skull correspond to the model, we can find out whether the data supports the hypothesis. It didn't, and phrenology was abandoned. In another case, a researcher had enthusiastically invited over a colleague to check out the new phenomenon he'd discovered. It was a radiation emanating from a variety of objects, which could be observed via the glowing of a thin filament. The radiation was channeled through a metal prism before reaching the filament. When he was distracted, the researcher's guest had removed this integral part of the apparatus. When the researcher viewed the filament, and continued to "see" the glow, it marked the end of research into N-Rays.

These are examples of the scientific method correcting itself for the ambitions of its adherents. No matter what they wanted to be true, once the data came in, it dictated the outcome and fate of their experiments. There are specific criteria, relating to specific phenomena, which can be tested with specific experiments. Do any such things exist to support your "knowledge?"

brave theist wrote:
the reason i said i wasn't brining up the Bible or Jesus was simply because i don't feel like bring up the dbate right now.

That doesn't change the fact that you're begging the question.

brave theist wrote:
i belive i have very good arguments for both the person of Jesus and the accurac of the Bible.

What you believe, as you may have noticed, is unimportant to the conversation.

brave theist wrote:
your description of its writers is quite uninformed. and atheists always seem to use the fact that the writers wern't brilliant men to negate the fact that the BIble is in fact amazing, whether its true or not. I don't see how you can read it cover to cover and seriously not admit that it if nothing else is an awesome story, and it has some cool aspects to it.

The Song of Solomon is pretty hawt.

brave theist wrote:
no atheist can explain how the old testament so perfectly predicted the the life of Jesus when it was written hundreds of years earlier.

Why aren't you a Mormon, then? Joseph Smith read the NT and came up with a prequel.

 


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
brave theist wrote:no

brave theist wrote:

no atheist can explain how the old testament so perfectly predicted the the life of Jesus when it was written hundreds of years earlier.

 

Actually most of us easily can - how difficult is it to write a book that confirms the predictions of an earlier book? That's even assuming the Jesus character of the New Testicle is really consistant with the predictions of the new. Even if it was, that's circular logic. If the Buybull is utter bullshit (which it is) having one made up story confirmed by an earlier one is no basis for it's being true. Do you thing the Lord of the Rings is a true story because The Return of the King is consistant with The Fellowship of the Ring?

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


HC Grindon
High Level DonorModerator
Posts: 198
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Jordan wrote:HC Grindon

Jordan wrote:

HC Grindon wrote:
Threads like this are so very depressing.  To see a young mind like Jordan's poisoned with all of that creationist nonsense and misinformation is just plain sad.

 

thanks for your concern but I'll be ok. despite what you guys say, were not all brainwashed. God actually tells us to think for ourselves, to study and learn all that we can.

Except, apparently, logic, critical thinking, comprehension of the scientific method, and the scientific theory of evolution (among other things).

Jordan wrote:
its actually sinful to live ignorantly.

Good thing for you that Jeebus died for your sins.  With each successive post, you demonstrate a clear lack of understanding (ignorance) for each premise proposed in your OP.

Jordan wrote:
seriously think God would tell us to learn all the facts if all the facts lead away from him? i find it intersting that i could use your quote with some minor edidting. "Threads like this are so very depressing.  To see a young mind like yours poisoned with all of that evolutionist nonsense and misinformation is just plain sad."

Again with the self-contradiction, seeing as how you've obviously only studied evolution (and each premise in the OP) through the distorted lenses of creationism and xtian apologetics.

I'll also add that based on your avatar pic, my "young mind" has about a quarter century more life experience than yours, which, as a former Christian includes (as an earlier poster mentioned) having seen all of the above arguments from the theist perspective.

I fully understand the elation you feel surrendering yourself to God, I've been there.  The elation is comforting, energizing, and intoxicating.  Unfortunately, it's also an illusion, a blue pill placebo having the unfortunate side effect of "faith", i.e. belief that is not based on proof.  The faith side-effect inhibits the logic and reason immune system of your mind, leaving you susceptible to any number of brainwashing mind-viruses.

Jordan, I know you think the premises of your thesis are logical, rational arguments in favor of theism, but each is clearly nothing but creationist/apologist misinformation that has been refuted countless times.  Your regurgitation of this misinformation is a clear symptom that your mind's immune system has been compromised.

Again, a very sad situation.

p.s. The RRS Surgeon General has warned that attempting to interpret posts made by our friend I AM GOD AS YOU may lead to dizzyness, seizures, insanity, and/or brain cancer.  Eye-wink


brave theist
Theist
brave theist's picture
Posts: 58
Joined: 2008-02-22
User is offlineOffline
AmericanIdle wrote:That's

AmericanIdle wrote:
That's what more contemporary religions do...they steal ideas from the older ones.  How unfortunate that your ego does not let you apply this well known fact to your own religion.

- A shockingly large number of biblical stories/themes are not original.  In fact, it's pretty hard to imagine that your religion did not steal their ideas.

considering that most the Bible stories predate the other religions, im not sure how you can say the Bible copied the stories.

 

Quote:
There's not.. but I'll call your bluff.  show me !
there is not concret proof as i said, only evidence. there are many examples but one of my favorite is DNA. i don't know how much you know about DNA but all the antibacterial medicine we make for viruses and stuff comes from the DNA. when a new strand or new virus is found, we make a new anti virus or antibiotic. the interesting part is all the information for all these viruses and diseases even newly discovered ones are found already coded in our DNA. how could our body have developed an antibody for a virus that it has never experienced for. every single virus ever was prewritten into our DNA. thats pretty amazing. and i don't see any other explanation other than God.

 

Quote:
I think you got me... Wait !  Fuck your christian god right in his fucking christian ass!  Now may god strike me down for saying that.  Guess what ?  Still here.  It's as if the invisible friend that you were indoctrinated to believe in doesn't exist... What a surprise !   Again, I love the idea of all powerful friend who will grant me immortality.. There's not much I wouldn't do for that.. doesn't make the crap true though does it ?
hmmm great idea, youd belive in God if he struck you down for that wouldn't you? itd be a little late though. good thing he doesn't listen to your cursing, Hes giving you a chance by not striking you down. If God showed himself like that, there would be no need for faith.

 

Quote:

Unicorns:  nine references in the KJV.  Re-writers have changed this to "wild ox".. We call this a covered up lie in the real world.

Satyrs: Twice in the KJV.  See above.

Dragons: Like 25 times.. See above.

ok i did i bit of research for fun. what christian college you go to? dragons just refered to any serpent like creature or demons that they didn't know. yes there were demons in the Bible. satyrs can also refer to a hairy man, or goat faced, and unicorns are usd poetically. its not like it says, and king david rode his unicorn into battle. im quite sure that people use any of those creatures in poetry and arn't accused of claiming tere existence.

 

Quote:
Did you even bother to read the post where I explained to you that I've read the bible all the way through.. That I attended a christian college just as you do and have spent countless hours in bible classes ?  
sorry im getting someof you mixed up. still, you were one of those Christinas in name and deed only, not at heart, which i the important part.

- Jordan -


brave theist
Theist
brave theist's picture
Posts: 58
Joined: 2008-02-22
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote:So you've

magilum wrote:
So you've violated your original parameters, and committed a fallacy.
calm down now, this is a work in progress as i stated in the beginning. ill just specify my peramators in the final draft.

 

Quote:
There are specific criteria, relating to specific phenomena, which can be tested with specific experiments. Do any such things exist to support your "knowledge?"
so? if new facts showed up denying God's existence i would have to follow the evidence. but the evidence simply does not exist.

Quote:
What you believe, as you may have noticed, is unimportant to the conversation.
fine, I HAVE very good arguments for both the person of Jesus and the accurac of the Bible. however this is not the time for them. maybe another time when im less busy.

Quote:
Why aren't you a Mormon, then? Joseph Smith read the NT and came up with a prequel.
exactly, he came up with it after wards despite the fact that the Bible says it is complete and there are no more revelations from God to man untill the end days. joseph smith was a quack.

 

- Jordan -


brave theist
Theist
brave theist's picture
Posts: 58
Joined: 2008-02-22
User is offlineOffline
MAttShizzle wrote: Actually

MAttShizzle wrote:
Actually most of us easily can - how difficult is it to write a book that confirms the predictions of an earlier book? That's even assuming the Jesus character of the New Testicle is really consistant with the predictions of the new. Even if it was, that's circular logic. If the Buybull is utter bullshit (which it is) having one made up story confirmed by an earlier one is no basis for it's being true. Do you thing the Lord of the Rings is a true story because The Return of the King is consistant with The Fellowship of the Ring?

oh my, i really wish you'd do a bit of research on the Bible. as i told magilum im not debating this now, its off topic. however, science has proved that the old testament was written long before Jesus was born and whether it was true or not, it is at least accurate. the ammount of copies helps prove that. i don't know how you can even try to say Jesus didn't exist at all. enough secular sources at least confirm his life. the new testament, whether it was true or not, was an accurate biography of Jesus' life and over 50 prophesis made hundreds of years ago were fufilled perfectly.

- Jordan -


RationalSchema
RationalSchema's picture
Posts: 358
Joined: 2007-02-12
User is offlineOffline
atheists arn't sure how the

atheists arn't sure how the universe was created and they stick with one belief untill it seems irrational faced with "new" evidence so they change it a little.

 

Wow, this is an argument?? You realize that this is a good thing. It's called being flexible and open to new ways of thinking. If the evidence contradicts why would you not change your belief???

You can accuse me of being able to examine my own beliefs and methods of viewing the world any day!!

I would say until something is not supported by evidence as opposed to being irrational. Just because something is not supported by evidence does not mean it is irrational, although it could be. From reading your materials it sounds like you don't have any knowledge of the scientific method or the scientific process. 

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


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I'm actually shaking my head

I'm actually shaking my head in dismay. There are actually NO contemporary secular sources mentioning Jesus AT ALL! There are some forgeries and things a couple centuries later, but nothing contemporary. So what if the Old was written before he supposedly lived? If there was a book several centuries old that made predictions, any writer at all could easily write a book telling stories of the predictions being made. Everything I ever read about Buybull predictions coming true was laughable. Rook would tear you a new one if you tried this in the Mythicist forum. And do you know the Jesus character wasn't as good of a guy as you think?

http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/jesus.php

By the way, Mithra, Dionysus, Tammuz etc are older than Christianity.

http://www.atheistfellowship.com/aa3/03.html

 

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