Are you saying you want to debate after all?  

caposkia wrote:

Are you saying you want to debate after all?  

Sure.

I'm game to restart our 1 on 1.

You game?

 

 

 

 I feel I've been answering you quite directly.  how have I been ignoring empirical evidence?  How about what I just presented?

 The sacrifice of a human being on a cross does not come into the scientific or historical view of Genesis because it is a myth with no true import. 

To follow the Genesis account there was no sun for the earth to be in orbit when it and plants were created. This simply shows that it was written and inspired by a human writer and not god. 

It seems that you are trying to justify the story which is false.

I am not requiring the earth to exist before the sun nor the plants on it.  To me that would be asinine.  We know nad have plenty of information about the origins of the solar system.  If were done that's fine. I just hate to see you believe such a silly idea to defend a belief about the bible.  That seems to me to be a form of idolatry...biblio-idolatry where ones idol or god is constructed purely from the text of a book in this case the bible.

What kind of question is that. Once you buy "God can do whatever he wants" you can twist your own brain to make the bible mean whatever you want it to mean.

There is NOTHING scientific about Genesis. Genesis is the most laughable part of the bible scientifically, not that the rest of it is any better. But even the "sacrifice" story of Jesus is absurd too.

Cap is merely desperate for a super hero. He knows that is really what is going on, he simply refuses to admit it.

IF Cap were brave enough to pretend for a second that the bible was suddenly dropped in front of him today, instead of being written in an unscientific age. If Cap were brave enough to swap reading page for page next to a copy of Harry Potter, if he were brave enough to do this, he would, or should see what we see, that the fantastic claims of each are indistinguishable.

When you read ANY HOLY BOOK of any religion it is clear that these books are tribal books of legend, and should be rightfully in the same category as Star Wars and Harry Potter.

Cap is merely letting his ego and emotions fool him into thinking his "experiences" were real, when all they were was his mind inserting a myth into something he merely wants to be true.

He knows this, but he is in denial because of the appeal of having a super hero save him.

TGBaker wrote:

 The sacrifice of a human being on a cross does not come into the scientific or historical view of Genesis because it is a myth with no true import. 

... or their happenings were possibly millions of years apart... I'm not sure if I get the link you're trying to make... other than the point that the Bible isn't supported period in your eyes.

TGBaker wrote:

To follow the Genesis account there was no sun for the earth to be in orbit when it and plants were created. This simply shows that it was written and inspired by a human writer and not god. 

It was written by a human and thus from a human perspective at the time... to go beyond a human perspective at the time would have been futile and the story would have been lost in the ages due to lack of purpose for the cultures at the time.

TGBaker wrote:

It seems that you are trying to justify the story which is false.

so... are you saying that I'm trying to justify a story that I believe is false, or are you trying to make an assumption that the story's false?

TGBaker wrote:

I am not requiring the earth to exist before the sun nor the plants on it.  To me that would be asinine.  We know nad have plenty of information about the origins of the solar system.  If were done that's fine. I just hate to see you believe such a silly idea to defend a belief about the bible.  That seems to me to be a form of idolatry...biblio-idolatry where ones idol or god is constructed purely from the text of a book in this case the bible.

I'm not going to quit on you as long as you can accept the fact that I'm not trying to justify anything falsely.   I'm on here to "challenge what I know"  by what i know I mean my understanding of truth.  I accept that I don't have all the answers and I could be wrong in many aspects of life.  I will look at evidences and reasoning when it is presented to me, but I will not buy into an assumption without a rational and logical reasoning.  You telling me that I'm trying to justify something false is not showing me why its false.  Keep in mind I believe it to be true.  You've been there.  If I refute your reasoning at all, it's because I am challenging what you know just like you're doing with me... this way if what you believe really is true, then we will hit it at every angle and make sure of it. 

The only problem with my approach is that if we stick on only one subject, we're never going to get anywhere.  We have to analyze each point and keep it in a bank when we move on.  This way, we can compile all the information after a point so that we can see what makes the most logical sense.  I have been doing this since I was a pre-teen.  this analytical approach is how I got to what I believe today.  It is just as likely in my history that research could have brought me to disbelief be it that I was basically there for a time.  I had opened my mind to any possibility and had no hold on any perspective.  In other words, I was a completely neutral entity.  To take a side, I needed evidences and reasoning and I looked at both.  Some of those evidences are first hand accounts.  they mean nothing to anyone trying to disprove my belief because they were my own experiences.  Yes there were witnesses, but they only work if you accept them as credible... be it that you don't know them and I'd label them as friends, I'm sure you'd assume they'd side with me.  

Some evidences came from the universal truths of science, some came from reasoning through statistical reference and evidences we know and agree on in sciences, history, archaeology, etc.  

I'm not here and I did not come onto this site to prove to you that what I know is true.  I came to dispute a terrible debate on both sides and challenge what I know.  You seem to be one that could very well challenge what I know, but you keep getting stuck in me trying to justify stuff.  You give me evidences, I will tear them apart, and after I tear them apart, if they still hold water, then these evidences will be acceptable.  some subjects don't have such absolute answers and we'd have to agree on reasoning.  Though that's hard when one side is holding onto an opposite belief of the other.  

I have agreed to be a neutral mind on the subject of God.  Yes, I have my beliefs, but I will look at it objectively.  I've had to do it for some years before and promised myself I would continue in my best efforts to keep my approach objective when it comes to new reasoning.  I will play the opposing role no matter what.  I debate with believers as well as non-believers.  I discuss with opposing denominations about their differing beliefs.  This is what I do.  I'm a believer of unity and compromise.  both sides would have to be willing to give up what they know in order to accept the possibility of anything being presented to them.   

redneF wrote:

caposkia wrote:

Are you saying you want to debate after all?  

Sure.

I'm game to restart our 1 on 1.

You game?

 

 

Ok.  No excuses, pick a topic, stick with it and we'll see what works and what doesn't.   Remember, sometimes it takes me a bit to reply.  I may have to research something, life soemtimes gets in the way... please be patient.  

And the coward Dennis Markuze ruins a decent thread.

Caposkia certainly knows how I feel about his claims. But boy, when nuts like this jump in, it almost makes me want to pray to a god just to make morons like this stop.

Cap, in all seriousness. I'd much rather deal with you, and despite how much you make me want to pull my hair out, you are most certainly sane compared to this rubber room Hilton candidate.

 

Brian37 wrote:

Caposkia certainly knows how I feel about his claims. But boy, when nuts like this jump in, it almost makes me want to pray to a god just to make morons like this stop.

Cap, in all seriousness. I'd much rather deal with you, and despite how much you make me want to pull my hair out, you are most certainly sane compared to this rubber room Hilton candidate.

 

there's always 1 in the crowd.  

caposkia wrote:

So I have officially pasted the post in question to the 1 on 1 debate between RedneF and I.  This is the official announcement that the debate is on.  Just waiting on RedneF at this point to post the comments he said he had on that post.  

I posted, and spent more of my time trying to clean up the quoting in a plain text editor, than I care to do ever again.

Bring your 'A' game, if you've got one, so we can put an end to whether or not you have any grounds to put into question how 'rational' athiests are, if you yourself are nothing more than a garden variety theist who's all show and no go...

I think ANYONE, of any label, claiming super natural invisible friends are making nutty claims. But there is a difference between holding one nutty claim, and being a stalker. Shit, I think I am nuts for still being a Redskins fan considering how bad they suck.

I like you Cap, mostly in that you haven't run away like a childish brat. But also for the fact that you don't equate our bluntness and blasphemy as being a personal attack on you. But make no mistake about it, as long as you claim an invisible friend, I will attack that claim. We could still hang out and have a beer and still like each other.

I can live with the fact that humans, even outside the issue of god/s, have always made claims that are absurd and that humans are capable of believing false things. I can live with that, but there are most certainly some in every bunch that need a room at the rubber room Hilton.

This guy has stalked PZ Myers and is as insane as "Letterman's wife". (David Letterman had a stalker who claimed to be his wife)

 

 

It's funny how all god/s seem to have a huge problem with lab coats and beakers and the peering eyes of scientists.

Scientist, "God, where are you?"

God, "I'm invisible, you cant see me".

Scientist, "Come on, blood sample, DNA, something?"

God, "Nanny nanny boo boo I can magically turn you into doo doo"

Scientist, " What, are you afraid someone will see your ass through the hospital gown?"

Scientist: Let me understand this. You are not physical but you claim to manifest yourself in the physical world in physical ways?

God: That is correct.

Scientist: Where have you done this?

God: All around.

Scientist: Where is the evidence that you did this instead of the natural processes we've observed?

God: I can't tell you where until you believe that I've done it.

------

There - fixed it for you cap.

God would probably say instead, "Does this question come from you? Or are you asking because others have told you." 

Cap, there you go again projecting your own lack of evidence on us.

I've been told lots of things. I've been told Allah exists. I've been told vishnu exists. But I don't buy a car simply because the salesman tells me it is blue. I check under the hood. You think you are a teacher of facts, when you are nothing but a salesman.

Biology is taught, religion is sold. Astronomy is taught. Deities are sold. You have been trying to sell us your deity for 3 years now. And you have as much chance in convincing the world of your pet god as they do trying to convince you of theirs. The better option is that humanity simply likes the idea of a fictional super hero so they make them up.

Now you damned well if another person claiming another god used your same arguments you would not buy that god.

We also have offered you, as well as any other person with their pet god claim an absolutely irrefutable way to prove the claims you make. But just like all the other pet deity claims, past and present, all you can do is sell, not prove. You are in good company, no Muslim, Jew or Hindu can do what you are failing to do either.

You know you cannot convince us with a universal method so you resort to selling which is not evidence of anything that people market and buy claims all the time. The ability to fall for false claims and the ability to sell false claims do not make the claims true. They don't for Muslims, Jews, Hindus or you either.

It is beyond me, after shedding god belief, especially in our modern age, how anyone can look an an old book and buy any of the stories in it.

Cap doesn't want to face the fact that that book has no credibility as far as reality. It is not a textbook and has no universal practical application to be used as such. It is a book of myth based on what the people wanted to believe at the time.

Cap is clinging to this, not because of anything that can be empirically proven, but because emotion and ego. Cap has to fool himself into thinking he is objective to continue his clandestine goal.

Humans have always made up deities/gods and falsely believed these fictional beings to be fact. Cap would love to think his pet god is special, but what is really going on is the mind trap he has allowed himself to fall for.

 

Brian37 wrote:

Anom wrote:

I hate to tell you but your badly misinformed if you think that she is a Christian. You seem to have poor knowledge of what a true Christian is. I read this book sometime back and she cites people who are clearly not Christian. People like Brian Mclaren who disbelieves many fundamental tenets of Christianity. i.e.) that Christianity is equal to other religions.

"I don’t believe making disciples must equal making adherents to the Christian religion. It may be advisable in many (not all!) circumstances to help people become followers of Jesus and remain within their Buddhist, Hindu or Jewish contexts"

"The book of Revelation does not actually teach that there will be a new heaven and a new earth, he wrote, but that a new way of living is possible within this universe if humans will follow Jesus' example."

People like Mclaren and Becky believe in a progressive post modern Christianity which all true Christians adamantly oppose.

Please do not equate people in the emergent church movement or prosperity gospels as true Christians because they are the farthest from the truth.

 

 

 

Who are you and how did you manage to hack your profile post stats below your avatar?

heh, so instead of questioning what they presented, you're more concerned about how they hacked below their avatar.  Do you even understand what they just represented?  I bet I already know your response.   Please shock this whole forum by writing something intelligent and not a repeat of something you've already said that brings no further ground for or against any belief.  

Brian37 wrote:

It is beyond me, after shedding god belief, especially in our modern age, how anyone can look an an old book and buy any of the stories in it.

yet we do that with history all the time

Brian37 wrote:

Cap doesn't want to face the fact that that book has no credibility as far as reality. It is not a textbook and has no universal practical application to be used as such. It is a book of myth based on what the people wanted to believe at the time.

I have tried to squeeze the reasoning out of you... but it just doesn't seem to exist.... so just as you can't accept anything less than something you can look at under a microscope, i can't just take your word on disbelief.  I need more.. be it that your unbelief is based on physical reasoning, I'm expecting rationally that you can present logical reasoning.  

Brian37 wrote:

Cap is clinging to this, not because of anything that can be empirically proven, but because emotion and ego. Cap has to fool himself into thinking he is objective to continue his clandestine goal.

despite the fact that I have told you many times that I don't believe in what i do because of emotion, you still think I do... so which one of us is clinging to their belief because of emotion and ego?  

Brian37 wrote:

Humans have always made up deities/gods and falsely believed these fictional beings to be fact. Cap would love to think his pet god is special, but what is really going on is the mind trap he has allowed himself to fall for.

 

Humans have made up many things beyond deities and gods and falsely believed in them... yet for some reason Brian buys into everything but the god myths.  I'm surprised he's not a Mormon or a Jehovah's witness.  Talk about car salesmen.  Brians buying.  Sell quickly.. unless you won't do the work for him, then forget it.  

I hate to tell you but your badly misinformed if you think that she is a Christian. You seem to have poor knowledge of what a true Christian is. I read this book sometime back and she cites people who are clearly not Christian. People like Brian Mclaren who disbelieves many fundamental tenets of Christianity. i.e.) that Christianity is equal to other religions.

"I don’t believe making disciples must equal making adherents to the Christian religion. It may be advisable in many (not all!) circumstances to help people become followers of Jesus and remain within their Buddhist, Hindu or Jewish contexts"

 

"The book of Revelation does not actually teach that there will be a new heaven and a new earth, he wrote, but that a new way of living is possible within this universe if humans will follow Jesus' example."

People like Mclaren and Becky believe in a progressive post modern Christianity which all true Christians adamantly oppose.

Please do not equate people in the emergent church movement or prosperity gospels as true Christians because they are the farthest from the truth.

Cap, your response here, right from the beginning, is more like:

Us : show us what you think is your best car:

You: ok, here is a very good one.

Us: ( kick the tires, and the wheels fall off) That's not very good, doesn't seem like it will work.

You: That's not fair, you haven't tried to drive it.

Us: But its broken.

You: (hastily gets wheels reattached, invites us to sit in the driver's seat, and start it up)

Us: hmm, ok. (engine starts, then seizes up, stalls) It isn't drivable.

You: You didn't say what kind of car you want. I have a lot of different kinds.

Us : How about one that works and is going to keep working?

You: That's not fair., there are other criteria for being a good car, not just your opinion of what's important. This one looks very nice, at least to me.

And so on....

IOW, how about some actual independent, verifiable evidence that doesn't require us to buy into the lame idea of a divine being in the first place to be make sense of it?