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.

 

 

 

 


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
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!

Oh, you're quite welcome but I was wondering why you neglected to address the curious existence of the opposing view held by millions of other Christians who, like you, believe the Bible to be the perfect word of God yet would emphatically disagree with you ?

If I anticipate correctly your answer will yet again follow the pattern of "because I am right and they are wrong."

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


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

brave theist wrote:
im proving that it is illogical to belive in self creation while completely logical to belive in an eternal creator

One thing at a time. Not that I ever argued for self-creation, but why is it illogical? You still really haven't proven (or even provided evidence for) an "eternal creator", which you presumably equate with the biblical god. I know you're going to go get that textbook, but that's still one piece of evidence.

brave theist wrote:
im proving that science does not support evolution which is atheist's only explanation for our current forms

The theory of evolution is a solid scientific theory. To refute that, you may have to come up with something that doesn't involve magic. There's quite a lot of evidence to support the theory of evolution, including observable phenomena like what you cite as "microevolution" and physical evidence like fossils. This physical evidence supports the process of evolution as a very strong theory. So far you've said, "DNA! I'll get my textbook!" and that's what isn't convincing me.

brave theist wrote:
and im proving that practically atheism leaves much to be desired while a God answers all our questions.

This part just seems irrelevant. Just because something leaves much to be desired doesn't mean it's not true or valid. Also, just because I can answer all your questions doesn't mean the answers I give are right. With rational discourse, there's a higher standard to be met.

brave theist wrote:
the reason its so har dto prove is that God wanted it to be hard.

How is it that you know the mind of an immesurable entity? Is there a passage in the bible that says "and ye shall not see hide nor hair of me, but thou shalt believe anyway for no reason"? I mean, there might be, but how does that make any of this rational?

brave theist wrote:
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"

I can't answer this question. That's because it doesn't really make any sense. I don't know why we should be rewarded by your invisible friend. I had no hand in coming up with him.

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
cali_Atheist2 wrote:I am

cali_Atheist2 wrote:
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.
Actually i had no intention on witnessing, it was fully for my thesis, but i can't help it if our conversation drifted this way.

Most Christians i know do disagree with the war in Iraq. =-i find it interesting that your father in law supports it becasue the southern baptists i know certainly do not. i am not a particualr denomination. im really close to a reformed baptist but not exactly.

my view on homosexuals? im not going to come out and say that any man or woman that is gay is going straight to hell or that they shouldn't be happy. however, it is an imbomination to God and in NO way is it natural. homosexuality is somthing some people struggle with but they can defeat it and still be saved. if they however embrace the lifestyle then they can not be saved. i am by no means homophobic, i have several gay friends. i disagree with their lifestyle competely but i don't curse them. i do know of several who have beaten homosexuality. and they are happier then they were when they were living a homosexual lifestyle.

 

also, even more than a research paper or witnessing is concerned, i do find it interesting to see what goes through an atheist's mind.

- Jordan -


brave theist
Theist
brave theist's picture
Posts: 58
Joined: 2008-02-22
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Not sure how

jcgadfly wrote:

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?

Quote:
did you read what i said. those verse not once said falling away from salvation. you can be a preacher, go to church every day, belive in God, pray, read your Bible, go on missions trips, convert people, give all your money to the church and NOT BE SAVED. those verse talk about the people who do all that stuff then finally burn out and decide to try something new. they arn't talking about a saved person falling away.

- Jordan -


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

brave theist wrote:

look, ProzacDeathWish just gave some good examples of what kind of "christian" you were. yes the unsaved kind.

...and you, Jordan have been giving some good examples of what kind of Christian you are, but for the sake of decorum I will refrain from using profanity.

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


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

HisWillness wrote:
One thing at a time. Not that I ever argued for self-creation, but why is it illogical? You still really haven't proven (or even provided evidence for) an "eternal creator", which you presumably equate with the biblical god. I know you're going to go get that textbook, but that's still one piece of evidence.

something cannot come from nothing without something causing it. nothing or non existence can not cause itself to come into existence. that is a rule of logic. so don't pick on me, you'll have to take any arguments up with logic. good luck. and again im not trying to prove God, just that atheism is irrational and that God is a rational substitute. its rational to say an eternal being created the universe becasue logic doesn't say everything has a cause, it just says everything with a beginning has a cause. God had no beginning so He needs NO cause. that is perfectly logical.

 

Quote:
The theory of evolution is a solid scientific theory. To refute that, you may have to come up with something that doesn't involve magic. There's quite a lot of evidence to support the theory of evolution, including observable phenomena like what you cite as "microevolution" and physical evidence like fossils. This physical evidence supports the process of evolution as a very strong theory. So far you've said, "DNA! I'll get my textbook!" and that's what isn't convincing me.
and this is the part i don't get. everything you accuse me of you do as well. you areignorant about by beliefs, and all yours are backed up by biased sources. evolution is NOT a solid theory by any means. fossils are completely rediculously. have you seen what they put together claiming to have found transitional forms. seriously look at them and tell me again if you think its so scientific.

 

Quote:
How is it that you know the mind of an immesurable entity? Is there a passage in the bible that says "and ye shall not see hide nor hair of me, but thou shalt believe anyway for no reason"? I mean, there might be, but how does that make any of this rational?
God made it clear that we can never hope to FULLY understand him that doesn't mean he didn't reveal his nature to us throughout the Bible. there are many things we know about God's nature, just much more is unknown.

 

- Jordan -


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

brave theist wrote:

 did you read what i said. ...blah, blah, blah... arn't talking about a saved person falling away.

Yes, we all read what you said, Jordan.  You love arguing with atheists who disagree with you but so far you seem to be completely failing at persuading us ( too bad )

Why don't you take your powers of eloquence and logic over to http://www.bible-knowledge.com/Lose-Your-Salvation.html and debate some Christians.  

I doubt you could change their minds either.

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


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

brave theist wrote:

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.

I'll cede to someone in a biological science field to address your claim specifically. The best case scenario, however, is that your argument is a non-sequitur and argument from ignorance.

brave theist wrote:

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.

If it's not scientific, what kind of "evidence" would you mean?

brave theist wrote:
unlike your spagheti monster or any other invisable friend analogy.

The only weakness of the flying spaghetti monster is we're all in on the joke.

brave theist wrote:

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

According to Encyclopedia Britannica, the OT is dated to 1,200-100BC. The NT is dated to the latter part of the first century. Both are ascribed to unknown authors.

 


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

brave theist wrote:

something cannot come from nothing without something causing it. nothing or non existence can not cause itself to come into existence. that is a rule of logic. so don't pick on me, you'll have to take any arguments up with logic. good luck. and again im not trying to prove God, just that atheism is irrational and that God is a rational substitute. its rational to say an eternal being created the universe becasue logic doesn't say everything has a cause, it just says everything with a beginning has a cause. God had no beginning so He needs NO cause. that is perfectly logical.

This suggests you don't know what logic is; premises are not rules of logic. What you are describing is the cosmological argument and wikipedia has an article on it
Quote:
evolution is NOT a solid theory by any means. fossils are completely rediculously. have you seen what they put together claiming to have found transitional forms. seriously look at them and tell me again if you think its so scientific.

Seriously, you need to actually learn about evolution. I'd start with TalkOrigins. Evolution is one of the most solid theories of them all. Take a look at genetics and (a personal favorite) genetic algorithms.

"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


RationalSchema
RationalSchema's picture
Posts: 358
Joined: 2007-02-12
User is offlineOffline
"something cannot come from

"something cannot come from nothing without something causing it. nothing or non existence can not cause itself to come into existence. that is a rule of logic. so don't pick on me, you'll have to take any arguments up with logic. good luck. and again im not trying to prove God, just that atheism is irrational and that God is a rational substitute. its rational to say an eternal being created the universe becasue logic doesn't say everything has a cause, it just says everything with a beginning has a cause. God had no beginning so He needs NO cause. that is perfectly logical."

This is completely illogical. You apply the rules as you see fit and make up attributes of something you can't prove exists. It is irrational to say an eternal being created the Universe!! You made up two things here. 1. that he is eternal

2. that he created the Universe. This defines irrationality, making things up!!

If your so-called God always existed why can't the Universe always exist??

I think you confuse the idea of the beginning of the Universe with the beginning of the Universe as we now know it. This is a big difference and your posts continue to show that you have not fully researched the objective science in these matters.

"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
RationalSchema wrote:This is

RationalSchema wrote:

This is completely illogical. You apply the rules as you see fit and make up attributes of something you can't prove exists. It is irrational to say an eternal being created the Universe!! You made up two things here. 1. that he is eternal

2. that he created the Universe. This defines irrationality, making things up!!

If your so-called God always existed why can't the Universe always exist??

I think you confuse the idea of the beginning of the Universe with the beginning of the Universe as we now know it. This is a big difference and your posts continue to show that you have not fully researched the objective science in these matters.

oh my, are you serious? i made nothing up and i twisted nothing. i believe in an eternal all powerful God you don't. you not believing in him doesn't mean i made him up. have you studied logic at all? the other at least have valid fallacies they bring you, yours here is rediculous. God is eternal. i already explaind why the universe can't be. its quote simple actually. IT HAD A BEGINNING! this is clear in the motion of the universe, the second law of thermodynamics, and the life of the stars. it is irrational to try and claim that the universe is eternal inlight of these three facts. the only option other than its eternal is the it had a beginning. logic says that EVERYTHING with a beginning had a cause. God had no begininng becase he is eternal so needs no cause. if you want you can substitute God for any eternal being you want for now. logic doesn't specify that it was my God just that some sort of eternal personal being created the universe.

- Jordan -


HC Grindon
High Level DonorModerator
Posts: 198
Joined: 2007-05-11
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.
Jordan wrote:
i didn't say the entire Bible ony has one interpretation, however the basics certainly can only be interpreted one way.

Nor did I claim that your "no true scotsman" fallacy was based on one interpretation of the "entire bible".  Clearly, I was referencing your notion of "understanding the basics of Christianity", which again, implies that there is a correct way of 1) identifying what constitutes this set of "basics", and 2) how these basics are interpreted.  Given #1 & #2, excluding those that "don't understand the basics of Christianity" is the same thing as saying "True Christians understand the basics of Christianity", a statement that employs the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. 

HCG wrote:
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.
Jordan wrote:
look, ProzacDeathWish just gave some good examples of what kind of "christian" you were.

He gave examples of the Christian equivalent to a Scientology "SP", or for that matter, anyone who has broken the spell of nonsensical beliefs.

Jordan wrote:
yes the unsaved kind.

No, the brainwashed kind.  Not unlike yourself.


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

brave theist wrote:

oh my, are you serious? i made nothing up and i twisted nothing. i believe in an eternal all powerful God you don't. you not believing in him doesn't mean i made him up. have you studied logic at all? the other at least have valid fallacies they bring you, yours here is rediculous. God is eternal. i already explaind why the universe can't be. its quote simple actually. IT HAD A BEGINNING! this is clear in the motion of the universe, the second law of thermodynamics, and the life of the stars. it is irrational to try and claim that the universe is eternal inlight of these three facts. the only option other than its eternal is the it had a beginning. logic says that EVERYTHING with a beginning had a cause. God had no begininng becase he is eternal so needs no cause. if you want you can substitute God for any eternal being you want for now. logic doesn't specify that it was my God just that some sort of eternal personal being created the universe.

I never said you twisted anything, but you made up two things. 1. God is Eternal 2. God created the Universe.

If you didn't make them up then prove to me that he exists, is eternal, and created the universe. You even indicate in your response that it is what you believe. What objective evidence do you have that he is eternal?? If you can't prove it to me then yes YOU MADE IT UP!!!!

You claim that a God does not need a creator because he is eternal, but give no explanation or prove of God being eternal. Therefore, you MADE IT UP and are applying your rules as you see fit to conform to your preconcieved idea. Even if it is not your God, how do you know whatever it is is eternal???

"its quote simple actually. IT HAD A BEGINNING!"   Please tell me how this is not making something up?? Hey it is simple, because it is just that way.  

 

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


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

brave theist wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

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?

Quote:
did you read what i said. those verse not once said falling away from salvation. you can be a preacher, go to church every day, belive in God, pray, read your Bible, go on missions trips, convert people, give all your money to the church and NOT BE SAVED. those verse talk about the people who do all that stuff then finally burn out and decide to try something new. they arn't talking about a saved person falling away.

I see - A person can follow all the things the Bible prescribes for salvation (which, the last time I checked, including believing in God and asking Jesus to forgive your sins and live in your heart) but not really be saved unless he/she follows the version of Christianity you believe in.
Otherwise, they're not "real" Christians.

Got to love the NTS fallacy. Or is it the One True Christian fallacy now?

"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


Mr. Atheist (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
brave theist wrote:

brave theist wrote:

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.

What are you talking about?

This has nothing to do with logic; this has to do with not applying the same rules to your deity that you apply to all other things.  You just remove the "beginning" of your deity simply because if he had a beginning it would remove his powers from him.  That is not "logical".

brave theist wrote:

 

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.

You weren't aware that you were including theist groups? You said that "theists arguments may evolve in order to combat the opposition, but our facts never change".  In this statement you are labeling theists, not Christians.  This thing has very quickly changed from atheist and theism to atheism and Christianity (though based on your many other posts, not any Christianity must YOUR Christianity which I haven't seen you be explicit about what exactly your Christianity is.)

Could you please define in explicit terms what exact attributes your deity holds.

"Weak Christians" is not very valid; there are many different views on Christianity simply put.  For example, you appear to believe in young earth where as the majority of self labeled Christians do not.

There are just "some theists" that believe some of the same theories as atheists, all theists believe in the same theories as atheists they just pick and choose which ones they want to believe in.

Theism is theism, and you have miss categorized your target as theism rather than your specific sect of Christianity (which I would love if you could label so that we can be more explicit about what you conform to).

brave theist wrote:

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.

Calm down? I was quite calm, but I figured you would take offence to it which is why I put in the disclaimer.  Apparently you ignored that Eye-wink

You just didn't explain that clearly? Maybe so, but I would hope that considering you're writing a thesis I'd hope that you would want to be clear.  These aren't terms to use broadly because they are simply wrong.  You have used atheism, agnostic, theism, evolution, natural selection, and many other words inappropriately and you should try to be as careful as possible with those terms due to the implications they have on their topics.

And believing in evolution has nothing to do with believing in the big bang.  That is a horribly broad statement.  The Vatican does not deny the existence of Evolution, but they do deny the mechanism (Natural Selection) and of course do not support the concept of the Big Bang.

Considering that I am pretty sure that Catholics make up a larger portion of the worlds population than Atheists it would be extremely incorrect to suggest that those who believe in evolution "usually" believe in the big bang, but rather quote to the contrary.  There are many times more people that believe in evolution that do not believe in big bang than there are those that do.

 

brave theist wrote:

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.

You can't imagine why it is accepted as a fact? Well, there are undeniable facts.  This is why the term "microevolution" was created. Even creation scientists can no longer deny the existence of evolution so they had to say that they now just oppose the idea of "macroevolution".  Either way, they accept the premise of evolution.

If you can't figure out why evolution is accepted, then you haven't even tried Google to figure out why evolution is considered a fact.  It would not be a "theory" if it was just based on guesses.  We can and do witness evolution at work within a species regularly, and it is very easy to see in such things like HIV where generations pass by very quickly.

We also have proofs regarding macro evolution that are not necessarily accepted by creationists.  Here is some reading material on macroevolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html

They can do a lot more than just hypothesize about evolution and to state otherwise is simply a complete lack of research and education on your part.

The heart is not irreducibly complex.  The eye was a great example that creationists for ages thought to be irreducibly complex but that has been nailed to the wall since then.  The heart is the same situation.  The error in thinking here is that people think that "the body cannot survive with a heart in its current form" But this is wrong.  If you want to get into irreducible complexity on the human anatomy I suggest you get a biology degree first and then debate it with a biologist.  There is no reason to believe that we need a heart that is evolved to its current state to function, it is quite reasonable to believe that we could have a 99% efficient heart and not notice any difference.

Something like the heart was a slow development that grew with the requirements of the host.  It wasn't like the entire human form comes into being with no heart at all and then it just suddenly appeared.

brave theist wrote:

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.

So you have read a story about 1 fossil so this makes all fossils null and void?

Read the link I linked previously regarding macroevolution and they talk a lot about intermediate and transitional forms.

 

brave theist wrote:

Mr. Atheist wrote:
It is not a hard-line stance for most atheists (who are agnostic atheists).  It is a disbelief in the existence 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)

Agnostic does mean "you don't know"

Some more reading material for you so you can understand the terms "agnostic" and "atheist" correctly: Am I Agnostic or Atheist?

 

 

brave theist wrote:

 

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.

Morals are easily defendable as a result of evolution.  Morals are not consistent across the board as far as societies but clearly they are not deity driven either since each culture has their own.  They are driven by what is the best set of morals to survive the longest and produce the most offspring.  Being a cheater, a killer, or a user will not get you far in the replication chain and your genes will not survive long.  This is a bit old but I rather enjoy it. This is a video done by Richard Dawkins in 1987 called Nice Guys Finish First .

Watch them all.  They are well worth it.

You can blame people for things because they make up their own minds and come to conclusions.  With religion you can write things off as a result of being created and just acting out your pre-destined roll.

There are differences between right and wrong because there is community and the punishment and consequences of your actions are an inability to function within that community. To suggest a lack of "right and wrong" simply on the lack of a deity that will act as a judge is looking right past the need for right and wrong to act within a tribe / group and to perform more efficient tasks.  This is why there are so many pack animals out there.  Conform to accepted standards of the group because it is beneficial for the group as well as self beneficial to act as part of a group.

I contest that your purpose as a life with an afterlife is far more meaningless than my life without an afterlife. I wrote about this here:

Purpose of Life .

I have no doubt that religion can make life feel better, but that does not make it any truer.

You then go on to the Scotsman fallacy suggesting that people that atheists that do bad things are evil atheists with no morals and Christians who do bad things are not real Christians.  Can I not say that Stalin was not a true atheist then? What gives you the qualifications to judge what a "Christian" is? Is it by sect, actions, belief? Many people do things in the name of the god and in accordance with the bible that are deemed horrific by today’s standards.  But if you do not agree with the actions you can just write it off as not a true Christian? That doesn't come off as self righteous to you?

And since you are going to label Christians as not Christians (such as the crusades I assume) could you please give me an exact specification for what composes a Christian?

How can I give you an example of a "True Christian" without you defining exactly what it is?  I have a list of hundreds/thousands of different Christian sects that all believe slightly different things and are all Christians.  The Roman Catholic Church is likely older so to write them off as not "true Christians" I would guess that you would need to be able to be pretty explicit why they are not.

brave theist wrote:

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.

Without a god there are no morals? I know I have both morals and ethics.  And I know my morals and ethics I told to a much higher standard than the horrific characters in the Bible.

Why must there be a moral absolute? “Morals” is just a word.  Morals and ethics are a natural byproduct of evolution and group altruism.

Here is an example of how "Morals" with a belief in a deity and their rules can get messed up in a logical way: Is Abortion/Baby Killing Holy?

The Christian's answer is their deity, there is not set "atheist" answer just as there is no consistent "Christian" answer or even consistent "theist" answer.

Christianity may attempt to answer all questions, but many of the teachings of Christianity have been proven false by science.  If Christianity can be wrong despite it's use of an infallible book, why believe any of it is right?

I go into this topic in on this page that I suggest reading and responding to as well: The Bible: Literal, Metaphorical, Poetic

 

And a last question for you:

What evidence / reason do you have to believe in the Christian deity rather than a deist’s deity?


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

brave theist wrote:
something cannot come from nothing without something causing it. nothing or non existence can not cause itself to come into existence. that is a rule of logic. so don't pick on me, you'll have to take any arguments up with logic.

Logic isn't a guy. I can't go up to Logic and take up my arguments with him. Logic is kind of like rules to a game. You've just made some statements that we can manipulate using logic, but that doesn't validate the statements. Let's take it one statement at a time.

Something cannot come from nothing without something else causing to exist, and non-existence cannot spontaneously cause existence.

Even from those statements, I'm going to have to ask you where the third party comes from (the extra 3rd party something that causes existence). Because it looks like that just goes on forever. 

brave theist wrote:
and again im not trying to prove God, just that atheism is irrational and that God is a rational substitute.

But again, you're arguing that it would be rational for me to believe in something that does not exist. It's easy for me to prove that many things exist. Even concepts exist, like your examples of love and logic. But we know where our concepts of love and logic come from, and that's our minds.

brave theist wrote:
its rational to say an eternal being created the universe becasue logic doesn't say everything has a cause, it just says everything with a beginning has a cause. God had no beginning so He needs NO cause. that is perfectly logical.

Logic doesn't say that, but the cosmological argument does. Just don't jump out of that logic: even IF it's logical or rational to say an eternal being created the universe, to immediately jump to "I know his name and favourite book" is not rational or logical.

brave theist wrote:
and this is the part i don't get. everything you accuse me of you do as well. you areignorant about by beliefs, and all yours are backed up by biased sources. evolution is NOT a solid theory by any means. fossils are completely rediculously. have you seen what they put together claiming to have found transitional forms. seriously look at them and tell me again if you think its so scientific.

In order to address your concern about bias properly, I'll have to know what you mean. What bias exactly exists in the theory of evolution? And why would I have to understand your beliefs in order to argue points of logic?

brave theist wrote:
God made it clear that we can never hope to FULLY understand him that doesn't mean he didn't reveal his nature to us throughout the Bible. there are many things we know about God's nature, just much more is unknown.

He's still kind of invisible, and you think I should believe that he exists. That might be admirably stubborn, but it's still not rational.

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


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Please help , my preaching

Please help , my preaching can suck ....

 

brave theist says; "something cannot come from nothing without something causing it." BUT then says "God had no beginning ...."

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

Because no "Zero" ever existed, and Right, "god had no beginning."

Wrong or right, Now what ? Religion ? geezzz man ??? and, taking a big breath and ,

 

 

Jesus fucking Christ !, in jesus name, this shit pisses me off ....what's a mutha to do ? .... (call all buddhists and scientists)

.... Understanding "anti-theist jesus" philosophy, and the "NOT the word of GOD bible" and bad idol worship. =======

The bible is obviously a book of bits of truth and tons of lies. Pulling cool jesus out of that pile of shit bible is stinking hard work.

One of the hidden good basic messages in the Bible is to have "faith", and don't think yourself out of the simple "jesus" message that "all is one", by using religion dogma.

Jesus said WE are GOD. Have faith that you / we / all, is god; so screw the religions of abe. Bad bible dude Saul/Paul sure did screw up that Jesus message. Xains are "Paulines".

Jesus was murdered because of the "sin" of not accepting we are god, the "divine", as there is no "higher other". Do fear the god of abe of separation, not God Cosmos of ONE. The first commandment !

The blind fearful idol worshipers don't get it, but Jesus was able to cure some of the blind thru his wisdom of "One with the father". ( as Moses also tried )

Now look at what we still do 2000 yrs after this simple confucius/moses/jesus/buddha message of ONE.

Again I ask "who is not god, and how so?" God of abe, is not god, but a silly "separationist" god idea. All is god and connected as one. The study of consciousness, energy, matter, time, and all that is, is Science. Religion is emotional pleading and conspiracy and reveals our fear and ignorance.

An "enlightened" fan of Jesus would never call themself a christian, as Thomas Jefferson might say ....

Save a parrot Xain, they need real "faith".

God I hate the god word concept of religion .... I AM GOD AS YOU, as is all the cosmos .... Jesus/Buddha etc knew.

Be extra nice to yourselves everyone, so smile love on the enemy .... Karma .... and keep your Sword ever sharp .... and take you "vitamins" .... stay strong .... Save a Xain ! Get LOUDER ..... go go go RRS !

(( Warning it's me GOD again. Really just trying to end needless suffering , "no pain no gain?" .... geezz I wish evolution would hurry it's slow ass up.


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
Some simple practical

Some simple practical questions I have for you.

1. Do you wear a seatbelt?

2. When you are ill, do you go to a doctor?

 

 

 

 

 


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
   Yeah HisWillness, you

   Yeah HisWillness, you is a good friend .... Saving Xains ! 


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
brave theist wrote:and this

brave theist wrote:
and this is the part i don't get. everything you accuse me of you do as well. you areignorant about by beliefs, and all yours are backed up by biased sources.

I'd just like to quickly clarify something: I haven't said "the bible is invalid". Maybe someone else said that on this forum, but I didn't. I didn't because I consider it irrelevant to the argument. If you believe that your book shows the character of God, fine. You, however, said that evolution is a weak theory. Others on the forum have pointed you to evidence that it's a very strong theory. The physical evidence and observable phenomena might be stronger than you think.

The culture in the scientific community is actually very harsh on hypotheses before they become theories. The history of Darwinian thought is interesting reading - it's a good story, and not just for the purpose of arguing in forums like this. I think you'd like it.

I honestly don't anticipate you dropping your belief system. I imagine most of the people in your community believe the same things, and it might not help you socially to question what you've been told. But a tiny bit of doubt and skepticism is healthy, surely.

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
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:  

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

   Yeah HisWillness, you is a good friend .... Saving Xains ! 

I is as good a friend as can I be.

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
Making stuff up

RationalSchema wrote:

I never said you twisted anything, but you made up two things. 1. God is Eternal 2. God created the Universe.

It's not really fair to say that Jordan made these things up. He says he read them in the bible. So his position is that they're true from the get-go. That's not so much a rational process: reading something and immediately believing it's true. Even simply asking yourself, "is this a work of fiction?" would help with that. I would never believe, for instance, that Nicholas Nickleby was an actual person, since I have decent evidence that he's a character in a work of fiction.

But Jordan is surrounded by people who would never doubt that the bible contains the "word of God". At first sight, that would seem to anyone in the group evidence in and of itself. But that's not the conclusion of rational inquiry. That's exercising faith that the people around you have license on the truth. If I trust my father and mother, and they say it's true, then it is. They wouldn't lie to me. That's trust, and faith. But without actually finding out, it's not necessarily rational.

The reason many of us are drawn to the sciences, Jordan, is that using the scientific method means that truth isn't just up to one group, or a bias. It's a meritocracy, where if your arguments are really good, and stand up to heavy criticism, they can be accepted as part of the wisdom that we're all looking for. That's exciting.

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
First I wanted to thank

First I wanted to thank cali_Atheist and HisWillness for their help. Everyone else was as intollerant as the christians you yell at for being intollerant. everyone else deffinately gave atheists a bad name. i am slightly dissapointed that you couldn't leave the personal attacks out and just debate. that being said a few atheists are at least likeable whether we agreed on anything or not.

I have everything i was looking for and am far to busy to keep this up. it me seem easy to come on here every now and then but remember its 1 against about 20 and i don't have the time to keep up with it. everytime i respond to one, 3 new postrs are up. its quite overwhelming. that being said I'm just going to answer a few questions that all of you asked.

 

you all brought up the one true scotsman fallacy. i said this somewhere but i will repeat it. my form of Christianity is not very popular among most people, it is however very popuar amnongst the strongest apologists. some of you asked exactly what i believe and why i can claim to be a true Christian while the crusaders were not. well, its simply rediculous to call yourself a Christian and then pick and choose what you like about the Bible. I believe it is the Word of God, that its infallable in its orriginal script, and should be read literally unless obviously a metaphor if it specifically mentions that its a parable. that being said, if you don't pick and choose your facvorit parts and you read it as a whole and translate it as such, there are very few passages that can be interpretated wrongly. for example those verse about losing faith could be interpreted 2 ways, someone losing their faith, or someone getting caught up in the religion but fallinga way before being saved. the reason i know which it is is becasue other verses that can't be interpreted other ways say so. what do i mean by true Christian? anyone saved. how are you saved? You love God with all your heart, accept Jesus' sacrifice, and follow his Word. if you don't have those three things you are not saved and are simply a christian in name... like the crusaders, or catholics. yes i don't believe most catholics are saved. why? they belive salvation is faith and works. which means most catholics belive in God and do good works and go to confession, no where there do they love God which is the only important part. now some catholics do truly love God and thats enough, but most are more worried about belief and works. i believe that any other form of Christianity is irrational so thats why i specified which.

 

As for what i belive about my God. He is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, loving but just, wrathful but righteous in his wrath, holy and perfect. i didn't make any of that up myslef its all in the Bible. yeah you probably think im beeing circular but logic is about determening the validity of a statement. i can make up whatever kind of God i wanted and if it fits the argument it is rational. fortunately i don't have to make it up. my God is eternal, and science does not contradict that. it may not prove it or can't prove it but it doesn't disproove it. science does in fact proove that the universe had a beginning, and logic says that in turn it must have a cause. it is perfectly logical, iv twisted nothing, iv made up nothing, do some research on the law of casuality. it doesn't say their must be an infinite set of causes it just says each effect has a cause. if science prooves that their could not have been an infinite amount their must have been a eternal first cause. thats not illogical. the jump from a eternal first cause to my God was unwaranted I'll admit. I did that becasue none of the other gods ever had the attributes necessary to create the universe.

 

 

- Jordan -


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
  Good luck to you Jordan.

  Good luck to you Jordan. I LOVE and HATE god with all my being .... I have no choice in the matter, we / this is G-O-D ....

"Loving (understanding) the ENEMY, which is the "God of abe" is truly a blessing and a Jesus/Buddha message to boot !  


daretoknow
Superfan
daretoknow's picture
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-12-09
User is offlineOffline
brave theist wrote:First I

brave theist wrote:

First I wanted to thank cali_Atheist and HisWillness for their help. Everyone else was as intollerant as the christians you yell at for being intollerant. everyone else deffinately gave atheists a bad name. i am slightly dissapointed that you couldn't leave the personal attacks out and just debate. that being said a few atheists are at least likeable whether we agreed on anything or not.

I have everything i was looking for and am far to busy to keep this up. it me seem easy to come on here every now and then but remember its 1 against about 20 and i don't have the time to keep up with it. everytime i respond to one, 3 new postrs are up. its quite overwhelming. that being said I'm just going to answer a few questions that all of you asked.

 

you all brought up the one true scotsman fallacy. i said this somewhere but i will repeat it. my form of Christianity is not very popular among most people, it is however very popuar amnongst the strongest apologists. some of you asked exactly what i believe and why i can claim to be a true Christian while the crusaders were not. well, its simply rediculous to call yourself a Christian and then pick and choose what you like about the Bible. I believe it is the Word of God, that its infallable in its orriginal script, and should be read literally unless obviously a metaphor if it specifically mentions that its a parable. that being said, if you don't pick and choose your facvorit parts and you read it as a whole and translate it as such, there are very few passages that can be interpretated wrongly. for example those verse about losing faith could be interpreted 2 ways, someone losing their faith, or someone getting caught up in the religion but fallinga way before being saved. the reason i know which it is is becasue other verses that can't be interpreted other ways say so. what do i mean by true Christian? anyone saved. how are you saved? You love God with all your heart, accept Jesus' sacrifice, and follow his Word. if you don't have those three things you are not saved and are simply a christian in name... like the crusaders, or catholics. yes i don't believe most catholics are saved. why? they belive salvation is faith and works. which means most catholics belive in God and do good works and go to confession, no where there do they love God which is the only important part. now some catholics do truly love God and thats enough, but most are more worried about belief and works. i believe that any other form of Christianity is irrational so thats why i specified which.

 

As for what i belive about my God. He is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, loving but just, wrathful but righteous in his wrath, holy and perfect. i didn't make any of that up myslef its all in the Bible. yeah you probably think im beeing circular but logic is about determening the validity of a statement. i can make up whatever kind of God i wanted and if it fits the argument it is rational. fortunately i don't have to make it up. my God is eternal, and science does not contradict that. it may not prove it or can't prove it but it doesn't disproove it. science does in fact proove that the universe had a beginning, and logic says that in turn it must have a cause. it is perfectly logical, iv twisted nothing, iv made up nothing, do some research on the law of casuality. it doesn't say their must be an infinite set of causes it just says each effect has a cause. if science prooves that their could not have been an infinite amount their must have been a eternal first cause. thats not illogical. the jump from a eternal first cause to my God was unwaranted I'll admit. I did that becasue none of the other gods ever had the attributes necessary to create the universe.

 

 

 

The problem with your entire argument lies in the false dichotomy you have set as the premise for your thesis. You stated that because your argument for a god is a valid construct, then any argument against is neccesarily wrong. For that to be true you would have to prove that your argument was logically sound, not only logically valid. I could make an infinite number of arguments that are both valid and absolutely wrong, therefore your premise suffers and internal contradiction by assuming a false dichotomy. A true dichotomy results when you apply the Law of Non Contradiction to something that assumes nothing or very little. I do not wish to argue the validity of your argument only the issue I just brought up. That shouldn't take too much time.

Thats cute.


brave theist
Theist
brave theist's picture
Posts: 58
Joined: 2008-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:You stated that

Quote:
You stated that because your argument for a god is a valid construct, then any argument against is neccesarily wrong.
i did not. i didnt say that because mine was right, everything else is wrong. i applied the same questions of causality and science to both God and atheism, and more evidence for rationality lies with God.

- Jordan -


HC Grindon
High Level DonorModerator
Posts: 198
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Sorry, kid, but you learned

Sorry, kid, but you learned nothing during your brief stay here.  It's sadly obvious that you have absolutely no desire to actually learn anything about logic and reason, and you'll continue to blindly spread creationist misinformation and twisted logic no matter how many people refute the trite apologist muck your mind has been poisoned with.

I can only hope you'll wake up someday and see the brainwashed godbot that you are.

 


daretoknow
Superfan
daretoknow's picture
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-12-09
User is offlineOffline
brave theist wrote:Quote:You

brave theist wrote:

Quote:
You stated that because your argument for a god is a valid construct, then any argument against is neccesarily wrong.
i did not. i didnt say that because mine was right, everything else is wrong. i applied the same questions of causality and science to both God and atheism, and more evidence for rationality lies with God.

umm ya you did... You are stating that science backs up your claim that the universe must have had a beginning, bla bla bla ad naseum, God. You imply throughout the entire thread that you are rational and the opposite is not. But that aside you didn't address my main point. Here it is again.  You constructed what would appear to be a valid argument, but in no way is a sound argument. Since we can construct an infinite number of valid arguments that are also not sound, why do you even bother positing something that by definition has zero truth value? It does nothing for you except to show that you can construct valid arguments, which is pretty cool, but it doesn't have any use in discovering anything. Unless, of course, you can prove it sound as well.

Thats cute.


brave theist
Theist
brave theist's picture
Posts: 58
Joined: 2008-02-22
User is offlineOffline
i love the double standards

i love the double standards you guys throw in my face. every error iv made you have as well. you also havn't provided any proof. what you have provided is evidence for evolution as i have provided evidence for God. neither proves nor dissproves the other. the biggest thing iv learned hear is that the hypocritical pompous fake christians i despise so much are not very much different then you. your just as arrogant, just as prideful, and just as unlikeable. since when did atheists become jerks? i realize you all are so confident in your beliefs and you are so sure you are right and you think im so naive and illinformed or misguided/brainwashed. interesting that i think the same about you. the only difference is, as we learn more and more about this world, my argument will become more and more rational as your week evidences slowly fall apart. btw, i did a little research on your fossil record, not apologist sources btw, and its so amazingly bogus. most of you have brains, how can you seriously think those fragments prove anything. they could have formed anything they wanted out of those fragments. I'll admitt i was wondering about all the hype about this rational responders thing and i was wondering how you were deconverting so many. unfortuately, im still wondering, how you guys changed anyones mind on anything is quite a conundrum.

- Jordan -


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
  Honesty is the absolute

  Honesty is the absolute best policy, Lots of us atheists are angry thank GOD !


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
 Can we get a wahmbulance?

 Can we get a wahmbulance?


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Brave , You have opend my

Brave , You have opend my eyes a bit wider , understanding the enemy ..... Refusing G-O-D ..... as you are under the "god of abe" spell. 1 2 3 come out of it now. Be an atheist for G_O_D  !!!!  FEEL the AWE ! You are G_O_D !!!! and "condemned to be free" ...... Google "condemned to be free", read a bit there , before you submit your final draft.  Have "faith" in you and me friend ..... I am atheist, so was my Jesus !


daretoknow
Superfan
daretoknow's picture
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-12-09
User is offlineOffline
brave theist wrote:i love

brave theist wrote:

i love the double standards you guys throw in my face. every error iv made you have as well. you also havn't provided any proof. what you have provided is evidence for evolution as i have provided evidence for God. neither proves nor dissproves the other. the biggest thing iv learned hear is that the hypocritical pompous fake christians i despise so much are not very much different then you. your just as arrogant, just as prideful, and just as unlikeable. since when did atheists become jerks? i realize you all are so confident in your beliefs and you are so sure you are right and you think im so naive and illinformed or misguided/brainwashed. interesting that i think the same about you. the only difference is, as we learn more and more about this world, my argument will become more and more rational as your week evidences slowly fall apart. btw, i did a little research on your fossil record, not apologist sources btw, and its so amazingly bogus. most of you have brains, how can you seriously think those fragments prove anything. they could have formed anything they wanted out of those fragments. I'll admitt i was wondering about all the hype about this rational responders thing and i was wondering how you were deconverting so many. unfortuately, im still wondering, how you guys changed anyones mind on anything is quite a conundrum.

 

I don't understand what that cute little outburst was about. You haven't been any less condescending yourself and you have very little respect for the knowledge some of the people on here have. You are standing "bravely" in the face of experts and nakedly asserting they are wrong and know nothing of what they are experts at. It seems to me that you thought you had a real bad ass argument and weren't expecting to be challenged so trenchantly. Cowboy up, take your licks, cause no argument worth its weight ever made it without some serious challenges.

More to my main point though - I thought that my post was complimentary to you because you seem very much intelligent, and you are probably a cool guy, but that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. I would like you to answer me though, because I was dead serious with my question. I didn't come on here to critique your other interlocutor's arguments, so forget them for the moment and answer mine if you wouldn't mind.

Quote:
the only difference is, as we learn more and more about this world, my argument will become more and more rational as your week evidences slowly fall apart.

That was one monstrosity of a naked assertion there. I don't think you realize how extraordinary a claim that is and how much evidence you would need to sufficiently back it. It shows how little you respect the sciences though, as no highly trained, elite scientist in his right mind would ever vociferate such hubris. If you want respect from anyone you should use more humility. Isn't that one of the teachings of the bible?

Thats cute.


Ubermensch
Ubermensch's picture
Posts: 36
Joined: 2007-05-31
User is offlineOffline
brave theist wrote:your just

brave theist wrote:
your just as arrogant, just as prideful, and just as unlikeable.

 

Said the person who thinks his weak familiarity with layman science is enough to topple years of work of experts in cosmology, biology, anthropology, and geology.

 

It is one thing to be doubtful but it is another to look at pictures of fossils and think that you can draw conclusions that trump those of experts in animal anatomy.  I can be pretty pompous at times but your hubris outshines the worst of us; especially in light of the fact that in your brief stay here you've managed to communicate your misunderstanding of thermodynamics, big bang cosmology, and even the most basic premises of evolution. 

 

To get everyone in the scientific community to agree with you is a pretty big deal.  Scientists love to get at the truth and they revel in proving each other wrong when they can.  When you find yourself in the position of disagreeing with the majority of the scientific community, you really need to check yourself because it didn't get that way because they all decided to just play along with each other.  Science is no place for storytellers.

 

As long as you continue to hand wave away your mistakes and misunderstandings you will fail to improve yourself. 

Scientific illiteracy is reality illiteracy.


jread
SuperfanTheist
jread's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
brave theist wrote:"Threads

brave theist wrote:

"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."

 

I was curious, what books have you read on evolution? You seem to brush it off so lightly, so easily. If you consider it such a bad theory "nonsense" as you call it, then why is it nonsense? Have you studied the theory first-hand? I guarantee that if you read at least one decent book on evolution, you will realize that the irreducibility critique of evolution is truly horrible. Also, in case you suggested other traditional "critiques" of evolution , I'm sure those would be decimated too.

The implication that we should put Darwinism on trial overlooks the fact that Darwinism has always been on trial within the scientific community. -- From Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth R. Miller

Chaos and chance don't mean the absence of law and order, but rather the presence of order so complex that it lies beyond our abilities to grasp and describe it. -- From From Certainty to Uncertainty by F. David Peat


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
   Evolution is what we

   Evolution is what we are, sure it sucks , but we are what we are .....


Mr. Atheist (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
It is clear that your intent

It is clear that your intent in coming here was to confirm your preconceptions.  You came here with your "faith" and an inability to adjust your faith.  You wanted to know what arguments there are against your basic concepts.  You received them probably in greater force than you anticipated.  Your wording, language, and perspective were all torn apart at every corner (and you should note that you asked for it).

Your mistake was arguing with it.  You see the argument as pompous and arrogant, yet you cannot refute any of the arguments made.  Your arguments are tired and old.  You refuse to recognize Christian history and claim that yours is the only true Christianity.  You then suggest that apologists would agree with you, yet apologists are all over the map.

You demonstrated complete ignorance on just about every topic you intend to discuss.

What you did manage to do though, through your complete lack of ability to spout anything other than "goddidit" is draw an ire from a community which generally gets quite frustrated by people who claim intelligence and knowledge and display everything but.  This will play very well into your thesis no doubt.

I had hopes that you would realize that you would realize that you need to research more and perhaps use these forums as a source of information.  Instead you are more than likely going to resort to just reading apologetics rather than giving each of your topics an intellectually honest investigation.

You are not unique.  You're not the first, and you won't be the last.  In retrospect I wish no one replied to this thread and just told you to at least get a "google" or "wikipedia" level of understanding of these topics prior to engaging in conversation.  It is clear you have not even made an attempt at understanding.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
   RRS saving Christians

   RRS saving Christians ..... Fuck yeah ! 


FulltimeDefendent
Scientist
FulltimeDefendent's picture
Posts: 455
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
Macro- vs. Micro-Evolution

1) ATTN: Moderator- I have to correct you. Macroevolution and Microevolution weren't made up by apologists. However, Brave Theist doesn't do a very good job of explaining them, and brushes off the latter and thus any interrelatedness. These are used in scientific papers and textbooks. Trust me. I stay up half my nights memorizing this stuff for my exams. It's actually a lot more simple than Brave Theist makes it out to be: Speciation (macroevolution) is the result of changes in gene frequencies in populations over time (microevolution).

2)Brave Theist- While you are correct that Wikipedia is not a scholarly source, it's actually generally acknowledged by the scientific community that they're pretty up to date and accurate when it comes to science, compared to other subjects.

3) It seems that you conflate scientific advancement with revisionism, and you definitely confuse the colloquial and scientific definitions of "theory." In science, a theory is a lot more than just an educated guess.

4) And scientific accuracy on wikipedia is in no way a bias against Christians or other theists unless they choose to perceive it as such. You shoot yourself in the foot by saying 1) that Wikipedia's biased against theism and then 2) that anyone can post there. So how is it biased if it's completely open?

5) If your thesis is that proof doesn't matter to Theists and that in your philosophical paradigm the scientific method which informs many atheists is meaningless, then you're on the right track for your paper, but that hardly makes theism rational. It does just the opposite. You can't argue this from objectivity, only from subjectivity, so I would suggest, for your paper, taking up something of an existentialist or a post-modern argument. As opposed to arguing that faith is rational, you should argue that faith need not be rational to be subjectively real. That's almost an assured A+.

6) Now, no more ideas... And I talk about self-sabotage...

“It is true that in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. It is equally true that in the land of the blind, the two-eyed man is an enemy of the state, the people, and domestic tranquility… and necessarily so. Someone has to rearrange the furniture.”


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

brave theist wrote:

unfortuately, im still wondering, how you guys changed anyones mind on anything is quite a conundrum.

It's possible that for the most part, because of the sort of culture of agression in these forums, people's minds don't get changed at all. It seems that many atheists take the subject as personally as you do, and it affects their expression.

Before you go, this video is the quickest explanation of my personal viewpoint of the subject I've ever seen (ignore the bit about the "payoff" - that's irrelevant). It may help you see where many of us are coming from, without the agressive stance.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/12784

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


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
He's so sure science is

He's so sure science is lying to him, for some reason.  I didn't mean for my questions to sound flip.  (which they may have, since they received no answer)

I'd like to know if you go see a doctor when you're really sick, or if you turn to John 14:14 and just ask to be healed.

 


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
stuntgibbon wrote:He's so

stuntgibbon wrote:
He's so sure science is lying to him, for some reason.

This is a really important point. Because in a culture of belief, it's way more about trust. Trust, that is, of the people around you rather than of independent reason.

"Why would my pastor tell me something that isn't true?" is, to the believer, a more important question than "Is what the pastor's telling me true?" Since the group rewards those who believe with warm feelings of belonging, why wouldn't you want to defend that? Why wouldn't you want that to be true so badly that you would try your best to find the holes in whatever argument went against it?

I empathize completely with the believer, and even more than I would empathize with someone who was simply insane, since the believer has so much external validation. It's not "unreasonable" for a person to commit themselves to the act of belief, it's just that every single act of believing is unreasonable.

So who is Jordan going to trust, a giant body of evidence he hasn't read yet, or his social group? It's not even a contest. We have to be able to show people like Jordan that they can trust the process, not just "trust science", like science is a guy who's biased and trying to deceive him.

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


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
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.

People like him can overcome brainwashing, but it's quite hard on them.  That's why most of them would rather live with the cognitive dissonance.  For Jordan, admitting the truth to himself will put him on the "outs" with friends and family.  That's what it did to me and it never got better.  Still, I couldn't justify living a lie.

For some people it means the loss of a job or career as well.  So they give in to fear and choose to use crappy arguments to justify living a lie.  I can remember doing that.  It sucked.

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Mr. Atheist (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:brave

HisWillness wrote:

brave theist wrote:

unfortuately, im still wondering, how you guys changed anyones mind on anything is quite a conundrum.

It's possible that for the most part, because of the sort of culture of agression in these forums, people's minds don't get changed at all. It seems that many atheists take the subject as personally as you do, and it affects their expression.

Before you go, this video is the quickest explanation of my personal viewpoint of the subject I've ever seen (ignore the bit about the "payoff" - that's irrelevant). It may help you see where many of us are coming from, without the agressive stance.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/12784

 

The thing that he failed to recognize is that he came here with a 100% faith and a closed mind.  He was not looking for information, he did not have questions, and did not seek an understanding.  He came here with answers to all the questions that he had.   He is just ultimatly going to copy and paste from standard apologetics rather than investigating and learning the facts about the things that he wants to debate.

It is easy to do this when you refuse to allow answers that don't have god.  The great failure here is to recognize that apologetics don't advance, science advances and then apologetics back off a step.  Apologetics is the exercise of preaching god of the gaps and just trying to slow the growth of those holes but ultimately failure to do so.


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
How many diseases have

How many diseases have Christian apologetics cured?


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Mr. Atheist wrote:The thing

Mr. Atheist wrote:
The thing that he failed to recognize is that he came here with a 100% faith and a closed mind.

But any believer - anyone who will just believe something from his or her peer group or local authority - is going to come in here with the exact same mind set. Skeptics have a totally different culture: a liberating meritocracy of exciting and competing ideas. I love the freedom that that imparts, but I'm sure it's scary to someone who's used to just listening to an authority they trust tell them The Truth.

The real change (if your purpose on an atheist activism site is to effect change) can only come from a positive introduction to testing truth. Acceptance into this peer group through validation of reason would be a good start.

He didn't fail: he was looking to find a group of antagonistic and unfriendly "Atheists" to prove to himself that only distasteful people could ever doubt the truth of what his authorities told him. We failed. We couldn't show him the joy of being free of arbitrary rules and doctrine.

 

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


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

    This entire thread is a real treat. I AM glowing* with pride and hope. Geezzz I could give up drinking !

  and hey  HisWillness, thanks for hanging out ..... (smiley)

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

Hey RRS my smileys are broken ???? I want my smileys back. Moving thru pages is often broke too, in IE6. I got PC problems and can't Download Programs (firefox etc tll I fix ) PC completely crashes ??? Lots of IE users. I know you'er working on it .....

 


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
stuntgibbon wrote:How many

stuntgibbon wrote:
How many diseases have Christian apologetics cured?

Answer: as many as they want. They don't have to prove it.

Ba-dum-bum.

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
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:This

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:
This entire thread is a real treat. I AM glowing* with pride and hope. Geezzz I could give up drinking !

I should give up drinking. Did you read that post? It needs theme music.

What I meant to say is, "how can we be sneaky about telling believers they're deluded?" and ended up with a presidential campaign speech. But you have to admit, that last "hearts and minds" bit was pretty funny.

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
as i said before im not

as i said before im not answering each of you specifically, its too meticulous for the time i have alotted so here are my responses to the best of yours.

 

I'd like to clarify again why i came hear. i wanted apposing viewpoints for my paper. which is interesting since you all say i only read apologist works. this is the ammount of resistence i expected but not the quality. i am in NO way overwhelmed by any of this and the fact that i can't answer your questions doesn't surprise me either. you guys called me ignorant. well yeah. i havn't had the time yet to read every detail of everything entailed in my paper. that would be quite a bit of reading. I've read briefly, skimmed a bit, etc. im only in the beginning parts of my process. i didn't AT ALL expect my arguments to stump you guys, i didn't try to witness to anyone, and i didn't try to prove the atheists are meanies. iv been respectful of your beliefs. havn't attacked you guys at all, just the fact your proof is not proof. all this aside im very smart, just becasue im not an expert in every field doesn't mean i can't grasp it. i also have a great deal of common sense. which often, book smart people lack. evolution simply does not make sense to me. whether i belived in God or not, it does not make sense. i do understand how it works in theory, what doesn't make sense is how little there is to proove it. all the information you have giving me is rediculous. there are no transitional fossils. i don;t need a fifth link on transitrional fossils. you guys said i use biased apologist sources. your sources are from either this site or from atheist.com or something of the sort. everything you've accused me of goes both ways.

 

as for saying im just copying and pasting apologist resources and not thinking for myself is rediculous. you guys are just taking the scientists word that the fossils are real. have you researched them yourself? no, you've taken other atheists word for it. as i said, everything is going both ways.

 

i don't know why im even bringing this up but someone was trying to tell me that the bible says God gives us whatever we ask for.... onve again as i am ignorant of your beliefs, you are also ignorant of mine. the fact that most of you used to be Christians so you know both viewpoints is rediculous.

 

oh and HisWilness... my life would be much easier if i was an atheist. it would be nice to have no responibility, no one to hold you accountable, and no purpose but to serve myself. so don;t say i believe just so that i fit in with my social group. most my friends are not christian, id fit in much bettter if i wasn't a christian. the fact is that i am a Christian, theres no doubt in my mind of God's power. people say there is no evidence, i see it every day. I believe you have to be saved before you can see that evidence. which is why even though its so obvious to me, you don't see anything.

 

and finally, the whole hubris thing. what a joke, iv seen more hubris here than any other atheist site i've gone to. you guys said i was prideful and came with a closed mind. Ha, yours is no more open than mine.

- Jordan -