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 -


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

HC Grindon wrote:
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.
fortunately for me, age and experience have nothing to do with understanding the Bible. as is evident in the clear lack of understanding it by so many adults both atheist and theist.

 

Quote:
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.
i really like the way you talk, its actually literary and resembles intelligence while being somewhat poetic. anyway, you are right, it is comforting, energizing, and intoxicating. mind if i ask what revelation caused you to "lose" your faith.

 

Quote:
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.
this is all i hear, i havn't actually seen these arguments refuted, only heard that they apparently have been. trust me, iv researched both sides and not just from a Christian perspective. I've read books by the best atheists i can think of, the ones that pastors tell people not to read becasue there afraid their faith isn't strong enough yet. i likewise don't think any of my arguments have been succesfully countered. and by my arguments i do mean the ones of most apologists.

 

Quote:
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.
thanks for the warning but its too late. i have all 4 of those symptoms now.

- Jordan -


brave theist
Theist
brave theist's picture
Posts: 58
Joined: 2008-02-22
User is offlineOffline
RationalSchema wrote:If the

RationalSchema wrote:
If the evidence contradicts why would you not change your belief???
and likewise, if it doesn't contradict, why change it?

 

 

- Jordan -


fluffz
Superfan
Posts: 63
Joined: 2008-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:the new testament,

Quote:
the new testament, whether it was true or not, was an accurate biography of Jesus' life

The Hobbit - whether true or not - is an accurate biography of Bilbo Baggins' life.

 


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

MattSchizzle wrote:

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

hmmm interesting, your a scarry man by the way. ill skip josephus cuz i don't like that example but care to disprove tacitus's writings. hes a well known and trrusted roman historian writing around the time of nero. interesting that he talks about pilot killing Jesus and starting the whole Christian "plague." your right. if the new testament authors had the old testament in front of them they could have fufilled whatever they wanted in their story. funny that the only book they had was the torrah. most of the prophesies were in the other books not found untill LONG after the new testament was written... interesting. how'd those primative farmers and fishermen swing that one? and id also like to hear your evidence about jesus not being as good as we say becasue evidence for that is not in the Bible therefore you must have secular sources acknowleding his existence to try and twist some words around

 

- Jordan -


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

brave theist wrote:

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.

At this rate you'll have more exceptions to your rules than instances.

brave theist wrote:

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.

Apply the same rationale to any concept without testable properties: the flying spaghetti monster, Russell's teapot in orbit around Neptune, invisible pink unicorns, fairies, leprechauns, etc. There was a phenomenology around N-Rays that made it testable, falsifiable, and a valid experiment. The inference about deities isn't extrapolated from anything; it's just a non-sequitur.

Oh, and you didn't answer my question. What specific phenomena do we test to determine whether or not a god is a factor? How do we set up a control for that experiment to make it valid?

brave theist wrote:

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.

Share them or don't.

brave theist wrote:

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

So did the NT writers, who would have been exposed to OT prophecy. They knew the predictions, and set the fulfillment story in their own past so they wouldn't have to substantiate anything.

brave theist wrote:
that the Bible says it is complete and there are no more revelations from God to man untill the end days.

And Joseph Smith says there was more. What's the criteria for determining the truth in this situation?

brave theist wrote:
joseph smith was a quack.

Which is worse somehow than authors unknown? Joseph Smith is demonstrably disreputable. The authors of the OT and NT are myriad, anonymous people, with credentials unknown. Complete wild cards.

 


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
From the Atheists.org

From the Atheists.org website:

Considering now the supposed evidence of Tacitus, we find that this Roman historian is alleged in 120 CE to have written a passage in his Annals (Bk 15, Ch 44, containing the wild tale of Nero's persecution of Christians) saying "Therefore, to scotch the rumour, Nero substituted as culprits, and punished with the utmost refinements of cruelty, a class of men, loathed for their vices, whom the crowd styled Christians. Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilatus..." G.A. Wells [p. 16] says of this passage:

[Tacitus wrote] at a time when Christians themselves had come to believe that Jesus had suffered under Pilate. There are three reasons for holding that Tacitus is here simply repeating what Christians had told him. First, he gives Pilate a title, procurator [without saying procurator of what! FRZ], which was current only from the second half of the first century. Had he consulted archives which recorded earlier events, he would surely have found Pilate there designated by his correct title, prefect. Second, Tacitus does not name the executed man Jesus, but uses the title Christ (Messiah) as if it were a proper name. But he could hardly have found in archives a statement such as "the Messiah was executed this morning." Third, hostile to Christianity as he was, he was surely glad to accept from Christians their own view that Christianity was of recent origin, since the Roman authorities were prepared to tolerate only ancient cults. (The Historical Evidence for Jesus; p.16).

There are further problems with the Tacitus story. Tacitus himself never again alludes to the Neronian persecution of Christians in any of his voluminous writings, and no other Pagan authors know anything of the outrage either. Most significant, however, is that ancient Christian apologists made no use of the story in their propaganda - an unthinkable omission by motivated partisans who were well-read in the works of Tacitus. Clement of Alexandria, who made a profession of collecting just such types of quotations, is ignorant of any Neronian persecution, and even Tertullian, who quotes a great deal from Tacitus, knows nothing of the story. According to Robert Taylor, the author of another freethought classic, the Diegesis (1834), the passage was not known before the fifteenth century, when Tacitus was first published at Venice by Johannes de Spire. Taylor believed de Spire himself to have been the forger. 

Read the first link in my post above for the evidence of Jesus not being so good - all from the Babble. By the way, the Josephus writing on Jesus was almost certainly forged by a bishop known as Eusebus. None of this is anything new to us - most of the things you have posted have been refuted multiple times.

 

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


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
And, of course, 120 CE is

And, of course, 120 CE is WAY too late to be considered a contemporary source.


brave theist
Theist
brave theist's picture
Posts: 58
Joined: 2008-02-22
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote:Apply the same

magilum wrote:
Apply the same rationale to any concept without testable properties: the flying spaghetti monster, Russell's teapot in orbit around Neptune, invisible pink unicorns, fairies, leprechauns, etc. There was a phenomenology around N-Rays that made it testable, falsifiable, and a valid experiment. The inference about deities isn't extrapolated from anything; it's just a non-sequitur.
there is evidence for God. no proof but evdence. none of that othe stuff has any proof or evidence. somewhere in this thread i explained how DNA is evidence for God, not proof but evidence.

 

Quote:
Oh, and you didn't answer my question. What specific phenomena do we test to determine whether or not a god is a factor? How do we set up a control for that experiment to make it valid?
 oh sorry. as i said there is no scientific proof im not trying to say there is proof for God or that science proves Him. I am saying that there is plenty of evidence that supports it and none against. again DNA being my favorite.

 

Quote:
Share them or don't.
maybe at another time, this topic takes up enough of my time, i don't have the free time to start another thread.

 

Quote:
So did the NT writers, who would have been exposed to OT prophecy. They knew the predictions, and set the fulfillment story in their own past so they wouldn't have to substantiate anything.
actually the NT writers did not have all or even most of the prophecies. they had a few in the torah. most prophesies came from issaiah and the other prophets.

 

Quote:
And Joseph Smith says there was more. What's the criteria for determining the truth in this situation?
well i would tend to believe God over Joseph smith

- Jordan -


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
The wood nymph parry

brave theist wrote:

RationalSchema wrote:
If the evidence contradicts why would you not change your belief???
and likewise, if it doesn't contradict, why change it?

Let me see if I follow this one.

Step 1: You believe in wood nymphs because you read about them;

Step 2: There is no evidence whatsoever to support wood nymphs' existence;

Step 3: You continue to believe in wood nymphs.

Is that it?

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


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Speaking to God

brave theist wrote:

God actually tells us to think for ourselves, to study and learn all that we can.

When was the last time God told you to think for yourself?

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
MattShizzle

MattShizzle wrote:

Considering now the supposed evidence of Tacitus, we find that this Roman historian is alleged in 120 CE to have written a passage in his Annals (Bk 15, Ch 44, containing the wild tale of Nero's persecution of Christians) saying "Therefore, to scotch the rumour, Nero substituted as culprits, and punished with the utmost refinements of cruelty, a class of men, loathed for their vices, whom the crowd styled Christians. Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilatus..." G.A. Wells [p. 16] says of this passage:

[Tacitus wrote] at a time when Christians themselves had come to believe that Jesus had suffered under Pilate. There are three reasons for holding that Tacitus is here simply repeating what Christians had told him. First, he gives Pilate a title, procurator [without saying procurator of what! FRZ], which was current only from the second half of the first century. Had he consulted archives which recorded earlier events, he would surely have found Pilate there designated by his correct title, prefect. Second, Tacitus does not name the executed man Jesus, but uses the title Christ (Messiah) as if it were a proper name. But he could hardly have found in archives a statement such as "the Messiah was executed this morning." Third, hostile to Christianity as he was, he was surely glad to accept from Christians their own view that Christianity was of recent origin, since the Roman authorities were prepared to tolerate only ancient cults. (The Historical Evidence for Jesus; p.16).

There are further problems with the Tacitus story. Tacitus himself never again alludes to the Neronian persecution of Christians in any of his voluminous writings, and no other Pagan authors know anything of the outrage either. Most significant, however, is that ancient Christian apologists made no use of the story in their propaganda - an unthinkable omission by motivated partisans who were well-read in the works of Tacitus. Clement of Alexandria, who made a profession of collecting just such types of quotations, is ignorant of any Neronian persecution, and even Tertullian, who quotes a great deal from Tacitus, knows nothing of the story. According to Robert Taylor, the author of another freethought classic, the Diegesis (1834), the passage was not known before the fifteenth century, when Tacitus was first published at Venice by Johannes de Spire. Taylor believed de Spire himself to have been the forger.

haha i love it. im criticised for using apologist sources and yet yours comes from an atheist sight. despite that, this critic of tacitus is so clearly another poor attempt of rationalizing your own disbelief. Tacitus would be cited by any historian as a great, accurate historian and yet the one time he mentions Jesus everyone just yells "forgery!"  tacitus refers to Christians as a plague earlier in the passage and i highly doubt a forger would throw that in there. also his name was jesus Christ, had tacitus said jesus, you would have said, "oh there were many people named jesus then. instead he calls him christus, so you say oh he wouldn't have called him that. it was forged! maybe he was saying their messiah was killed. maybe all the romans refered to him as Christus whether they believed him or not. and finally, the earliest copies of the gospels were found betwen 55 ad and 85 ad. (i tend to believe it was in 65ad.) many were still living who had witnessed The whole thing. seems to me that when the gospels came out and Christianity was spreading the Romans could have halted it quite easily if Jesus didn't even exist. if he didn't exists and the gospels weren't true, what suddenly sparked the new movement?

- Jordan -


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
The Ray Comfort Coke Can Argument on its ear

brave theist wrote:

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.

Setting aside the inaccuracies in the above statement (pick up a biology textbook and come back to this), why is "God" the default argument? Is God responsible for anything "pretty amazing"? Or merely for things sufficiently amazing?

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


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

brave theist wrote:

magilum wrote:
Apply the same rationale to any concept without testable properties: the flying spaghetti monster, Russell's teapot in orbit around Neptune, invisible pink unicorns, fairies, leprechauns, etc. There was a phenomenology around N-Rays that made it testable, falsifiable, and a valid experiment. The inference about deities isn't extrapolated from anything; it's just a non-sequitur.
there is evidence for God. no proof but evdence. none of that othe stuff has any proof or evidence. somewhere in this thread i explained how DNA is evidence for God, not proof but evidence.

I'm not following your replies to everyone else.

brave theist wrote:

Quote:
Oh, and you didn't answer my question. What specific phenomena do we test to determine whether or not a god is a factor? How do we set up a control for that experiment to make it valid?
  oh sorry. as i said there is no scientific proof im not trying to say there is proof for God or that science proves Him. I am saying that there is plenty of evidence that supports it and none against. again DNA being my favorite.

I hope it's not some horrible equivocation about the word "information."

And, as I'd asked, what specific test can be done to determine whether a god is a factor, and that the inference of this deliberate agency isn't a non-sequitur. That's the last time I'll ask, and without an answer I'll assume you don't have anything.

brave theist wrote:

Quote:
Share them or don't.
maybe at another time, this topic takes up enough of my time, i don't have the free time to start another thread.

I don't really care. I was really pointing out that some undefined argument adds nothing to the conversation.

brave theist wrote:

Quote:
So did the NT writers, who would have been exposed to OT prophecy. They knew the predictions, and set the fulfillment story in their own past so they wouldn't have to substantiate anything.
actually the NT writers did not have all or even most of the prophecies. they had a few in the torah. most prophesies came from issaiah and the other prophets.

This is based on?

brave theist wrote:

Quote:
And Joseph Smith says there was more. What's the criteria for determining the truth in this situation?
well i would tend to believe God over Joseph smith

Begging the question, for the nth time.

 


brave theist
Theist
brave theist's picture
Posts: 58
Joined: 2008-02-22
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Let me see

HisWillness wrote:

Let me see if I follow this one.

Step 1: You believe in wood nymphs because you read about them;

Step 2: There is no evidence whatsoever to support wood nymphs' existence;

Step 3: You continue to believe in wood nymphs.

Is that it?

read any of my other posts? there is evidence! read the one about DNA. please explain that one.

 

Quote:
When was the last time God told you to think for yourself?

last night

 

 

- Jordan -


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

HisWillness wrote:
Setting aside the inaccuracies in the above statement (pick up a biology textbook and come back to this), why is "God" the default argument? Is God responsible for anything "pretty amazing"? Or merely for things sufficiently amazing?

perhaps you should pick up a biology book. DNA holds the information our body needs to make antibodies. when we get say yellow fever our body can make an antibody based on a DNA code already there. the reason yellow fever can kill is becasue our body can't make enough fast enough. so we take a piece of DNA slice out the code for that antibody and repicate it. its evidence for God NOT PROOF. i didn't say it proves God at all, i said it is evidence for him. and untill yu think of a better explanation for how it is already in our DNA than God is the ONLY explanation.

- Jordan -


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Talking to Whomever

brave theist wrote:

read any of my other posts? there is evidence! read the one about DNA. please explain that one.

What, explain DNA? I'm not sure I follow. The logical jump between the complexity of DNA and "God did it" is phenomenal. Even before that, why don't you think another unmeasurable entity is responsible for the complexity of the universe? Wood nymphs, for example.

Quote:
When was the last time God told you to think for yourself?

brave theist wrote:

last night

Oh. Did you hear a voice saying "Jordan, think for yourself"?

 

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


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Wood Nymphs

brave theist wrote:

 its evidence for God NOT PROOF. i didn't say it proves God at all, i said it is evidence for him. and untill yu think of a better explanation for how it is already in our DNA than God is the ONLY explanation.

What the heck, I'll let the first part go. But ... why is the complexity of DNA evidence for God, and not, say, wood nymphs? I mean, you've chosen a very specific invisible entity to hold responsible for something you can't explain. Doesn't Athena, for instance, get an equal shot at this, considering she's equally invisible?

I know this'll get you mad, but the process of evolution is actually a really good explanation for the pattern of DNA.

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
magilum wrote:I'm not

magilum wrote:
I'm not following your replies to everyone else.

ok heres on such evidence. DNA holds the information our body needs to make antibodies. when we get say yellow fever our body can make an antibody based on a DNA code already there. the reason yellow fever can kill is becasue our body can't make enough fast enough. so we take a piece of DNA slice out the code for that antibody and repicate it. the information for those antibodies are already coded in our DNA. so long before you got yellow fever, your body had the information to defeat it. where did that come from? in fact, EVERY virus has an antibody that is already coded for in our DNA.

 

Quote:
And, as I'd asked, what specific test can be done to determine whether a god is a factor, and that the inference of this deliberate agency isn't a non-sequitur. That's the last time I'll ask, and without an answer I'll assume you don't have anything.
you don't need to assume it, ill tell you for the 100th time, THERE IS NO PROOF. science can not prove God. there is NO test you can perform or anything like it. ther is however evidence to support it. unlike your spagheti monster or any other invisable friend analogy.

 

Quote:
This is based on?

history... the jewish leaders at the time were the only ones with any copies of the torah. anything else was part of the oral tradition. the jewish leaders memorized the torah and used it as there guide book. however the rest of he old testament wasn't found untill later

 

 

- Jordan -


brave theist
Theist
brave theist's picture
Posts: 58
Joined: 2008-02-22
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:What,

HisWillness wrote:
What, explain DNA? I'm not sure I follow. The logical jump between the complexity of DNA and "God did it" is phenomenal. Even before that, why don't you think another unmeasurable entity is responsible for the complexity of the universe? Wood nymphs, for example.
ok thats better. not just that its complex but that the information was preprogrammed into DNA without EVER haviong contact with it before. as for how i decide between inmeasurable entities. The Bible helps with that one.

Quote:
Oh. Did you hear a voice saying "Jordan, think for yourself"?
not exactly but since the Bible is His Word, whatever it says is Him saying it.

 

Quote:
I know this'll get you mad, but the process of evolution is actually a really good explanation for the pattern of DNA.
why would that get me mad? evolution has to do with natural selection and adaptation right? tell me please how even if we had a trillion years to evolve we could develop the exact antibody for something we nor our ancestors EVER had contact with.

- Jordan -


qbg
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
brave theist wrote: ok heres

brave theist wrote:

ok heres on such evidence. DNA holds the information our body needs to make antibodies. when we get say yellow fever our body can make an antibody based on a DNA code already there. the reason yellow fever can kill is becasue our body can't make enough fast enough. so we take a piece of DNA slice out the code for that antibody and repicate it. the information for those antibodies are already coded in our DNA. so long before you got yellow fever, your body had the information to defeat it. where did that come from? in fact, EVERY virus has an antibody that is already coded for in our DNA.

Quoting wikipedia:
Quote:

For starters,
The large and diverse population of antibodies is generated by random combinations of a set of gene segments that encode different antigen binding sites (or paratopes), followed by random mutations in this area of the antibody gene, which create further diversity.[2][5] Antibody genes also re-organize in a process called class switching that changes the base of the heavy chain to another, creating a different isotype of the antibody that retains the antigen specific variable region. This allows a single antibody to be used by several different parts of the immune system.

This might be useful too

brave theist wrote:
evolution has to do with natural selection and adaptation right? tell me please how even if we had a trillion years to evolve we could develop the exact antibody for something we nor our ancestors EVER had contact with.

Variation. Just because a mutation might not affect the fitness of an organism does not mean that mutation is undone...

"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Exact antibodies

brave theist wrote:
as for how i decide between inmeasurable entities. The Bible helps with that one.

brave theist wrote:
not exactly but since the Bible is His Word, whatever it says is Him saying it.

Oh, I see. When you say God spoke to you, you meant you were reading the bible last night. If you heard an actual voice, that might be worrisome. But why would you chose the bible rather than other texts, like the qu'ran?

HisWillness wrote:
tell me please how even if we had a trillion years to evolve we could develop the exact antibody for something we nor our ancestors EVER had contact with.

I'm not sure we could. But that's not how it appears our immune system works. That's what originally prompted my "check out a biology text" comment. It wasn't a hand-wave, I was literally asking you to open a biology textbook and review how our immune system works. It appears as though our ancestors adapted to a great number of pathogens, but your version of our immune system would allow us to defend against AIDS already, if I understand you correctly.

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


Cali_Athiest2
Cali_Athiest2's picture
Posts: 440
Joined: 2008-02-07
User is offlineOffline
Good luck with your research

Good luck with your research paper. I find it hard to imagine that there will be too many difficult questions that can be brought up. This is in the fact that I don't think there will be very many atheists present to bring up the tough questions.

I agree, I enjoy reading about the Roman Empire as well. They truly learned how to use religion to control the masses and very reflective of our society today. Nero managed to successfully wag the dog by blaming the christians for the burning of Rome. This led to a massive persecution and left many innocent christians dead. I agree strong families and communities are better for society than weak family units. I am not sure you have any stats to back up your claim that theists have stronger family units than atheists. With America's over 50% divorce rate, I am not sure that atheists reflect this trend. 75% of americans claim christianity and the remaining percentage is mostly jewish and islamic. The minority of americans identify themselves as no particuliar religion. It would appear that most "christians" get divorced. I have seen the stats and it points to atheists having a lower percentage of divorce. If this is true, it pokes a hole in your hypothesis that religion breeds stronger communities. This is just something I would attack your premise on.

I would challenge your assumptions on the dangers of atheism on a couple different fronts. First and foremost, genocide is commited on a rather large scale in the OT. If you compare the scale at which Stalin and Hitler commited these autrocities, then I would concede somewhat on that. Unfortunately, there are no records to indicate how many people god told the Israelites to murder. Modern warfare has made killing very easy, so it is much more efficient than ancient weapons. This gives the illusion that comparing the two, the genocides in the OT and genocides of the modern era, as "worse" in comparison. Religion played the most important factor in the murder of countless innocent people in the OT. Religion was also important in the Salem witch trials where innocent people were killed. Again this is a matter of scale and scope, rather than some absolute morality. God told the Israelites to kill so it was justified as opposed to killing is wrong on any level. I don't believe in moral relativism so I admit my bias. If everyone believed in an absolute morality then we would not have the problems we have had throughout history. If I could go back in time to kill Hitler I would. If the bible says killing is wrong then my killing Hitler would be wrong. However, I could justify it by saying I did the world a favor. How many people would feed their family with stolen bread even if stealing is against the will of god? These are the problems with absolute morality in that it is an idealist position.

Secondly, I would challenge your assumption that countries that are more atheistic than the US are a danger to the world at large. Most countries in Europe are much more atheistic than we are. I believe England now has 50% of the population claiming no religion. Surveys put the numbers much higher in Scandinavian countries like Sweden and Norway. These countries score much higher than the US in many areas such as literacy, standard of living and lower birth mortality. I realize that this doesn't mean that there is a cause/correlation but it does bring up some interesting questions. America, being a "christian nation" has a horrible track record of human rights violations. There was slavery, genocide and imprisoning of the native population, mettling in South and Central America, unjust wars in order to profit the defense industry and the list goes on. I think our attack on Afghanistan and Iraq are terribly immoral. When was the last time atheist Sweden attacked another country pre-emptively? If you choose to show that atheism leads to immoral actions you should contrast and compare the autracities committed in the name of god.

On a more personal note, I lived in Japan for 4 years and it would be considered an atheist country. The crime rate was and is low as compared to us but that isn't necessarily a morality index.  Morality is more cultural based than based on some theological absolute. The Japanese are somewhat racist. Does their attitudes toward race come from the fact that most are not christian? Just because the value the purity of their culture doesn't mean that it is an immoral act. Morals like most things are relative for the society and whoever is observing.

I think your generalization that atheism is dangerous is still unsupportable. It might work for a high school level project, but I think you need to reconsider your point because a real atheist would shred your work in a real debate. I stick by my recommendation that you try not to demonize atheism rather try to show its' shortcomings instead. Your belief that atheism is dangerous without a good example hurts your effort. The belief that thinking something is true does not make is so.

You do not need to explain your position to me. I am not out to convert you, nor am I looking to be converted. I am just offering these up as things I would attack your position on as a form of academic help. However, I am always looking to debate other areas of religion. 

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


brave theist
Theist
brave theist's picture
Posts: 58
Joined: 2008-02-22
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote: I'm not

HisWillness wrote:
I'm not sure we could. But that's not how it appears our immune system works. That's what originally prompted my "check out a biology text" comment. It wasn't a hand-wave, I was literally asking you to open a biology textbook and review how our immune system works. It appears as though our ancestors adapted to a great number of pathogens, but your version of our immune system would allow us to defend against AIDS already, if I understand you correctly.
let me get my sources for that so that i can better explain myself i left it at school so ill get it to you tomorrow. just becasue i understand biology doesn't mean im a walking text book. so its quite possible i mixed terms up. i know that viruses are different than infections or bacterial diseases. so ill get the specifics soon.

 

Quote:
Oh, I see. When you say God spoke to you, you meant you were reading the bible last night. If you heard an actual voice, that might be worrisome. But why would you chose the bible rather than other texts, like the qu'ran?

The Bible is much more credible, it denies other religions, the history of islam is pretty funny and i can't belive how it got started. you can't deny the fact that there is quite a bit of correlating evidence for the Bible's accuracy.

- Jordan -


RationalSchema
RationalSchema's picture
Posts: 358
Joined: 2007-02-12
User is offlineOffline
brave theist

brave theist wrote:

RationalSchema wrote:
If the evidence contradicts why would you not change your belief???
and likewise, if it doesn't contradict, why change it?

 

 

1. You still haven't addressed why changing your belief is a bad thing??

2. You can also keep the same old belief by ignoring the evidence at hand, because to change your belief would mean that you were living a lie and cannot psychologically handle the impact that your belief is false. This is related to cognitive dissonance. Dissonance is anxiety that is created when are attitudes and beliefs are contradicted by our behaviors or new evidence from the environment. In order to reduce the dissonance people either change their behaviors to fit their beliefs, change their belief systems and attitudes, or they distort the evidence in the environment to fit into their preconcieved belief system. 

What would it mean to you if you gave up your belief in God?? What would it say about you and the world? 

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


HC Grindon
High Level DonorModerator
Posts: 198
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
HC Grindon wrote:I'll also

 

HC Grindon wrote:
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.

Jordan wrote:
fortunately for me, age and experience have nothing to do with understanding the Bible.

How very true.  A testament to the detrimental effects of a "Christian Education" on young, undeveloped rationality immune systems. Note: The blue pill is also very effective at degrading adult rationality immune systems that have been compromised by misinformation, fear, and/or psychological trauma.

Jordan wrote:
as is evident in the clear lack of understanding it by so many adults both atheist and theist.

Ah, so you are a "One True Scotsman". Eye-wink

HCG wrote:
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 wrote:
i really like the way you talk, its actually literary and resembles intelligence while being somewhat poetic.
 
Thanks.  Now if you could just recognize the accuracy of my chosen metaphor you'd be on the road to recovery.

Jordan wrote:
anyway, you are right, it is comforting, energizing, and intoxicating. mind if i ask what revelation caused you to "lose" your faith.

Correction, I "lost" nothing and there was no sudden revelation.  It took several non-cherry-picking reads of the bible, years of intense bible study, and large doses of biblical history to recognize the blatant hypocrisy, contradictions, and fear-mongering contained in what is nothing more than a man-made work of fiction, not a book of "divine revelation".   This was not an overnight process, it took years for the antibodies of logic and reason to restore my rationality immune system, despite a gallant fight put up by my faith-driven obstinance.  And please,  spare me the "you never really had faith in God" retort (or it's many tiresome variants) you are about to knee-jerk back at me via one of the "apologist response" hot-keys on your keyboard.

HCG wrote:
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.
Jordan wrote:
this is all i hear, i havn't actually seen these arguments refuted, only heard that they apparently have been. trust me, iv researched both sides and not just from a Christian perspective. I've read books by the best atheists i can think of, the ones that pastors tell people not to read becasue there afraid their faith isn't strong enough yet.
No Jordan, you most certainly have not (honestly) researched "both sides".  The fact that you qualified your readings with pastors opinions shows your endeavors were tainted with bias from the get-go...the "well was poisoned".  And come on Jordan, you've demonstrated nothing but ignorance (lack of knowledge, not stupidity) regarding evolution and the scientific method, which clearly shows you've only been exposed to that abomination known as creation "science".  So, "both sides"?  No...not even close.

Jordan wrote:
i likewise don't think any of my arguments have been succesfully countered. and by my arguments i do mean the ones of most apologists.

Again, true, untainted due diligence on your part would negate that statement and, consequently, this entire thread.  Sorry, Jordan, but Strobelesque due diligence doesn't fly here at the RRS.

 


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

cali_Atheist2 wrote:
Good luck with your research paper. I find it hard to imagine that there will be too many difficult questions that can be brought up. This is in the fact that I don't think there will be very many atheists present to bring up the tough questions.

you'd be surprised how much they will refute it whether they belive it or not. they won't be biased in their cross-examination. as for those three great paragraphs you just typed up, i would agree that it would be very difficult. we arecertainly not a Christian nation, there has never been one. so its difficult to test. i can only theorize much a christian nation would prosper.

- Jordan -


Cali_Athiest2
Cali_Athiest2's picture
Posts: 440
Joined: 2008-02-07
User is offlineOffline
The fact that we "bash"

The fact that we "bash" christianity more often does not mean we are threatened more by it. The fact is it is more prevelent in America than Hinduism or Buddhism. Personally, I have problems with the muslim call to prayer played on loudspeakers in Minnesota, but will tolerate it because it does not affect me personally. It does not offend me to hear it, but then again the muslims do not have the political clout of christians. As islam increases in popularity in the United States, you will find atheists speaking out more against it. We are not at all that different from christians. We just believe in 1 less god (or 3 maybe) than you do.

You even stated exactly why atheists are so "militant" here in that christianity is NOT TOLERANT. It makes no difference to most of us if you accept all others, unless it affects us. If churches don't like atheists we don't care on a personal level. However, when states can deny the rights of atheists to run for office or adopt children then there is a problem. When a state can deny a same-sex couple the same benfits of a straight couple then we are angry. The lack of concern for human life after a child is born, rather than the protection of a fetus (read a bunch of cells) bothers us. The support of christians killing and maiming innocent Iraqi men, women and children bothers us.

Chrisitianity is the most reasonable because it is part of our heritage in America. If you had been born in Saudi Arabia you would find islam to be more reasonable. If I read you the story of Jack and the Beanstalk then ask you if it were true you would laugh and say of course not, But suppose I put that same story in the bible between the tower of bable and the flood. Then most people wouldn't even bat an eye stating that it is unequivocally true. As for your common claim that it is possible to prove something doesn't exist I digress. Weak-atheists don't claim that positively no god exists. You are mistakingly calling all atheists strong-atheists. I guess you think that atheists hate god too, I don't blame you because I hear christians say that a lot. We are all guilty of intolerance so I won't make excuses for myself. At least if I am intolerant I am not proud of it. The statement that christianity is intolerant is smug. All atheists ask for is equality not tolerance.

The division in America nowadays is disheartening and I don't blame the atheists for it. We are a minority here in America so how can we create these problems? We can solve most of the problems in America if the religious right would be willing to compromise a little.

"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
The two step

brave theist wrote:

just becasue i understand biology doesn't mean im a walking text book. so its quite possible i mixed terms up. i know that viruses are different than infections or bacterial diseases. so ill get the specifics soon.

Sure, no problem.

brave theist wrote:
The Bible is much more credible, it denies other religions, the history of islam is pretty funny and i can't belive how it got started. you can't deny the fact that there is quite a bit of correlating evidence for the Bible's accuracy.

This is where it gets a bit muddy for me as far as the use of logic is concerned. There are a few religious texts that deny other religions. That's the main reason many people on this site will call religion "divisive", and not really a reason to consider one more accurate than the other. The texts are also often self-contradictory, advocating capital punishment in one section, and love of your neighbour in the next.

Do you believe it's the word of God, for instance, that recommends stoning people to death in Deuteronomy?

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
RationalSchema wrote:1. You

RationalSchema wrote:
1. You still haven't addressed why changing your belief is a bad thing??
I was mre pointing out that atheists don't know what to belive. they cling to the next big scientific discovery in hopes that they finally found one dissproving God, then its proven irrational so they find a new one. i don't ignore the evidence at hand at all. its just that none of it at all comes close to disproving God.

 

Quote:
What would it mean to you if you gave up your belief in God?? What would it say about you and the world?
sounds like pascals wager, and my response would be the same. even if God was not real, i have NOTHING to lose. i've lived a good life, iv lived with a purpose, iv never been depressed, iv touched many lives, iv left a good name for myself. all it would say about the world is that everything is ultimately useless and irrelevent and we might as well live forr the moment.

 

 

 

- Jordan -


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
brave theist wrote:The Bible

brave theist wrote:

The Bible is much more credible, it denies other religions.

You are confusing intolerance for credibility, and anyway most religions seem to do that.

brave theist wrote:

the history of islam is pretty funny and i can't belive how it got started.

Pot, meet kettle.

brave theist wrote:

you can't deny the fact that there is quite a bit of correlating evidence for the Bible's accuracy

I can. I've yet to see any valid evidence of this.

 

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


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
brave theist

brave theist wrote:

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.

So even though there is no available evidence of any kind that Adam and Eve were created by supernatural means, I should just go ahead and accept it as fact ?

Also, in support of your argument can you provide me with any current examples of God performing fantastic miracles or should I just accept it on blind faith ? 

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Sigghhhh, Pascals wager

Sigghhhh, Pascals wager again.

 

Seriously is there ANY logical fallacy you haven't used yet in this thread?

Pascals wager is a flase dichotomy - If Islam is true you'll go to the same hell we do. It's also not true that you lose nothing by believing - time wasted praying/going to church, believing in nonsense, feeling guilty over things you don't need to, illogical restrictions on behavior (sexual mostly.)

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


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

HC Grindon wrote:
Ah, so you are a "One True Scotsman".
no, the greatest christian apologists would agree with me.... or i should say i with them. im just saying the majority of christians that make up the "75% of americans are christians" statistic do not understand even the basics of Christianity. and those are the ones you all so easily "deconvert."

 

Quote:
Correction, I "lost" nothing and there was no sudden revelation.  It took several non-cherry-picking reads of the bible, years of intense bible study, and large doses of biblical history to recognize the blatant hypocrisy, contradictions, and fear-mongering contained in what is nothing more than a man-made work of fiction, not a book of "divine revelation".   This was not an overnight process, it took years for the antibodies of logic and reason to restore my rationality immune system, despite a gallant fight put up by my faith-driven obstinance.  And please,  spare me the "you never really had faith in God" retort (or it's many tiresome variants) you are about to knee-jerk back at me via one of the "apologist response" hot-keys on your keyboard.
ummm not quite i have my own variation for this response. im not going to say you never actually believed in God im going to say you were never actully saved. many believe in God but are not saved. if anyone is truly saved, they can not lose their salvation. in order to be saved you must love God with all your heart, you couldn't have loved him with all your heart if you forsake him for all the "scientific" proof.

 

Quote:
No Jordan, you most certainly have not (honestly) researched "both sides".  The fact that you qualified your readings with pastors opinions shows your endeavors were tainted with bias from the get-go...the "well was poisoned".  And come on Jordan, you've demonstrated nothing but ignorance (lack of knowledge, not stupidity) regarding evolution and the scientific method, which clearly shows you've only been exposed to that abomination known as creation "science".  So, "both sides"?  No...not even close.
no i do understand. the only ignorance i may have shown is the way i word things, a lack of defining terms, or using terms that i have a different deffinition for in my mind. all that will be fixed when the time comes. the only "ignorance" iv shown is when i combined evolution and the big bang, not becasue i thought they go together but just for ease of argument. i realize evolution does not explain the origin of anything.

 

Quote:
Again, true, untainted due diligence on your part would negate that statement and, consequently, this entire thread.  Sorry, Jordan, but Strobelesque due diligence doesn't fly here at the RRS.
i don't really like strobel's work, even i admit that his arguments have holes in them. im more of a fan of zachirias.

- Jordan -


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

cali_Atheist2 wrote:
You even stated exactly why atheists are so "militant" here in that christianity is NOT TOLERANT. It makes no difference to most of us if you accept all others, unless it affects us. If churches don't like atheists we don't care on a personal level. However, when states can deny the rights of atheists to run for office or adopt children then there is a problem. When a state can deny a same-sex couple the same benfits of a straight couple then we are angry. The lack of concern for human life after a child is born, rather than the protection of a fetus (read a bunch of cells) bothers us. The support of christians killing and maiming innocent Iraqi men, women and children bothers us.
thats a very good argument. though Christians don't support the war in Iraq, we value life of all age, yes including the fetus, the batlle against same sex marriage does have to do with our beliefs but we have practical reasons as well. all Bias aside, I don't think a same sex couple can raise kids as well as a traditional family. yes, i agree we ar militant but you forget that we are having just as many attacks against us. we can't have a bible in school but a muslim can have the qu'ran. teachers can't mention anything about God including the decleration of independece, which whether your an atheist or theist, is an important ducument, in the same way your offended by regulations on same sex couples were offened by the freedom their gaining. it goes both ways.

 

 

- Jordan -


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

HisWillness wrote:
Do you believe it's the word of God, for instance, that recommends stoning people to death in Deuteronomy?
yes i do belive it was God's word. did he order them to kill inocent people? no not at all. they had a chance to repent and they did not take it. is the old testament wrathful God contradicting the new testament loving God? not at all. it was purposefully done that way to show God's character.

- Jordan -


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Your Thesis

Let's recall how you started this thread: 

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

We can ignore the "in contrast to atheism", because it's not really necessary to the argument. First, your belief in God seems to be based on a book and a couple of weak premises that aren't actually consistent. I think it was that you believe that the universe was created, and the creator was God because it's in the bible. That set of statements is unequivocally logically unconnected. At the very least, the leaps there require some explanation. So "logically consistent" hasn't happened yet.

Second, "empirically adequate" so far is one piece of almost evidence and a book. Not really adequate.

Third, experientially relevant ... doesn't actually mean anything. If you mean "subjectively interesting", then sure. But that doesn't by any means strengthen its rationality.

I'm sure you can do better. I'm cutting into your arguments because I like a good fight, so don't take any of this personally. Talk to some more people, strengthen your argument, or even tweak your thesis if you like. But if you get exhausted, you may eventually want to ask yourself why it's so difficult to argue for a belief that's supposed to be correct.

 

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
ProzacDeathWish wrote:So

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
So even though there is no available evidence of any kind that Adam and Eve were created by supernatural means, I should just go ahead and accept it as fact?
So you wanted God to leave some kind of "made by God" tattto on adam. or maybe arrange the stars into a "God was here" constellation. what do Atheists want God to be so obvious. its a faith for a reason.... IT REQUIRES SOME FAITH!

- Jordan -


brave theist
Theist
brave theist's picture
Posts: 58
Joined: 2008-02-22
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:I'm sure

HisWillness wrote:
I'm sure you can do better. I'm cutting into your arguments because I like a good fight, so don't take any of this personally. Talk to some more people, strengthen your argument, or even tweak your thesis if you like. But if you get exhausted, you may eventually want to ask yourself why it's so difficult to argue for a belief that's supposed to be correct.
i had to point out that im not touching on agnosticism, also im not trying to prove theism with those topics, im disproving atheism with them. im proving that it is illogical to belive in self creation while completely logical to belive in an eternal creator, im proving that science does not support evolution which is atheist's only explanation for our current forms, and im proving that practically atheism leaves much to be desired while a God answers all our questions. but don't worry, i am neither daunted by this or tired. the reason its so har dto prove is that God wanted it to be hard. like i just said to someone else. why should we be rewarded for believing in God if he just left some kind of concrete proof.... like a big  ol sign in the sky saying "God was here"

- Jordan -


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Faith

brave theist wrote:

So you wanted God to leave some kind of "made by God" tattto on adam. or maybe arrange the stars into a "God was here" constellation.

Actually, anything measurable would do. But since we can't measure the immeasurable, we remain unconvinced. (Hint: what happens if we find a far superior method of measuring that allows us to measure the immeasurable?)

brave theist wrote:
what do Atheists want God to be so obvious. its a faith for a reason.... IT REQUIRES SOME FAITH!

While that may seem like an obvious statement to you, among people who require evidence, it doesn't actually look like a positive statement. People who live rationally need more than faith to consider something real. Your premise, again, was that your belief in God was rational. We refute that claim. We do not refute that you have faith in (and belief in) God. You demonstrate that. What you do not demonstrate is that your belief is rational.

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
i realize that. the biggest

i realize that. the biggest problem is whether or not it can be rational to believe in the immeasurable.... do you belive in logic or love? neither can be measured but its quite rational to belive in logic.

- Jordan -


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
And now the love argument.

And now the love argument.

Seriously, every single argument you have brought here has been refuted numerous times. Read some of the old threads FFS! Some of them were actually refuted centuries ago!

 

 

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


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
brave theist wrote:... if

brave theist wrote:

... if anyone is truly saved, they can not lose their salvation.

 

 

Hebrews 6:4-6

"It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because, to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace."

Hebrews 10:26 

"If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God."

2 Peter2: 20-21 

"If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning.  It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them.'

 

 

Okay Jordan, it's time for you to tell us what these scripture passages really mean because it's obvious that your interpretation automatically takes precedence over dissenting views, including those foolish Protestant Christians ( eg, Methodists ) who adhere to Arminian doctrines.

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


HC Grindon
High Level DonorModerator
Posts: 198
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
HC Grindon wrote: Ah, so you

HC Grindon wrote:
Ah, so you are a "One True Scotsman".
Jordan wrote:
no, the greatest christian apologists would agree with me.... or i should say i with them. im just saying the majority of christians that make up the "75% of americans are christians" statistic do not understand even the basics of Christianity. and those are the ones you all so easily "deconvert."

 To "understand even the basics of Christianity" implies there is a correct way to interpret the basics of Christianity.  Still a "no true scotsman" fallacy.

HCG wrote:
... And please,  spare me the "you never really had faith in God" retort (or it's many tiresome variants) you are about to knee-jerk back at me via one of the "apologist response" hot-keys on your keyboard.
Jordan wrote:
ummm not quite i have my own variation for this response. im not going to say you never actually believed in God im going to say you were never actully saved. many believe in God but are not saved. if anyone is truly saved, they can not lose their salvation. in order to be saved you must love God with all your heart, you couldn't have loved him with all your heart if you forsake him for all the "scientific" proof.

I was "saved", along with all the other trite apologist metaphors you may have queued up.  Please see the bolded, underlined text above.  Your variation is included in that set.

 

HCG wrote:
No Jordan, you most certainly have not (honestly) researched "both sides".  The fact that you qualified your readings with pastors opinions shows your endeavors were tainted with bias from the get-go...the "well was poisoned".  And come on Jordan, you've demonstrated nothing but ignorance (lack of knowledge, not stupidity) regarding evolution and the scientific method, which clearly shows you've only been exposed to that abomination known as creation "science".  So, "both sides"?  No...not even close.
Jordan wrote:
no i do understand. the only ignorance i may have shown is the way i word things, a lack of defining terms, or using terms that i have a different deffinition for in my mind.

In other words, a clear lack of understanding, aka "ignorance".

Jordan wrote:
all that will be fixed when the time comes.

When and if that time truly comes, we'll be overjoyed to remove the "Theist" label from your RRS account.

Jordan wrote:
the only "ignorance" iv shown is when i combined evolution and the big bang, not becasue i thought they go together but just for ease of argument. i realize evolution does not explain the origin of anything.

Sorry, more ignorance of evolution...it explains the origin of species.  There's even a whole book about it if memory serves me. Smiling 

As for your "only" displays of ignorance, sorry, but I need only refer to your OP:

1. Everything under Section I demonstrates your ignorance of logic.

2. Section II.A clearly demonstrates your ignorance of the scientific method.

3. Section II.B, the creationist version of the second law of thermodynamics, more ignorance.

4. Section II.C, ignorance of evolution, fueled by creationist pseudoscience.

5. Section III.A.1, you forgot to include Stalin in this fallacy.  Neither committed their atrocities "in the name of atheism" or due to the "teachings of atheism" (a fallacy within a fallacy...you're really out-doing yourself here Jordan)

6. Section III.A.2, a string of ad hoc, question-begging notions separated by commas.   More ignorance of logical fallacies.

7. Section B, No, theism simply presupposes that these notions constitute "important life questions" in the first place and provide highly implausible and conveniently unfalsifiable "answers" to these questions.

HCG wrote:
Sorry, Jordan, but Strobelesque due diligence doesn't fly here at the RRS.
jordan wrote:
i don't really like strobel's work, even i admit that his arguments have holes in them.

Thank god Smiling


Mazid the Raider
Rational VIP!Science Freak
Mazid the Raider's picture
Posts: 128
Joined: 2007-12-28
User is offlineOffline
brave theist wrote:Mazid the

brave theist wrote:

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.

Presumably one of these days you'll learn to type and/or spell. Until then we'll just have to put up with it.

Okay, what do we have... one gaps, and a side order of Argument from Incredulity/Ignorance. So, to do everyone a favor and keep it concise, just because there is a gap in current knowledge doesn't mean that you have room to squelch a god in there, and just because you "don't see how any kind of matter could be infinite" doesn't disprove anything. 

The best information I have is that the singularity "exploded" because such a high mass point in space is inherently unstable. The point is, I don't know, but I don't need to pretend the tooth fairy or Kawa no Kami or Jesus made it happen.

"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


RationalSchema
RationalSchema's picture
Posts: 358
Joined: 2007-02-12
User is offlineOffline
brave theist wrote:I was mre

brave theist wrote:

I was mre pointing out that atheists don't know what to belive. they cling to the next big scientific discovery in hopes that they finally found one dissproving God, then its proven irrational so they find a new one. i don't ignore the evidence at hand at all. its just that none of it at all comes close to disproving God.

 

What do you mean we don't know what to believe?? WTF does that mean?? How did you come to believe what you believed?? All atheism is is the lack of belief in a Supernatural God. Science does not have to disprove God. It is up to you to prove that God exists. This is how the game works. If you can't play by these rules, stop playing the game.

 

Quote:
What would it mean to you if you gave up your belief in God?? What would it say about you and the world?
sounds like pascals wager, and my response would be the same. even if God was not real, i have NOTHING to lose. i've lived a good life, iv lived with a purpose, iv never been depressed, iv touched many lives, iv left a good name for myself. all it would say about the world is that everything is ultimately useless and irrelevent and we might as well live forr the moment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

That is not what I asked, but it appears that you seem to be unwilling to change your beliefs despite the evidence.

I am asking if you actually gave up your belief in God by objectively examining the evidence, what would it mean for you life?? What would you be giving up??

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


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

sure!

 

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
Hebrews 6:4-6

 

"It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because, to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace."

notice it says tasted and shared. this is exactly my point, so thanks for it. it is talking of people who have been enlightened i.e. belive in God, and have gone to church ad bible study i.e. tasting the goodness of the word of God but reject it anyway. in other words people who never belive will be punished less severely then those who believed and partook and yet still denied God.

 

Quote:

"If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God."

again this helps my arguement. if we delibertly keep sinnning even after we recieve the truth (of God's existence) then we will be punished. yes christians still sin but they try not to and God knows there heart. if we keep sinning delibertly, then we don't truly ove God, are not saved and deserve hell.

 

Quote:
"If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning.  It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them.'

this once again helps my argument, thanks! Jesus even described this person in the parable of the sewer. they were enlightened by Christianity and maybe even joined in the religion for a while but turned away. That verse says it woulod have been better that they not have found the truth in the first place.

 

nice try though!

- Jordan -


Cali_Athiest2
Cali_Athiest2's picture
Posts: 440
Joined: 2008-02-07
User is offlineOffline
I assume you to mean that

I assume you to mean that some christians don't support the war. Most christians do however support the war because they view muslims as the enemy, not of the US, but of their faith. Before you plead my ignorance of most christians I will have you know that my father in law is a southern baptist preacher. I don't know what denomination you claim, but my views have been primarily shaped by their example. Is this ok for me to do? Of course not so I try to put my personal opinions off the table when discussing politics with them and instead counter their emotion with facts. They are very much in favor of the attack on Iraq and I found out it was only because they are a muslim country. Trust me, I work for the Dept of Defense and war is our business, but I am also against the war even though it keeps money flowing into our base. I know it may seem hypocritical that I can work for an entity that I disagree with on a key point, but I rationalize it in my own mind like any good theist rationalizes the sins of the church.  

I can't claim to know of any instances in which it would be necessary to invoke the name of god in a classroom, but I can imagine that it is not against the law. The problem with the 1964 law barring prayer in school is that it makes it seem that all schools have become religion free zones. School administrators are the most at fault because they don't understand the judgment passed down by the Supreme Court. In other words it is easier not to have to deal with anything dealing with religion. My son's high school out here in liberal California has clubs that are religious in nature. If a quran is allowed in school and a bible is not then definitely get a lawyer and go to the Supremem Court. I find this goes against the law so if there is a case you know of I'd like to see this taken all the way to the Supreme Court. The judgement is not that difficult to follow, but people read too much into most things. Most atheists will agree that religious clubs in school, silent prayer and wearing jesus loves you shirts have no bearing on our lives so we can give a shit less. If schools are exceeding the law then we all need to step in and fix the problem.

If you think that gays have no right to be happy, then I can assume that it is only a matter of time before the atheists are next. It wouldn't surprise me that we are next because we are one of the least trusted minority groups in America. I agree that I might not be liberal enough when I say that I don't necessarily agree that same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt myself. I have always considered myself to be pretty liberal and proud of that fact. However, I question the ability of 2 men or 2 women to raise children. Does this mean that they aren't capable? I don't know because most studies are inconclusive at the efficiacy of same sex parents. If I may ask, what rights do gays have that offend you? Is it the right to go to school without being harassed, the right to equal employment without discrimination or the rights in some states to have a civil union? 

I am beginning to see your true colors in that you seem to be less interested in a research paper than you are at witnessing to us.

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


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
brave theist wrote:So you

brave theist wrote:

So you wanted God to leave some kind of "made by God" tattto on adam. or maybe arrange the stars into a "God was here" constellation. what do Atheists want God to be so obvious. its a faith for a reason.... IT REQUIRES SOME FAITH!

Wow, what a totally lame answer. 

I suspect your omnipotent God can't actually live up to your miraculous claims so it makes you angry when a person asks a perfectly legitimate question concerning your "all powerful God."

It's simply a matter of "put up or shut up" and I can only assume from your evasive answer that we are both in agreement as to the probability of God actually performing anything even remotely miraculous. Hence your anger toward me.

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


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

HC Grindon wrote:
To "understand even the basics of Christianity" implies there is a correct way to interpret the basics of Christianity.  Still a "no true scotsman" fallacy.
i didn't say the entire Bible ony has one interpretation, however the basics certainly can only be interpreted one way.

 

Quote:
When and if that time truly comes, we'll be overjoyed to remove the "Theist" label from your RRS account.
good luck with that one

 

Quote:
I was "saved", along with all the other trite apologist metaphors you may have queued up.  Please see the bolded, underlined text above.  Your variation is included in that set.
look, ProzacDeathWish just gave some good examples of what kind of "christian" you were. yes the unsaved kind.

- Jordan -


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
brave theist

brave theist wrote:

sure!

 

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
Hebrews 6:4-6

 

"It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because, to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace."

notice it says tasted and shared. this is exactly my point, so thanks for it. it is talking of people who have been enlightened i.e. belive in God, and have gone to church ad bible study i.e. tasting the goodness of the word of God but reject it anyway. in other words people who never belive will be punished less severely then those who believed and partook and yet still denied God.

 

Quote:

"If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God."

again this helps my arguement. if we delibertly keep sinnning even after we recieve the truth (of God's existence) then we will be punished. yes christians still sin but they try not to and God knows there heart. if we keep sinning delibertly, then we don't truly ove God, are not saved and deserve hell.

 

Quote:
"If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning.  It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them.'

this once again helps my argument, thanks! Jesus even described this person in the parable of the sewer. they were enlightened by Christianity and maybe even joined in the religion for a while but turned away. That verse says it woulod have been better that they not have found the truth in the first place.

 

nice try though!

Not sure how those verses support your point as you believe salvation is never lost.

Seems your view is in direct contradiction to the Biblical view. If there is no way one could lose salvation, why even mention a "falling away"?

Or are you just trying to move the goalposts to allow Calvinism to match the Bible?

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