Atheism As A Valid Worldview

AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
Atheism As A Valid Worldview

I think we've allowed long enough the absurd idea that Atheism is a valid worldview; from its non sensical view of morality to its inability to make sense of knowledge, rationality, science, how did it ever get so deeply entrenched in our minds. Its destroys the very foundation of civilization. It's too harmful to allow any longer. We should call it out! Who's with me?

AtheismIsNonsense

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
Clayton Schwartz

Anonymouse wrote:

Faithbuster wrote:

Dude, it's been a month.  What's been accomplished here?  Have you gained any agreement with anyone here yet? 

I can appreciate your persistence in coming here to the lion's den trying to prove your point, but when I read your posts all it does is make me very, very glad to be able to wake up in the morning a free-thinking man. 

If you get a chance sometime, read some writings of a deceased friend of mine and tell me what you think.

http://claytonschwartz.blogspot.com/2008/11/final-words-upon-suicide-reflection-on.html

I would highly recommend this to anyone else here too, Clayton Schwartz had one of the most honest and unflinching views of reality of anyone I've known. 

 

 

I'm halfway through reading it. Powerful stuff. Thank you for the link.

 

Yes very emotion driven.

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:Yes

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Yes very emotion driven.

 

The emotion here being a strong desire for honesty and truth.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Life would have been so much

Life would have been so much more logical and rational for him if he kissed your god's magic fanny right AiN?

"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


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:You

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
You should know Kirby that unofficially, the books that we know as the New Testament were considered scripture even from the time immediately following the Apostolic period (the time of the Apostles). One can read the writings of the “Church fathers” and see the texts quoted throughout. I’m not sure of the exact date of when it was canonized, but they were eventually.

KSMB wrote:
I would just like to point out that this is a "DUH"-statement. Those people called the "Church fathers" are called "Church fathers" because they agree with what later would become the dominant theology. They quote texts which later generations of christians will come to consider as scripture (orthodox scripture, ofc). Thus, their writings were preserved. The writings of people the orthodox considered heretical were either destroyed or simply just not preserved/copied. Like the writings of Marcion or various gnostics. If the versions of christianity those people preached had won (gained more converts), you would consider them "Church fathers" and the writings of Ignatius, Polycarp and the like would have been lost instead.

Ok, carry on.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
KSMB, understand what I wrote (what you quoted of mine) was not about the preservation of early Christian writings, but about the canonization of the books of the New Testament.

When I read that, I got the impression that you consider the fact that the texts are quoted by the "Church fathers" lend some sort of authority to what eventually got canonized. I try to convey that such a notion would be backwards. The people who centuries later decide which books to include agree with the theology of these earlier "Church fathers", and that is why they are preserved in history as such. You appear to not get that. But if you simply meant that the "Church fathers" knew about the texts that would later be canonized, then I ofc agree, as that is a well known fact.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
In light of that, Are you suggesting that the Gnostics quoted the books of the New Testament? If anything they denied the books that would later be officially the New Testament Canon. Instead they claimed secret revelation from God only they new that no one else new about.

No, I am suggesting that they quoted books they considered scripture, like the Gospel of Thomas.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Marcion certainly did quote scripture, but only the text he arbitrarily deemed inspired; that agreed with his theology after removing all of the Old Testament and mutilated all but a few Pauline epistles. Yes, very credible and believable people they were.

See, this is why I got the impression I mentioned above. You use words like "arbitrarily" and "mutilated" and then some snide remark about a theologian you don't agree with. My point is that Marcion, gnostics and other groups no doubt thought the same way about the teachings of the "Church fathers".

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Also did you just slip in your opinion about early Christians destroying the "heretical writings" and try to pass this as truth. Just so you know some of the heretical writings were quoted when they were refuted in the Church Father writings.

Also why would you want to preserve/copy what you recognize as heretical writings anyhow?

Yeah, christians trying to destroy works of heretics, completely unheard of! I think "refuted" is a bit strong, as all they were doing was countering nonsense with more nonsense. But where are the responses by the opponents of the "Church fathers" to these so called refutations? Oh right, that side of the story was not preserved. It actually makes perfect sense they wouldn't want heretical writings to be around, and so they weren't preserved/copied. That also has the added benefit of making the "Church fathers" appear superior to their theological opponents, getting the last word and all.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
The point made was that although the canonization of New Testament occurred around 4th Century B.C. The "Church Fathers" who had direct connection with apostolic churches quoted the text of the books that would later officially become the New Testament; quoting them as inspired. Hence the unofficial recognition of the books of the New Testament as early as the apostolic period.

This is the "DUH" part. Of course they quote them as inspired! They agree with the theology!

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Polycarp, you mentioned, new the Apostle John and was taught by him.

Evidence? Or is this another one of those tradition-based claims?

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Read carefully next time before answering.

Pot, meet kettle.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
You're doing your people a disservice.

Please, spare me your fake concern, mister projection. Furthermore, I speak for myself, not for anyone else.


wkirby
Posts: 69
Joined: 2009-04-12
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Yes, I

butterbattle wrote:

Yes, I did want to continue the discussion with you, but wkirby appears to have taken the offer. I'll patiently wait for him to give up in disgust. At that point, I would appreciate it if you responded to post #51.

Sorry butterbattle, I thought both you and Bob were done. After AiN opened up the offer, there was quite a few days past so I jumped in.

Since you're happy to wait patiently and I'm happy to wait patiently I propose we throw it back to AiN, after all we're trying to pay him the courtesy of one at a time, we might as well let him choose who he wants to speak with first...

AtheismisNonsense (I hope you don't mind me calling you AiN) please respond to whichever post you'd like and we'll take that as being the discussion you want to have. I'd suggest you go back to butterbattle since, to be fair, he has been waiting quite a while. When you're ready to continue with me, just post the reply.

Why can't people accept that Atheism is by definition no faith? I don't believe in Atheism, I simply am Atheist.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
wkirby wrote:butterbattle

wkirby wrote:

butterbattle wrote:

Yes, I did want to continue the discussion with you, but wkirby appears to have taken the offer. I'll patiently wait for him to give up in disgust. At that point, I would appreciate it if you responded to post #51.

Sorry butterbattle, I thought both you and Bob were done. After AiN opened up the offer, there was quite a few days past so I jumped in.

Since you're happy to wait patiently and I'm happy to wait patiently I propose we throw it back to AiN, after all we're trying to pay him the courtesy of one at a time, we might as well let him choose who he wants to speak with first...

AtheismisNonsense (I hope you don't mind me calling you AiN) please respond to whichever post you'd like and we'll take that as being the discussion you want to have. I'd suggest you go back to butterbattle since, to be fair, he has been waiting quite a while. When you're ready to continue with me, just post the reply.

Well, to be honest, I'm not entirely certain that I even want to debate AiN, considering what he's written so far. I can only hope, that once we begin to discuss these topics, he will actually consider my perspective instead of simply calling my explanations absurd using arguments from ignorance and touting the infallibility of his worldview.   

 

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


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
REPLY TO #148 & REPEAT One opponent at a time please

If it's OK with you all I would like to engage in dialog with one of you at a time until one of us says no longer wants to interact with the other. All of you seem to be arguing on the same side, but I'm only one person. I cannot respond to you all, but I want to. If you all can agree to restrain yourselves until the active opponent steps aside, I think we can have an interesting dialog. If anyone who is not the active responder posts, I will not respond to your comments unless it's to notify of changes or updates. I would like begin with HisWillness. Please wait for my post if your comment is aimed at me; otherwise continue to talk amongst yourselves.

____________________________________________________

 

wkirby wrote:
I call shinanigans! You've just gone and changed the rules. You told me that the only infallible human was Jesus and all men are fallible. Now you are telling me that some men are infallible because God speaks through them. In particular those men that determine what we should believe about God. According to these rules, God is also guiding my hand and mine does not promote the same beliefs. How can you or any falible human determine who has God speak through them and who does not?

 

(1) If someone makes a statement that man is fallible, does it mean that man is fallible always all the time? Come now, let be reasonable. After all you agreed also that man is fallible, does it mean that you are wrong in everything you claim even in our discussion?

(2) I would hope from the context of our discussion that you would understand that Jesus is excluded from this universal truth; the fact that he is not just any man but the God-Man.

(3) God is ultimately in control of all things so that yes, even you Kirby cannot do anything that is contrary to the ultimate direction of God’s providence, but you are fallen remember, you do nothing but sin and curse God in your heart. If you remain in unbelief, God has no obligation to you to turn you from your sinful ways (intellectually or behaviorally) and you can blame God for your condition but remember you refuse to acknowledge him in the least bit.

(4) Fallible Christians do not dictate to God whether he is a channel for His word or not, so you err in the forming of this question.

wkirgby wrote:
In order to do this, he MUST have used personal judgement. At this point there is the potential for a mistake or God was speaking through him? If there is the potential for a mistake, you cannot say that his teachings are beyond doubt, if it's the latter by what authority do you choose not to believe him blindly?

(1) We have the Holy Spirit dwelling in us; this doesn’t mean that we become infallible in our thinking, it means God has a stake in us and will see us to salvation.

(2) We are made in God’s image: we possess rational minds, self-awareness, and an ethical disposition. When converted we are “renewed” in our mind and no longer walk according to the thinking of fallen humankind. We begin to presuppose God in our thinking (unfortunately slowly for many believers) so that our thinking, decisions, and ultimately our behaviors are affected (including our understanding of His word). Also if you read the writings of scripture it’s not hard to understand even as an unbeliever (all you need is simple reading comprehension); the opponents of Jesus knew what he was saying, for that reason they wanted to kill him because they refused to believe it. If you’re hostile toward a particular ideology, philosophy, or what have you, you tend to purposefully misunderstand it, that’s fallen man’s typical thinking pattern.

(3) Christians use their judgment (remember we are responsible for what we believe and how we handle God’s word). Reformed Christians agree that Calvin’s teachings are a good representation of what the Scripture teaches. By what authority do we choose not to believe John Calvin blindly? Uh…God.

(4) As for the creeds of the Church, we have God providentially caring for us, so we don't worry. We trust that as long we are faithful and sincerely desire true knowledge through His Word, God will not lead us astray.

wkirby wrote:
Either way, you have admitted your beliefs are not the absolute truth.

Again I’ve answered your objections and rendered them irrelevant and thus your conclusion also.

wkirby wrote:
I'm not a liguist but I know that rarely can one language translate directly to another. Often one language doesn't have a word to describe something from another language so an approximation has to be made. The translations must also have been carried out by man and therefore yet another point where the true word of God can be distorted or manipulated, therefore leading the potential for the true meaning to be lost.

I’ve already told you about God’s providence (and also it’s His word we’re talking about; it's high priority on His "list&quotEye-wink, and you will read in history how the Jews were very devout and meticulous in their copying of the sacred writings. In the New Testament, you have room for error because of the way they may have been copied (in a room full of scribes, writing as someone dictates the text) but the amazing things is we don’t destroy our manuscripts even the ones with variants (a word here or there, articles, prepositions) and not only that it’s amazing that the mistakes do not alter the meaning of the doctrines. The manuscripts are out there for examination. One only has to pickup an old manuscript and compare it to one produced a thousand years later and see no essential content difference. Christians are often strengthened in their faith in regards to this fact.

As for words, just because you don’t have an exact single word, doesn’t mean you don’t have a group of words that can convey the same meaning.

wkirby wrote:
I do not read or understand Hebrew or Greek. I do understand a little Japanese though. In Japanese the word "desu" can mean "it is", "they are" or "I am" depending on the context. In fact, because Japanese cannot be translated directly to English, sometimes it can mean any of these simultaneously.

Keyword = Context

Also groups of words (even in varying tenses) can be added together to convey the same meaning.

wkirby wrote:
If a similar situation occurs between Hebrew, Greek and English, the only way to truly understand Jesus' messages or those of the various disciples and prophets is to recite and teach them in the language they were written. Any other method by necessity is a distortion. Lawyers and psychologists spend their days interpreting and reinterpreting a language they have learned since birth, imagine what they'd do across languages!

Good thing about people in the ancient world and even much later, the learned were very learned, speaking multiply languages very well, etc. Even experts in the Greek and Hebrew today (I mean on a professional level), whether Christian or not recognize the uniformity and consistency of the transmission of the Scriptures throughout history. I already mentioned how we can communicate the meaning even if it takes a complete phrase to capture the nuance of the original word’s meaning.

I think you exaggerate your point to the point of nonsense. We’re not talking about a food or object that was indigenous to Israel or ancient Rome that cannot be found anywhere else in the entire world. Even then if you know what the food, animal, or object is, you can describe it and compare it to something your language group can relate to.

wkirby wrote:
Reminds me of a joke: 2 shrinks walk past each other in a park, the second one nods to the first, smiles and says "Good Morning". As they walk away, the first one thinks, "I wonder what he meant by that..."

That is funny, considering that I view the profession of psychology a hack. Unless the psychologist is one that presupposes the Bible and provides solutions according to God’s word. After all who would understand the mind and heart of man more than his creator?

wkirby wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Kirby, the Apostle Peter charged us to always be ready to give an answer to anyone who asks us a REASON for the hope ...the Christian worldview is the ONLY rational and non self-contradictory system out there... Don’t worry I’m not going to not prove how Christianity is logical and internally coherent.

Whoa hang on! This is exactly what you said you were going to do! Do I have to call shinanigans again?!

Huh, what part of “Don’t worry I’m not going to not prove how Christianity is logical and internally coherent” don’t you understand?

Read it carefully Kirby (the double negative is used therefore I am going to prove).

Shinanigans shinanigans!!!

wkirby wrote:
As well it should be, most of legitimate criticisms from scientists. If scientists didn't question we couldn't have this conversation at all for lack of internet, computers, electricity or even the discovery of what was formerly called "The New World".

Let me clarify what I meant. It’s filled with inconsistencies and “magic” so that it will be included with all the other theories that are irrelevant. 

wkirby wrote:
No objection or criticism from me, as far as I'm concerned he was right on the money (no pun intended!) with this. I use this passage only to highlight the disconnect between the teachings of Jesus and the decision by mankind to ignore them. People of faith tend to follow some teachings to the letter and ignore others thereby either presuming they know better than Jesus or being hypocrites. Which category do you fall into?

Are you saying it’s a legitimate argument to judge a system (whether it be Christianity, Atheism, or what have you) on the ignorance or faithlessness of its professors? So that when an atheist lies, cheats, steals, rapes, or murders, etc I can fault the atheism that they profess to?

Can you find anywhere in the Bible where it says PRACTICING liers, cheats, thieves, murderers, disobedient, or homosexuals, etc will enter the kingdom of heaven?

wkirby wrote:
I do not think Luke claims him to be anything but 'teacher' I refer to specifically the word of Jesus - "And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone." there is no way to interpret this as anything other than Jesus denying he is God - unless of course you are construing Jesus' quote to mean he is the one presuming Luke is calling him God.

I'm disappointed in you Kirby (Fair-minded I don't think so), I accused you of purposely taking passages/verses out of context and still you continue to do this. And because Jesus doesn't say "I am not God", you are drawing all of your personal bias into interpreting this isolated passage to mean that. Here's the proof text that Luke the author claims he is God and implies throught the book. (note: this is anywhere from being an exhaused list of passages found in Luke)

Lk 1:35, - And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Lk 3 - too much writing - John the Baptists fulfills prophesy found in Isaiah 40:3, Malachi 3:1, 4:5-6 preparing the way for Jehovah. Who does John the Baptist prepare the way for? Jesus. Jesus=Jehovah.

Lk 4:34, 36 - Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art; the Holy One of God...And they were all amazed, and spake among themselves, saying, What a word is this! for with authority and power he commandeth the unclean spirits, and they come out.

Lk 5:20-25 - And when he saw their faith, he said unto him, Man, thy sins are forgiven thee. And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, Who is this which speaketh blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone? But when Jesus perceived their thoughts, he answering said unto them, What reason ye in your hearts? Whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Rise up and walk? But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power upon earth to forgive sins, (he said unto the sick of the palsy,) I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy couch, and go into thine house. And immediately he rose up before them, and took up that whereon he lay, and departed to his own house, glorifying God.

Lk 6:46-49 - Jesus speaks with the authority that is only accounted to God; in this passage the words commanded are His, not directly or even indirectly ascribed to God in the third person but again are His own.

I could go on and on, but I'll skip to the parts after chapter 18 :27

Lk. 19:10 - He is the Son of Man and the Son of Man saves. There's no mistaken he's referring to salvation from Hell, yet it's He who saves. Something only God can do.

Again throughout Jesus teaches with authority as only God can. Throughout He calls God, Father, not in the way a Christian would but as one "begotten".

Lk 24:46-53 - His name is to be preached; HIS NAME. He is worshipped; WORSHIPPED.

I almost regret discussing this with you because of your blatant ignorance.

wkirby wrote:
That doesn't make sense because you go on to say Jesus is calling him out for not calling him God. Jesus did NOT deify himself, man did long after he was nailed to the cross.

There is of course one other explanation - you're calling Jesus a liar.

I answered this immediately above. And yes, His words and actions deified him. It’s you and people like you who make Jesus a liar Kirby. Read the entire book before you make your judgments based on ignorance.

And I need to point out that you try to pass your opinion about man deifying him after His death as truth and that is unlike a fair-minded person.

wkirby wrote:
The New Testament is litter with Jesus' apparent distaste of material possessions. To deny that is self serving and ignores Jesus' teaching.

Show me the passages/provide the proof. You are so blatantly ignorant, you are far from being fair minded.

I’ll provide the same answer I gave you previously until then.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
wkirby wrote:
In these two passages, Jesus makes quite a point of denouncing capitalism and personal wealth. As a philosophy, this is known as Communism (before you get excited, I did not say Marxism). If you believe that only Jesus (being God, despite saying himself that he is not) has philosophy right, I can only presume you and your church are Communists. Correct?

That’s what’s so funny about non believers interpreting scripture; they purposely isolate a passage, ignore the surrounding text and even the rest of the book and come up with these superficial interpretations. He wasn’t denouncing capitalism and personal wealth. One must be willing to denounce wealth if God requires it. Why is it hard for a wealthy man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven? Because, when men have wealth and health, what reason would he feel to need God and religion? Jesus tells His disciples, that they must be willing to leave everything for Him; their love for Him must be greater than their love for wealth, family, or self.

Before Constantine became emperor of Rome, throughout history, and even today, Christians have been and are threatened by the immorality of the world and its governments; threatened to denounce their allegiance to their God or else risk either losing their wealth, family, and/or life. That’s why there have been martyrs throughout history due to this kind of persecution.

Therefore not correct.

wkirby wrote:
I have every intention of answering any of your questions to the best of my ability. I should point out though that I do not know all of the answers. If you perceive that I am dodging an answer I'd appreciate it if you call me out for it. I will pay you the same courtesy.

Your word.

wkirby wrote:
I beg to differ. I have pointed out that there are a number of points between the events recalled in the Bible to the present day where things could have been misinterpreted. A very large game of Chinese whispers if you like. The fact that you choose to ignore that (or as with our resonse above change the rules) doesn't mean the contradictions aren't there. And don't try to change the subject by deflecting onto my position.

It must have passed me in my dream. Let me get this straight, you bring your Atheistic assumptions into your arguments against the Christian worldview (like men are infallible and there can be no supernatural help) and you call this pointing out a number of inconsistencies within my worldview? I think you're deviating from what we'll suppose to be doing here Kirby.

I will show that Atheism (or if you prefer materialism) hangs itself by its own presuppositions. Let's see if you can do the same for Christianity, show that it contradicts itself. By the way you haven't yet. Do better than argue over literary interpretation also.

wkirby wrote:
I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your point of "IMPERSONAL MATTER & ENERGY (NOTHING ELSE) subject to immutable laws and result in rationality and ethics". I thought you were trying to make a connection between a lack of faith and a system of rationality and ethics. From your previous posts you seem to be working under the assumption that Atheists have no ethic or morals - and if they do they are questionable. I used this example to point out that rationality and ethics do not require a God.

It should however be noted that your example does not point out that rationality and ethics do not require a God.

You argument still sounds exactly like this:

Humans are rational and some semblance is found among animals; therefore atheism is true.

That still hasn’t changed.

wkirby wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
 All you have are molecules in motion...

Careful, that's something an Atheist would say...

exactly and I'll use it to hang atheism. Remember that’s what we’re suppose to be proving whether materialist atheism or Christian theism can stand under its own assumptions.

wkirby wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
You still haven’t answered how IMPERSONAL MATTER & ENERGY + IMMUTABLE LAWS = The ability to argue (which requires choice – not illusory choice) and ultimately can result in the invention of the transistor, super computers, and the iPhone G3.

 I am going to rephrase the wording a little just to make sure we're talking about the same thing because I'm want to sure exactly what your equation is:

IMPERSONAL MATTER & ENERGY (life) + IMMUTABLE LAWS (laws that cannot change) = The ability to argue and ultimately can result...

Kirby, you have not gotten into the game yet, let me explain it further. Your answers are question begging (given your worldviews huge emphasis on the physical and empirical verification and so forth). I'll provide you a parallel:

Suppose I give you flour and a powered oven and nothing else and tell you to make me some brownies, you’ll say to me that it’s impossibly given the operands, to which I’ll reply you’re absolutely right.

Now what I’m asking you is take IMPERSONAL matter & energy + IMMUTABLE laws and give me the laws of logic, morals, science.

Now the most obvious objection is if man is comprised solely of matter & energy that always behaves uniformly, wouldn’t it follow that if another man (#2) interacts with him (#1), (#1) will only respond according to the matter & energy he’s comprised of? So that in the end thoughts are nothing more than electrical impulses in the brain operating according to how the matter it’s comprised of will operate (i.e. it’s automatic and solely responsive) . I think that’s why materialist/physicalist atheists like HisWillness would conclude that free will/choice is illusory. I applaud him for being consistent in this respect.

Do you agree with this view? That human choice is illusory?

I will not go any further until you answer this question and please fill free to add more than a simple yes or no, but stay as close as you can to what’s asked of you. Please don’t respond with only what you observe humans doing or what animals do as your proof or evidence. Now if you have some news of some experiment where inorganic matter is somehow manipulated to form even a single cell organism, then I’ll accept that as evidence and proof.

Without such evidence (given your worldviews huge emphasis on empirical verification to believe anything to be true), I’m afraid you’d just be making giant leaps of faith with respect to the theory of evolution.

wkirby wrote:
If that interpretation of the question is correct it is one that should be posed to you, as a Christian. You are the one governed by a set of immutable rules written thousands of years ago then interpreted and put together in the Bible about 1600 years ago. However since you've asked me to answer it from an Atheist perspective,  clearly the answer is - it's not possible.

I will say it again so you know that wasn't a mistake - it's not possible.

I didn’t ask you to answer my worldview from an atheistic point of view but to find inconsistencies between its own presuppositions and/or find inconsistencies between them and with what we observe in the world. I gave you an example of the Hindu who should starve himself and die from it, according to his worldview, but in reality we don’t see newly converted Hindus starving themselves and dieing because hunger is a real thing and not as he presupposes it to be; that is “maya” or illusion, i.e. he can't live according to his own worldview.

Now I’ve asked you a question in the previous section and I hope you’re brave enough to give me an answer, and remember I’m looking for consistencies or the lack thereof.

I hope now you know what we’re suppose to do.

wkirby wrote:
In order for me to answer this more sensibly, I have to presume that you agree that humans, like some other species on the planet have the ability to learn. Since we have the ability to learn and (again presuming) you are referring to "life" as humans, the laws that we live by are NOT immutable. As a species we have learned from the mistakes and success' of our peers over millions of years. Even if you will not concede the point that as a species we have been evolving for millions of years, a few thousand years is a very long time for us to evaluate and re-evaluate what we think we know. Therefore any conclusion you wish to derive from the answer is irrelevant. To that end, I'd appreciate it if you could ask me to explain what your supposition is rather than use a nonsensical question to draw a conclusion about Atheism from. Atheism isn't a set of immutable laws. Science isn't a set of immutable laws. Life isn't a set of immutable laws and whether you'd like to admit it or not, neither is religious doctrine.

I will not respond to this because I don’t think you understood what I proposed, besides this doesn’t explain how impersonal matter & energy subject to the laws of chemistry and physics results in “social” or “societal” law. You’ve yet to answer that question. Please do.

wkirby wrote:
No I don't agree that logic is a physical entity but I do agree that logic is a thought process produced by the brain. And I most certainly don't agree that man is the only brain capable of logic thought.

Hopefully you’ll explain how matter & energy in any configuration subject to its inherent properties or character (the laws of physics and chemistry) can result in choosing point(s) made in an argument. Because my objection will be just as weeds grow, so the mind of man does whatever it does according to the “laws” of chemistry and physics.

wkirby wrote:
So I am affirming that logic is derived from the brain of any animal that has the capacity to think. One species logic may differ from anothers, indeed my logic clearly differs from yours (we are both human correct?) and we are the same species.

Are you saying that “logic” is a process in the brain of man that depends on the brain’s physical composition?

wkirby wrote:
Even if you wanted to argue that his interest in genetics was evil that has no bearing on those geneticists around the world using stem cell research to rid the human race of such horrors as spinabifida, cancer or paralysis… You need to concede this point. Hitler was evil. The End.

Just to clarify, I’m only pointing out that when there is no obligatory authority in the universe as seen in a non supernatural atheistic universe, might does make right and morality thus becomes relative, i.e. nothing is universally wrong or right. 

wkirby wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
If you ask how non-believers know things without actively presupposing the God of the Bible...

This whole argument is based on the foundation "all men know God". For me, I dare say any Atheist, this is false. You also assert that you must believe to understand. I disagree with this as well…

 

No mention of requiring belief here.

Without these two points, that whole argument falls apart.

Great, we’ve reestablished that fact. You and I disagree. Again Kirby, what I provided you was a part of the Christian’s epistemology. To state what it is and not as an act of proof. I hope you can tell me what your worldviews theory of knowledge is.

Again another part of the Christian’s epistemology is that God’s knowledge is primary. Man’s is a reflective reconstruction of God’s knowledge. Because He knows all things and reveals knowledge to us through the natural order (providentially), ourselves (being made in the image of God – possessing rationality, self-awareness, and ethics), supernaturally (as He did before the fall and after the fall – prophetic word: spoken and written). Because of this we can know things for certain even though we are finite.

Again I hope to hear your worldviews epistemology. It can tell me what you believe regarding how truth is obtained, whether it can be known at all, etc. I’ve heard the phrase before “no one can know for sure” and even from someone in this thread that any truth is at best a probability.

wkirby wrote:
I should also point out that this argument also requires you to accept that an 'unbeliever' must have a belief system of some kind. As the bottom of my post says, I don't believe in Atheism. I don't even accept that it is possible to 'believe in Atheism' because I can't see how Atheism is something to believe in! Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a God(s) or religious system.

Kirby, Kirby. Hopefully I’m right to say that you’re an atheist for a good reason.

Whether it’s your belief in the theory of evolution or what have you.

But because you believe the theory of evolution for example and you’re an atheist based on that belief, I would think it’s OK to say that you believe in atheism.

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


wkirby
Posts: 69
Joined: 2009-04-12
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

 (1) If someone makes a statement that man is fallible, does it mean that man is fallible always all the time? Come now, let be reasonable. After all you agreed also that man is fallible, does it mean that you are wrong in everything you claim even in our discussion?

No it does not mean man is fallible all the time, it does mean that there is at least the possibility that those men at The Council of Chalcedon (or in fact the 3 preceeding it) got at least part of the teachings you espouse as being absolute truth wrong.

As to whether I am wrong about everything here, that may be so but I'm not the one claiming absolute truth. I'll admit that I have used the 'delete' button a number of time, this alone proves I have gotten at least some of it wrong. If I am open to the idea of being wrong about some things, are you?

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

(2) I would hope from the context of our discussion that you would understand that Jesus is excluded from this universal truth; the fact that he is not just any man but the God-Man.

In the context of this discussion I understand that you believe this to be true, I am working on the premise that we established that as one of the foundations of this exchange. I am not disputing this point with you. I am disputing that your man-made interpretation of what Jesus' message was is potentially flawed.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

(3) God is ultimately in control of all things so that yes, even you Kirby cannot do anything that is contrary to the ultimate direction of God’s providence...

On this point you are unequivocally wrong. I do NOT curse God in my heart, I do NOT blame God for any element of my life. I do not accept that a God or Gods exist! I ask you to please not make such assumptions about me.

(4) Fallible Christians do not dictate to God whether he is a channel for His word or not, so you err in the forming of this question.

wkirgby wrote:
In order to do this, he MUST have used personal judgement. At this point there is the potential for a mistake or God was speaking through him? If there is the potential for a mistake, you cannot say that his teachings are beyond doubt, if it's the latter by what authority do you choose not to believe him blindly?

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

We have the Holy Spirit dwelling in us; this doesn’t mean that we become infallible in our thinking, it means God has a stake in us and will see us to salvation.

This is at odds with your assertion “Because history is ultimately in His control, the scriptures can be anything He wants them to be, including infallible whether or not through the instrumentality of human hands.”

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
(2) We are made in God’s image: we possess rational minds, self-awareness, and an ethical disposition…

I will ask you to point that judgemental finger back for a minute and consider this point

“If you’re hostile toward a particular ideology, philosophy, or what have you, you tend to purposefully misunderstand it, that’s fallen man’s typical thinking pattern.” - doesn’t that describe exactly your position on every other religion except Reform Christians?

How can you not see the hypocrisy in that?

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Christians use their judgment (remember we are responsible for what we believe and how we handle God’s word). Reformed Christians agree that Calvin’s teachings are a good representation of what the Scripture teaches. By what authority do we choose not to believe John Calvin blindly? Uh…God.

Don’t back down now - you don’t think it’s a “good representation” you think it is the only representation that is devoid of inconsistencies and contradictions

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

(4) As for the creeds of the Church, we have God providentially caring for us, so we don't worry. We trust that as long we are faithful and sincerely desire true knowledge through His Word, God will not lead us astray.

Good luck with that.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
I’ve already told you about God’s providence

In respect to not altering etc. should we also believe completely in the works of Homer? They too are as relevant today as when they were written.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Keyword = Context

You forgot tone of voice and body language both just as important in effective communication and sadly something we can never correctly determine in the case of the Bible.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Good thing about people in the ancient world and even much later, the learned were very learned, speaking multiply languages very well, etc.

So by extension you believe implicitly that these fallible human got it right too… I exaggerate the point purely to demonstrate that the door is wide open for misinterpretation thought the history of Christianity. The moral values and interpretations of  the Bible have repeatedly been changed throughout history. Consider the Crusades or the Spanish Inquisition. These people didn’t engage in a murderous rampage because they were bored one afternoon, they believed with all their hearts that it was the will of God. The Christian God. These are the potentials of getting Jesus’ message wrong.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
That is funny, considering that I view the profession of psychology a hack. ..

Quite possibly the only thing we will actually agree completely on!

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Huh, what part of “Don’t worry I’m not going to not prove how Christianity is logical and internally coherent” don’t you understand?

Read it carefully Kirby (the double negative is used therefore I am going to prove).

Shinanigans shinanigans!!!

I’ll wear that, I thought it was a typo, in was in fact very poor use of English. Consider me shinaniganed.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Let me clarify what I meant. It’s filled with inconsistencies and “magic” so that it will be included with all the other theories that are irrelevant.

I disagree it’s filled with “magic” but I agree that it is not a complete answer. I doubt you would find an expert on the subject claim that the answer is complete and I’m far from an expert on the theory of evolution.

wkirby wrote:
No objection or criticism from me, as far as I'm concerned he was right on the money (no pun intended!) with this. I use this passage only to highlight the disconnect between the teachings of Jesus and the decision by mankind to ignore them. People of faith tend to follow some teachings to the letter and ignore others thereby either presuming they know better than Jesus or being hypocrites. Which category do you fall into?

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Are you saying it’s a legitimate argument to judge a system (whether it be Christianity, Atheism, or what have you) on the ignorance or faithlessness of its professors? So that when an atheist lies, cheats, steals, rapes, or murders, etc I can fault the atheism that they profess to?

Why are you trying to twist my words to suit your beliefs? How about this, you can fault Atheism when an atheist lies, cheats, steals, rapes, or murders as long as I can fault Christianity when a Christian lies, cheats, steals, rapes, or murders.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Can you find anywhere in the Bible where it says PRACTICING liers, cheats, thieves, murderers, disobedient, or homosexuals, etc will enter the kingdom of heaven?

Relevance? And where does it say that they don’t? Stupid argument and not even remotely relevent.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
I'm disappointed in you Kirby (Fair-minded I don't think so)…
I can’t imagine that your disappointment to be greater than mine. In not one of those quotes does Jesus claim to be a deity.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
I almost regret discussing this with you because of your blatant ignorance.

You should not regret anything in your life, consider it a learning experience. For example, I have learned that you have no intention of listening to or conceding any point made by me.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
. And yes, His words and actions deified him... It’s you and people like you who make Jesus a liar Kirby. Read the entire book before you make your judgments based on ignorance.

 

I am not trying to make Jesus a liar, I am trying to point out that it is man that (intentionally or not) choose when to adhere to or ignore his teachings to suit their own limited understanding of what he intended on saying. For me to make him out to be a liar would require me to presume a) His words were recounted faithfully and b) that they have been passed down through the ages without distortion and NEITHER of these things can be shown to be true.

Again, you insist on trying to distort my words.

Until you can show a passage where Jesus himself makes the claim of being God I have no choice but to conclude that it was man that deified him. Until now, the only quote presented where Jesus makes comment in relation to this indicate he denies this is the case. I don’t mean to labour the point, it’s not my intention to pass judgement nor is it my intention to take anything out of context. Show me any passage at all where Jesus claims to be God and I will wholeheartedly concede that it is correct to presume that Jesus thought himself to be God and unreservedly revoke any claim to the contrary. In your words:

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Show me the passages/provide the proof. You are so blatantly ignorant, you are far from being fair minded.

I’ll provide the same answer I gave you previously until then.

wkirby wrote:
The New Testament is litter with Jesus' apparent distaste of material possessions. To deny that is self serving and ignores Jesus' teaching.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Show me the passages/provide the proof. You are so blatantly ignorant, you are far from being fair minded.

I’ll provide the same answer I gave you previously until then.

To that end for Jesus’ opinions on personal wealth: Matthew 19:21-22, 21:12 Luke 7:41-43 , other references not directly attributed to Jesus: Ecclesiates 2:26, 4:8, 5:8-2010, 7:12, Timothy 6:4-11 Hebrews 13:5

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
It must have passed me in my dream…

I cannot approach this discussion from any other point of view than my Atheistic one however I have tried very hard to only argue according to your rules and definitions, you yourself established “only God is infallible, all man is fallible”. You entered the discussion with the assertion “I will prove that only the Christian worldview, in fact specifically Protestant Reformer teachings of John Calvin are the only view that are the ONLY rational and non self-contradictory system. All I am doing is giving you the opportunity to prove that to me. I will show that Atheism (or if you prefer materialism) hangs itself by its own presuppositions. Let's see if you can do the same for Christianity, show that it contradicts itself. By the way you haven't yet. Do better than argue over literary interpretation also.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
You argument still sounds exactly like this:

Humans are rational and some semblance is found among animals; therefore atheism is true.

That is not my argument, my argument is that God is not required for rationality and ethics to exist. To establish “therefore” from this is like saying “Catholic priests sexually assault alter boys: therefore Pedophile's must be Priests.” That is of course nonsense.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Do you agree with this view? That human choice is illusory?

 

Completely. I think we are given the illusion of choice. If you ever get the time or inclination, read “The Lucifer Principle” by Howard Bloom. His views on human choice and in line with mine. Alternatively, read up a bit on network science.

I cannot give you the evidence you seek, however as luck would have it I offer you this http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8036396.stm and http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2008/s2563065.htm

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

 

Without such evidence (given your worldviews huge emphasis on empirical verification to believe anything to be true)

Rather than ‘believing anything to be true’ I believe that certain theories (such as evolution) are possible. I’d even go so far as to say probable.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
... impersonal matter & energy subject to the laws of chemistry and physics results in “social” or “societal” law. You’ve yet to answer that question. Please do.

 

This is a better description of what the question really is, please don’t get upset or impatient with me if I do not answer your question because I don’t understand what it is you’re asking. I started out by saying that i wasn’t sure what you meant by the question

 

From joining the dots between this conclusion and the beginning of the explanation I now think you are asking me to provide for you evidence of the initial spark of life. This I cannot answer for you, I am not a Biologist, nor a Chemist, nor a Physicist. If you genuinely want to learn the answer to that question I must refer you onto one of those.

I am no more qualified to answer that than you are qualified to explain to me the Greek Gods of Olympus.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Hopefully you’ll explain how matter & energy in any configuration…

I honestly don’t know how to respond to this. What you wrote might as well have been random words on the page because I have no comprehension of why they are there or what they mean.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Are you saying that “logic” is a process in the brain of man that depends on the brain’s physical composition?

No once again you are trying to construe my words to fit your conclusions. I am affirming that logic is derived from the brain of any animal that has the capacity to think.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Just to clarify, I’m only pointing out that when there is no obligatory authority in the universe as seen in a non supernatural atheistic universe, might does make right and morality thus becomes relative, i.e. nothing is universally wrong or right.

And you are using false accusations to attempt to prove it. If you want to point this out, go right ahead but Hitler isn’t your guy. It is no more correct for you to make that connection than it would be for me to say “The Ku Klux Klan were Christians, what’s more there was quite a few of them, not just a single man: therefore the logical conclusion of this is all Christians believe is it good to beat, hang or even burn black people to death.” How’s that for morals derived from your obligatory authority in the Universe.

For the record, I am not accusing you of these things or in fact all Christians - I’ll leave those kind of ridiculous claims to you

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Great, we’ve reestablished that fact...

I believe in the opening song of “The Lion King” is probably correct, at least for my lifetime :

“there is far to much to take in,

more to find than can ever be found…”

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Kirby, Kirby. Hopefully I’m right to say that you’re an atheist for a good reason.

It may not classify as a good reason for you but it is a good reason for me. I believe evolution is incredibly more likely to be possible than creationism. I believe the moral values of the Bible have some merit, as do the moral values of Buddhists, Socialists, Anarchists, Sikhs, Jews, Muslims and Benobo monkeys. Though not necessarily in that order.

I believe physics is a wonderful explanation for the mechanics of the universe, chemistry is fantastic for understanding how element can combine to better (or worsen) our lives and biology has changed the human condition. I love the fact that I can grab an analgesic from my medicine cabinet when I have a headache!

Most fundamentally I believe that religion fills the gaps that science can’t yet.

Why can't people accept that Atheism is by definition no faith? I don't believe in Atheism, I simply am Atheist.


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
REPLY TO #158 PART 1 & REPEAT One opponent at a time please

If it's OK with you all I would like to engage in dialog with one of you at a time until one of us says no longer wants to interact with the other. All of you seem to be arguing on the same side, but I'm only one person. I cannot respond to you all, but I want to. If you all can agree to restrain yourselves until the active opponent steps aside, I think we can have an interesting dialog. If anyone who is not the active responder posts, I will not respond to your comments unless it's to notify of changes or updates. I would like begin with HisWillness. Please wait for my post if your comment is aimed at me; otherwise continue to talk amongst yourselves.

____________________________________________________

It’s very difficult to keep up with your flip flopping; providing answers to questions not asked and in the process not answering the questions asked or giving responses that have almost nothing to do with the quote you’re responding to.

This is just part one of my response. Please wait for the rest before responding back. I just want to give you something to think about for now. But again please do not respond until after part 2 is released. Thank you.

 

wkirby wrote:
In respect to not altering etc. should we also believe completely in the works of Homer? They too are as relevant today as when they were written.

 

Kirby we were speaking about the reliability of the scriptural text in regards to the preservation and copying of the text. I’ve provided proof. Take a copy that is even a thousands years past the oldest extent copy we have and there’s no difference in essential content. I don’t know where you’ll going with the Homer thing. Next time do the Jeopardy thing and state the question after you provide an answer. That would help.

 

wkirby wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Christians use their judgment (remember we are responsible for what we believe and how we handle God’s word). Reformed Christians agree that Calvin’s teachings are a good representation of what the Scripture teaches. By what authority do we choose not to believe John Calvin blindly? Uh…God.

 

Don’t back down now - you don’t think it’s a “good representation” you think it is the only representation that is devoid of inconsistencies and contradictions.

 

Kirby the Scriptures and the worldview it presents is void of inconsistencies and contradictions.

 

I thought I was answering an objection aimed at John Calvin (Go back and trace our discussion) the man, he wasn’t one of the authors of any scriptural writings. We have scripture to judge whether any of us is wrong. You asked what the reformed faith is. I told you the faith practiced that is best explained by John Calvin. Why? Because his teaching and that of reformed Christians make Scripture bullet proof. Any Bible scholar can innocently interpret the Bible wrong. John Calvin was a man with great discernment.

 

Here’s a parallel, I’m sure you believe evolution to be true (not false). However you may not be the best person to represent it because you haven’t covered all the angles to the theory to combat all the objections. You may want someone like Richard Dawkins to defend it in your place because he has a better or even the best understanding of it than you or any other materialist atheist does. It doesn’t follow that Richard Dawkins the man is infallible because he believes the evolution is infallible or true. It wouldn’t even follow to say his teachings are infallible because the object of his teaching is true or infallible.

 

Do you see the connection?

 

If you’ll claiming that John Calvins understanding is flawed show the flaw and the inconsistency between his teachings on scripture and that of scripture.

 

If you think the worldview of Christianity to be inconsistent, show the inconsistency between its presuppositions and/or between its presuppositions and what we observe in the physical world.

 

Remember your presupposition that the world is only comprised of the physical has not been proven. It’s one of the points you stand on to answer all the questions of life. You can’t use that to disprove my worldview because ultimately that’s what we disagree over; i.e. worldview presuppositions. You would be begging the question.

 

Again we should be asking, can your worldview stand up to its own presuppositions and be without inconsistency and contradiction.

 

Find fault in the worldview of Christianity

 

Again, the claim is the Scriptures and the worldview it presents is void of inconsistencies and contradictions.

 

wkirby wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Good thing about people in the ancient world and even much later, the learned were very learned, speaking multiply languages very well, etc.

So by extension you believe implicitly that these fallible human got it right too… I exaggerate the point purely to demonstrate that the door is wide open for misinterpretation thought the history of Christianity. The moral values and interpretations of  the Bible have repeatedly been changed throughout history. Consider the Crusades or the Spanish Inquisition. These people didn’t engage in a murderous rampage because they were bored one afternoon, they believed with all their hearts that it was the will of God. The Christian God. These are the potentials of getting Jesus’ message wrong.

Are you challenging Scripture or fallible man who do not obey the scriptures? Again Show me where Jesus tells us to evangelize by the sword. Show me where Jesus says it’s okay to murder or to go beyond what is found in scripture to the point of contradicting it. I specifically remember Jesus rebuking the Jews for passing their human traditions as God’s law and in effect making the scriptures void when done so.

wkirby wrote:
You forgot tone of voice and body language both just as important in effective communication and sadly something we can never correctly determine in the case of the Bible.

So am I right to assume you’re one of those people who claim that you can never know the effective meaning of any text of any writing because of the absence of the original authors tone of voice and body language? Including your writing, since I’ve never seen you? I or anyone who has never met you can never know what your writings really mean because the tone of your voice and body language is missing. Do you want to end our discussion now? According to your argument it seems meaningless. If I’ve misconstrued your argument or this not the intended outcome, carefully reason it out and present it better.

wkirby wrote:
wkirby wrote:
No objection or criticism from me, as far as I'm concerned he was right on the money (no pun intended!) with this. I use this passage only to highlight the disconnect between the teachings of Jesus and the decision by mankind to ignore them. People of faith tend to follow some teachings to the letter and ignore others thereby either presuming they know better than Jesus or being hypocrites. Which category do you fall into?

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Are you saying it’s a legitimate argument to judge a system (whether it be Christianity, Atheism, or what have you) on the ignorance or faithlessness of its professors? So that when an atheist lies, cheats, steals, rapes, or murders, etc I can fault the atheism that they profess to?

Why are you trying to twist my words to suit your beliefs? How about this, you can fault Atheism when an atheist lies, cheats, steals, rapes, or murders as long as I can fault Christianity when a Christian lies, cheats, steals, rapes, or murders.

Kirby, I’m asking you the question because I want to know for certain whether this is your view or not. Because the argument presented in your writing suggests that. I would advise you to carefully reason out your future answers if you want to avoid these problems. But again your argument means what I wrote. Restate it for me.

wkirby wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Can you find anywhere in the Bible where it says PRACTICING liers, cheats, thieves, murderers, disobedient, or homosexuals, etc will enter the kingdom of heaven?

Relevance? And where does it say that they don’t? Stupid argument and not even remotely relevent.

Kirby, your ignorance always gets the better of you. Can we avoid this blatant ignorance in the future? Find out next time before making these sorts of statements.

Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. (Galatians 5:19-21)

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Cor. 6:9-11)

wkriby wrote:
You should not regret anything in your life, consider it a learning experience. For example, I have learned that you have no intention of listening to or conceding any point made by me.

Kirby when you provide a valid argument, then I’ll have no choice. Funny that I have responded to everything you wrote, to suggest I didn’t glaze over anything out of convenience and took the time to correct you in the formulation of your questions and so forth. So far you haven’t proven any inconsistencies. You’ve only shown a lack of focus in your responses; responding to quotes with answers that have almost nothing to do with the quotes. I’ve given you every benefit of the doubt and have been very patient with you in this discussion.

wkirby wrote:
…a) His words were recounted faithfully and b) that they have been passed down through the ages without distortion and NEITHER of these things can be shown to be true.

Again from your own words are you suggesting that no writing before photocopying can be reliable unless we have the original writing? If not, you should drop this argument. And besides that how is this an attack on my worldview? If anything it tells us more about your worldview that no writing in the past is can be used as a reliable source.

Regarding the passing down of the text, the evidence is out there for you to examine. You have both Christians and non Christians scholars who will vouch the fact that the transmission of the text is remarkable even over a span of about a thousand years for them to conclude that you have in your hands a faithful reproduction of the original. The unbelieving scholars don’t however believe the contents to be true, but they are true to their profession. And once again this is telling us more about your worldview than it is mine.

wkirby wrote:
Show me any passage at all where Jesus claims to be God and I will wholeheartedly concede that it is correct to presume that Jesus thought himself to be God and unreservedly revoke any claim to the contrary.

Kirby did you conveniently ignore all the passages I provided in Luke. Are you going to concede that the author Luke thought Him to be divine? I mean you’re going to have to and as soon as you do, then Jesus did claim deity through His words and actions. If not then here’s one of the proofs

In John 10:30-39

I and the Father are one."Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?" "We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'? If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'? Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father." Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.

In Luke 22:66-71

At daybreak the council of the elders of the people, both the chief priests and teachers of the law, met together, and Jesus was led before them. "If you are the Christ," they said, "tell us." Jesus answered, "If I tell you, you will not believe me, and if I asked you, you would not answer. But from now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God." They all asked, "Are you then the Son of God?"
      He replied, "You are right in saying I am." Then they said, "Why do we need any more testimony? We have heard it from his own lips."

 

Now if Jesus himself believed He was not God why allow Himself to be found guilty of this “blasphemy” and ultimately cause the Jews to have Him crucified?

I suppose you will have to concede.

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

I’ll get to the rest and again please refrain from responding until after part 2 is release. Thank you.

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


wkirby
Posts: 69
Joined: 2009-04-12
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

It’s very difficult to keep up with your flip flopping; providing answers to questions not asked and in the process not answering the questions asked or giving responses that have almost nothing to do with the quote you’re responding to.

I suspect you are now getting an inkling of the frustration felt by everyone who has tried to discuss this topic with you. The difference being we cannot default to 'the answer is God'.

I will wait patiently for your reply, please don't feel any pressure to rush the response.

Why can't people accept that Atheism is by definition no faith? I don't believe in Atheism, I simply am Atheist.


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
Continue to wait

wkirby wrote:

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

It’s very difficult to keep up with your flip flopping; providing answers to questions not asked and in the process not answering the questions asked or giving responses that have almost nothing to do with the quote you’re responding to.

I suspect you are now getting an inkling of the frustration felt by everyone who has tried to discuss this topic with you. The difference being we cannot default to 'the answer is God'.

I will wait patiently for your reply, please don't feel any pressure to rush the response.

If there's any frustration felt on your part, it's because my arguments are sound arguments and you guys are feeling the pinch of truth about atheism or evolution; that it's foolish and blindly believed.

If I'm frustrated Kirby, it is because you are (1) so ignorant of the Bible, making claims and challenges only to have me prove you wrong (I think you purposefully do this only to distract me from totally making material atheism lose all credibility (not that it had any to begin with) (2) the lack of simple understanding of someone's argument, I have to practically spoon feed you through the process (3) your continuous "begging the question" answers, and worst yet (4) your self-defeating arguments. So far in your prejudice against Christianity; in an attempt to render the scriptures unreliable, you've rendered all past literary historic data unreliable if it's not the original or not photocopied, not to mention rendering all literary work (including letters) incomprehensible whenever the author's tone of voice and body language are absent.

Those are what's frustrating. I'll answer the rest later. Please hold your responses until after. Thank you.

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
REPLY TO #158 PART 2 & REPEAT One opponent at a time please

If it's OK with you all I would like to engage in dialog with one of you at a time until one of us says no longer wants to interact with the other. All of you seem to be arguing on the same side, but I'm only one person. I cannot respond to you all, but I want to. If you all can agree to restrain yourselves until the active opponent steps aside, I think we can have an interesting dialog. If anyone who is not the active responder posts, I will not respond to your comments unless it's to notify of changes or updates. I would like begin with HisWillness. Please wait for my post if your comment is aimed at me; otherwise continue to talk amongst yourselves.

____________________________________________________

wkirby wrote:
It may not classify as a good reason for you but it is a good reason for me. I believe evolution is incredibly more likely to be possible than creationism. I believe the moral values of the Bible have some merit, as do the moral values of Buddhists, Socialists, Anarchists, Sikhs, Jews, Muslims and Benobo monkeys. Though not necessarily in that order.

Thanks for sharing your opinion with me Kirby

wkirby wrote:
I believe physics is a wonderful explanation for the mechanics of the universe, chemistry is fantastic for understanding how element can combine to better (or worsen) our lives and biology has changed the human condition. I love the fact that I can grab an analgesic from my medicine cabinet when I have a headache!

Except for biology changing the human condition part (I object to the development of mood altering drugs to…uh alter the moods of people) I like all those things too. Physics is a good way of explaining the regularity and law like uniformity of God’s providential governing of His creation; chemistry for all those personal hygiene and cleaning products and artificial materials, etc. I also love the fact that I too can grab an analgesic from my medicine cabinet when I have a headache. Thank God for making the universe uniform and providing man with rationality, a scientifically curious mind, and an ethical disposition.

wkirby wrote:
Most fundamentally I believe that religion fills the gaps that science can’t yet.

Fundamentally, God is the foundation for science in our universe to exist in the first place. 

wkirby wrote:
No I don't agree that logic is a physical entity but I do agree that logic is a thought process produced by the brain. And I most certainly don't agree that man is the only brain capable of logic thought.

AtheismIsNonsense (responding to above wrote:
Hopefully you’ll explain how matter & energy in any configuration subject to its inherent properties or character (the laws of physics and chemistry) can result in choosing point(s) made in an argument. Because my objection will be just as weeds grow, so the mind of man does whatever it does according to the “laws” of chemistry and physics.

AtheismIsNonsense (before he made the above statement) wrote:
Now what I’m asking you is take IMPERSONAL matter & energy + IMMUTABLE laws and give me the laws of logic, morals, science.

Now the most obvious objection is if man is comprised solely of matter & energy that always behaves uniformly, wouldn’t it follow that if another man (#2) interacts with him (#1), (#1) will only respond according to the matter & energy he’s comprised of? So that in the end thoughts are nothing more than electrical impulses in the brain operating according to how the matter it’s comprised of will operate (i.e. it’s automatic and solely responsive)

wkirby (replying) wrote:
I honestly don’t know how to respond to this. What you wrote might as well have been random words on the page because I have no comprehension of why they are there or what they mean.

In Post #157, I first asked you to answer my objection to human thought as logically arrived from a material only universe. I asked you later to explain how logic can exist from a material only universe to which you didn’t give an answer (it just popped in your answer as being there) but at the same time you did the very thing with human thought (it just popped right in there without any explanation).

First, is human thought nothing more than a automatic and purely reactive process in the brain?

Explain logic in light of your answer to the first question.

Or will you again concede to ignorance on such matters.

wkirby wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Let me clarify what I meant. It’s filled with inconsistencies and “magic” so that it will be included with all the other theories that are irrelevant.

I disagree it’s filled with “magic” but I agree that it is not a complete answer. I doubt you would find an expert on the subject claim that the answer is complete and I’m far from an expert on the theory of evolution.

wkirby wrote:
From joining the dots between this conclusion and the beginning of the explanation I now think you are asking me to provide for you evidence of the initial spark of life. This I cannot answer for you, I am not a Biologist, nor a Chemist, nor a Physicist. If you genuinely want to learn the answer to that question I must refer you onto one of those.

I am no more qualified to answer that than you are qualified to explain to me the Greek Gods of Olympus.

How do you suppose that an evolutionist Biologist, Chemist, or Physicist would explain this? Theorizing it or perhaps performing some experiment where they take inorganic material and somehow through some mechanical reconfiguration make it into a living organism?

wkirby wrote:
Rather than ‘believing anything to be true’ I believe that certain theories (such as evolution) are possible. I’d even go so far as to say probable.

What’s your proof? You’ve already conceded to knowing nothing about how life could have possibly arrive in a material only universe. Are you suggesting that your belief in the probability of evolution being true is totally blind?

wkirby wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Do you agree with this view? That human choice is illusory?

Completely. I think we are given the illusion of choice. If you ever get the time or inclination, read “The Lucifer Principle” by Howard Bloom. His views on human choice and in line with mine. Alternatively, read up a bit on network science.

I cannot give you the evidence you seek, however as luck would have it I offer you this http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8036396.stm and http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2008/s2563065.htm

I’d rather you explain it to me. I’m assuming you’ve read and verified that they provide good explanations for “illusory choice”.

Does it mean, I didn’t choose to be a Christian, but that it was automatic and purely reactive to whatever my physical self encountered (preacher, evangelist, Church service, etc)? Does it mean I really didn’t choose to write this post, but it was again purely automatic, a purely stimulant reactive process?

wkirby wrote:
No it does not mean man is fallible all the time, it does mean that there is at least the possibility that those men at The Council of Chalcedon (or in fact the 3 preceeding it) got at least part of the teachings you espouse as being absolute truth wrong.

As to whether I am wrong about everything here, that may be so but I'm not the one claiming absolute truth. I'll admit that I have used the 'delete' button a number of time, this alone proves I have gotten at least some of it wrong. If I am open to the idea of being wrong about some things, are you?

I explained in Part 1 that the scriptures are infallible and therefore free from error and just because someone happens to understand the infallible scriptures correctly doesn’t mean the person doing the expositing is infallible.

Looking back at my old posts I found one post in which I see where you asked whether the Council of Chalcedon could have resulted in error and I said that it was free from human error (My intention wasn't to suggest that the session was infallible). I apologize for confusing your question as an attack on the authors of the scriptures. The authors were free from error during the writing of the Scriptures.

The men at the The Council of Chalcedon could have gotten it wrong, but I guess then, the reformation would’ve happened a lot sooner. Christians don’t believe the creeds because they think the creeds are infallible (because they’re not), they believe God’s word is; therefore Christians believe it because it correctly sets forth what is found in Scripture concerning the nature of God. My point is that whether the session got it wrong or not, it makes little difference, God in his providence would've brought good out of it.

As for your second quote, you’re going to have to explain it a little clearer. I don’t understand the argument as it’s presented. I don’t think anyone can understand it.

wkirby wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
I would hope from the context of our discussion that you would understand that Jesus is excluded from this universal truth; the fact that he is not just any man but the God-Man.

In the context of this discussion I understand that you believe this to be true, I am working on the premise that we established that as one of the foundations of this exchange. I am not disputing this point with you. I am disputing that your man-made interpretation of what Jesus' message was is potentially flawed.

My interpretation is potentially flawed? I provided the proof text that Jesus deified himself in Part 1 of my response. I guess you will have to concede to being wrong here.

wkirby wrote:
How can you not see the hypocrisy in that?

wkirby wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Christians use their judgment (remember we are responsible for what we believe and how we handle God’s word). Reformed Christians agree that Calvin’s teachings are a good representation of what the Scripture teaches. By what authority do we choose not to believe John Calvin blindly? Uh…God.

Don’t back down now - you don’t think it’s a “good representation” you think it is the only representation that is devoid of inconsistencies and contradictions

Kirby you need to drop this point you keep continuing with because it’s ridiculous. Look back at our posts and you will not find me ever saying that John Calvin’s teaching was infallible. I’ve made statements about the scriptures being infallible and the authors of scripture during the time of writing scripture of being free from error through God’s providential care and that is why the scriptures are infallible. John Calvin exposited it correctly or the best (whichever you prefer) out of all other Christians in history, how do we know this? Because his exposition of it made it bullet proof from its critics.

wkirby wrote:
No objection or criticism from me, as far as I'm concerned he was right on the money (no pun intended!) with this. I use this passage only to highlight the disconnect between the teachings of Jesus and the decision by mankind to ignore them. People of faith tend to follow some teachings to the letter and ignore others thereby either presuming they know better than Jesus or being hypocrites. Which category do you fall into?

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Are you saying it’s a legitimate argument to judge a system (whether it be Christianity, Atheism, or what have you) on the ignorance or faithlessness of its professors? So that when an atheist lies, cheats, steals, rapes, or murders, etc I can fault the atheism that they profess to?

Why are you trying to twist my words to suit your beliefs? How about this, you can fault Atheism when an atheist lies, cheats, steals, rapes, or murders as long as I can fault Christianity when a Christian lies, cheats, steals, rapes, or murders.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Can you find anywhere in the Bible where it says PRACTICING liers, cheats, thieves, murderers, disobedient, or homosexuals, etc will enter the kingdom of heaven?

Relevance?...Stupid argument and not even remotely relevent.

I’ve already provided you the proof text in part 1 of my post, as to the relevance, how can it not be? Your attack is not directly toward Christian theism but the people who supposedly profess it. Now if you weren’t trying to make some connection between the hypocrisy of “Christians”, then what was brought up on your part in our discussion is totally irrelevant but if it was meant to attack Christianity, for that I asked if such a verse could be found. And if this was your intention, then I wanted to point out that false believers don’t disprove Christianity, they prove they’re not saved.

So are you saying that what I quoted you was irrelevant to proving Christian Theism false?

Also, I don’t twist your words around. Maybe you’re not fully aware of the implications of your arguments when you put them out there. I’m just good at seeing your argument for what it is; poorly constructed with little merit if any.

Kirby wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
I'm disappointed in you Kirby (Fair-minded I don't think so)…

I can’t imagine that your disappointment to be greater than mine. In not one of those quotes does Jesus claim to be a deity.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
I almost regret discussing this with you because of your blatant ignorance.

You should not regret anything in your life, consider it a learning experience. For example, I have learned that you have no intention of listening to or conceding any point made by me.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
. And yes, His words and actions deified him... It’s you and people like you who make Jesus a liar Kirby. Read the entire book before you make your judgments based on ignorance.

I am not trying to make Jesus a liar, I am trying to point out that it is man that (intentionally or not) choose when to adhere to or ignore his teachings to suit their own limited understanding of what he intended on saying. For me to make him out to be a liar would require me to presume a) His words were recounted faithfully and b) that they have been passed down through the ages without distortion and NEITHER of these things can be shown to be true.

Again, you insist on trying to distort my words.

Until you can show a passage where Jesus himself makes the claim of being God I have no choice but to conclude that it was man that deified him. Until now, the only quote presented where Jesus makes comment in relation to this indicate he denies this is the case. I don’t mean to labour the point, it’s not my intention to pass judgement nor is it my intention to take anything out of context. Show me any passage at all where Jesus claims to be God and I will wholeheartedly concede that it is correct to presume that Jesus thought himself to be God and unreservedly revoke any claim to the contrary. In your words:

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Show me the passages/provide the proof. You are so blatantly ignorant, you are far from being fair minded.

I’ll provide the same answer I gave you previously until then...

The New Testament is litter with Jesus' apparent distaste of material possessions. To deny that is self serving and ignores Jesus' teaching.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Show me the passages/provide the proof. You are so blatantly ignorant, you are far from being fair minded.

I’ll provide the same answer I gave you previously until then.

To that end for Jesus’ opinions on personal wealth: Matthew 19:21-22, 21:12 Luke 7:41-43 , other references not directly attributed to Jesus: Ecclesiates 2:26, 4:8, 5:8-2010, 7:12, Timothy 6:4-11 Hebrews 13:5

Matthew 19:16-29 - Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?" "Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments." "Which ones?" the man inquired. Jesus replied, " 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,' and 'love your neighbor as yourself.'" "All these I have kept," the young man said. "What do I still lack?" Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth. Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, "Who then can be saved?" Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." Peter answered him, "We have left everything to follow you! What then will there be for us?" Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life.

Kirby let me exposit the passage for you. Man comes up asking what he must do to inherit eternal life. Jesus tell him to obey the commandments, to the which man replies I have and asks what else he lacks. Jesus tells him if he wants to be perfect (not excluding the obeying the commandments) he must also rid himself of all wealth and FOLLOW JESUS. Why is it hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven? Because wealthy people would be lest reluctant to give up their wealth to follow Jesus (isn’t that what the man did went away sad because he had great wealth?). The disciples remind Jesus that they have left all to follow Him, Jesus assures them that everyone who has left houses or BROTHERS OR SISTERS OR FATHERS OR MOTHER OR CHILDRED, etc will be rewarded. (Wait a minute I thought Wealth and Capitalism was what we were talking about here?). Is it sounding more like what I exposited in my previous posts?

Here it is: “One must be willing to denounce wealth if God requires it. Why is it hard for a wealthy man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven? Because, when men have wealth and health, what reason would he feel to need God and religion? Jesus tells His disciples, that they must be willing to leave everything for Him; their love for Him must be greater than their love for wealth, family, or self.” From post #144 remember.

Here’s the rest for you to read up on (Matthew 16:25, Luke 9:24, Mark 8:35 – regarding self, Luke 14:26, Matthew 10:37 – regarding family)

Concede!

1 Timothy 6:4-11 & Hebews 13:15 - he is conceited and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions and constant friction between men of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain. But godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it. But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with that. People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the LOVE of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs. But you, man of God, flee from all this, and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, endurance and gentleness.

 

Keep your lives free from the LOVE of money and be content with what you have, because God has said,
   "Never will I leave you;
      never will I forsake you." So we say with confidence,
   "The Lord is my helper; I will not be afraid.
      What can man do to me?"

Come on now Kirby, you are showing the lack of simple reading comprehension or expository ability. I don’t even have to use much of the surrounding verses to prove you wrong on this account. The Apostle Paul says the LOVE of money, not wealth itself; he says people EAGER for money…who want to get rich fall into temptation. (Receiving bribes, gambling, etc come to mind). Read Luke 16:13, Matthew 6:24 (you cannot serve both God and Money – love of money also is emphasized) – Again it harmonizes with what I wrote in post #144

Concede!

Ecclesiastes 2:26, 4:8, 5:8-2010, 7:12 - To the man who pleases him, God gives wisdom, knowledge and happiness, but to the sinner he gives the task of gathering and storing up wealth to hand it over to the one who pleases God. This too is meaningless, a chasing after the wind…There was a man all alone;
       he had neither son nor brother.
       There was no end to his toil,
       yet his eyes were not content with his wealth.
       "For whom am I toiling," he asked,
       "and why am I depriving myself of enjoyment?"
       This too is meaningless—
       a miserable business!... Whoever LOVES money never has money enough;
       whoever loves wealth is never satisfied with his income.
       This too is meaningless…Wisdom is a shelter
       as money is a shelter,
       but the advantage of knowledge is this:
       that wisdom preserves the life of its possessor

Once again you show the lack of simple reading comprehension or expository ability. LOVE of money, money as shelter (remember what I wrote, when men have wealth and health they don’t find the need for God – it’ difficult to convert a rich person – Proverbs 30:8-9 reads “Keep falsehood and lies far from me; give me neither poverty nor riches, but give me only my daily bread. Otherwise, I may have too much and disown you and say, 'Who is the LORD ?' Or I may become poor and steal, and so dishonor the name of my God.&rdquoEye-wink

Also King Solomon was wealthy, did he ever give up his wealth even after writing this? NO! What was he writing about in Ecclesiastes? He was essentially saying life is meaningless (vanity chasing without God and disastrous if you forsake Him and so concludes in the end - “Meaningless! Meaningless!" says the Teacher."Everything is meaningless!"Not only was the Teacher wise, but also he imparted knowledge to the people. He pondered and searched out and set in order many proverbs. The Teacher searched to find just the right words, and what he wrote was upright and true. The words of the wise are like goads, their collected sayings like firmly embedded nails—given by one Shepherd. Be warned, my son, of anything in addition to them. Of making many books there is no end, and much study wearies the body. Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil.” (Ecclesiastes 12:8-14)

 

Concede!

 

Again what’s so frustrating is your blatant ignorance. When I misrepresented Buddhist karma, was my immediate response “your wrong”? No it was more like “I apologize if I misinterpreted it, correct me please”. Please for the sake of being fair-minded (you are fair-minded right?), let’s not resort to this type of back and forth nonsense. Do your research; I mean a lot of research. Otherwise I just might think your mission is to distract me from exposing the more important deficiencies in your worldview, like the inability to account for logic, science, morality. So far you haven’t explained how matter results to logic or human thought (you don’t know and choice is illusory). I’ve yet to ask you how you (a finite human) can KNOW that the entire universe is uniform in its day to day operation to even conduct science, and how morality can even be meaningful if it’s relative and convention (no obligatory authority).

wkirby wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Good thing about people in the ancient world and even much later, the learned were very learned, speaking multiply languages very well, etc.

So by extension you believe implicitly that these fallible human got it right too… I exaggerate the point purely to demonstrate that the door is wide open for misinterpretation thought the history of Christianity. The moral values and interpretations of  the Bible have repeatedly been changed throughout history. Consider the Crusades or the Spanish Inquisition. These people didn’t engage in a murderous rampage because they were bored one afternoon, they believed with all their hearts that it was the will of God. The Christian God. These are the potentials of getting Jesus’ message wrong.

Yes, like you said, human fallibility doesn’t mean we’re always wrong all the time. If we were wrong with the translations from the original languages to say english, our critics have access to the manuscripts in Hebrew and Greek to examine and check?

We have the infallible scriptures to guide us and to use as a measuring stick. (Remember that it is infallible not the translators, copiers, expositors, teachers, etc)

Also remember why should it be a difficult thing for God to make His written word infallible (the originals)?

Read back in the posts (I’ve included answers regarding the copying of the originals, John Calvin the expositor and teacher, and on translation).

As for the Crusades (save the first Crusade – it was defending Constantinople from invading Muslims and God gave them a decisive and well earned victory) or the Spanish Inquisition, is any this found in the Bible? Where does it say to do that which is beyond what the apostles have written or communicated orally? (You do research and find the verse that says the opposite because it's there). Also all we have of the teachings of Jesus are what we find in the New Testament and in the Old Testament (before the incarnation, before he became Jesus), so it’s going to be tough to prove to any Christian that Jesus said this or that that is not found in Scripture. (Unless of course the “Christian” is blatantly ignorant and/or disobedient)

Concede!

wkirby wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
It must have passed me in my dream…

I cannot approach this discussion from any other point of view than my Atheistic one however I have tried very hard to only argue according to your rules and definitions, you yourself established “only God is infallible, all man is fallible”. You entered the discussion with the assertion “I will prove that only the Christian worldview, in fact specifically Protestant Reformer teachings of John Calvin are the only view that are the ONLY rational and non self-contradictory system. All I am doing is giving you the opportunity to prove that to me.

Kirby, It may seem like I’m making up rules and definitions, but explain to me how we are to resolve philosophical differences? I’ve already told you that you have a clear leaning toward evolutionist atheism and I have one toward Christian theism. Are we suppose to argue over the physical evidence? We have over the years, but your presuppositions will continue to interpret the physical evidence in your favor and my presuppositions will continue to interpret the physical evidence in my favor and where can that get us? Nowhere, because like Christians, Atheists also believe things that they have not experienced or seen. The only way to see whether Christian theism or evolutionist atheism is true is if we judge each under their own assumptions and so far, atheism isn’t doing too well.

I’ve already explained to you most if not all of a Christian’s epistemology and possibly more and will continue to do so as the discussion goes on and you’ve yet to attack it (go back and read – it seems to me you convenient glaze over it) while I’ve attacked you repeatedly and have not received an answer from you, expect “I don’t know” or something like “atheism can account for logic, because humans reason and animal do also.” (the latter type of answers are so question begging).

Note: I’ve left questions for you to answer throughout this post also.

wkirby wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
You argument still sounds exactly like this:

Humans are rational and some semblance is found among animals; therefore atheism is true.

That is not my argument, my argument is that God is not required for rationality and ethics to exist. To establish “therefore” from this is like saying “Catholic priests sexually assault alter boys: therefore Pedophile's must be Priests.” That is of course nonsense.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Just to clarify, I’m only pointing out that when there is no obligatory authority in the universe as seen in a non supernatural atheistic universe, might does make right and morality thus becomes relative, i.e. nothing is universally wrong or right.

And you are using false accusations to attempt to prove it. If you want to point this out, go right ahead but Hitler isn’t your guy. It is no more correct for you to make that connection than it would be for me to say “The Ku Klux Klan were Christians, what’s more there was quite a few of them, not just a single man: therefore the logical conclusion of this is all Christians believe is it good to beat, hang or even burn black people to death.” How’s that for morals derived from your obligatory authority in the Universe.

Where does it say to do that which is beyond what the apostles have written or communicated orally? (You do research and find the verse that says the opposite). Also all we have of the teachings of Jesus are what we find in the New Testament and in the Old Testament (before the incarnation, before he became Jesus), so it’s going to be tough to prove to any Christian that Jesus said this or that that is not found in Scripture. (Unless of course the “Christian” is blatantly ignorant and/or disobedient)

As for the thinking Black people to be inferior, wasn’t that Darwin’s conclusion according to his evolutionist theory? Yes!

You see how Darwinian evolution has been so influential in the lives of people since its conception. (Hitler, KKK, etc) Whereas the Bible tells us that all men came from one parent Adam and Eve and later on from Noah’s family and that as far as salvation and human worth is concerned, all are equal whether Greek, Jew, barbarian, male, female, etc. Where ever Hitler or the KKK got or the pedophile priests got their justification for their actions it wasn’t from the Word of God.

Concede!

wkirby wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Are you saying that “logic” is a process in the brain of man that depends on the brain’s physical composition?

No once again you are trying to construe my words to fit your conclusions. I am affirming that logic is derived from the brain of any animal that has the capacity to think.

What is human thought (or animal thought for that matter). Remember explain it from your own worldview’s presuppositions (only matter & energy) unless you want to concede that there are non physical things that exist – (just to anticipate any further delay of your answer – gravity, ultra violet rays, and such are still considered physical – they can be measured/reproduced etc).

Remember my objection is: If man is comprised solely of matter & energy that always behaves uniformly, wouldn’t it follow that if another man (#2) interacts with him (#1), (#1) will only respond according to the matter & energy he’s comprised of? So that in the end thoughts are nothing more than electrical impulses in the brain operating according to how the matter it’s comprised of will operate (i.e. it’s automatic and solely responsive/reactive). If one’s thinking is said to be “wrong” can that person even help that?

wkirby wrote:
I believe in the opening song of “The Lion King” is probably correct, at least for my lifetime : “there is far to much to take in, more to find than can ever be found…”

How true; how infinite man is. Fortunately for us we have God who reveals knowledge to us about His universe for us to have a place to start and know that our conclusions are correct and not simply probable at best.

 

_________________________________________________

 

I'm taking a few days rest after this, respond as you will and when I get back I'll respond.

Remember the offer of salvation stands always while you have breathe, don't throw away this opportunity before you die or when the Lord returns in judgment, which ever comes first. Believe in Jesus and follow Him and your sins will be forgiven and you will be saved from eternal condemnation. Science, morality, human rationality and thought will be meaningful.

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
Correction

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
How true; how infinite man is. Fortunately for us we have God who reveals knowledge to us about His universe for us to have a place to start and know that our conclusions are correct and not simply probable at best.

I meant to write "how finite man is".

My apologies.

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:As

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
As for the thinking Black people to be inferior, wasn’t that Darwin’s conclusion according to his evolutionist theory? Yes!

Are you saying that Darwin was racist or that evolution somehow leads to the conclusion that black people are inferior?

 

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


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
Evolution logically promotes racism

butterbattle wrote:

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
As for the thinking Black people to be inferior, wasn’t that Darwin’s conclusion according to his evolutionist theory? Yes!

Are you saying that Darwin was racist or that evolution somehow leads to the conclusion that black people are inferior?

 

First of all I don't believe that evolution is true. Darwin was in outer space thinking it was, as most atheist must be to believe it. He favored his race (Caucasian) and viewed blacks and Australian aberigenies as inferior; as sub species of man. He justified this belief by his theory.

I hope you understand the usage of the word justify in this context.

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

butterbattle wrote:

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
As for the thinking Black people to be inferior, wasn’t that Darwin’s conclusion according to his evolutionist theory? Yes!

Are you saying that Darwin was racist or that evolution somehow leads to the conclusion that black people are inferior?

First of all I don't believe that evolution is true. Darwin was in outer space thinking it was, as most atheist must be to believe it. He favored his race (Caucasian) and viewed blacks and Australian aberigenies as inferior; as sub species of man. He justified this belief by his theory.

I hope you understand the usage of the word justify in this context.

So, the former?

 

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


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
Evolution logically promotes racism

butterbattle wrote:

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

butterbattle wrote:

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
As for the thinking Black people to be inferior, wasn’t that Darwin’s conclusion according to his evolutionist theory? Yes!

Are you saying that Darwin was racist or that evolution somehow leads to the conclusion that black people are inferior?

First of all I don't believe that evolution is true. Darwin was in outer space thinking it was, as most atheist must be to believe it. He favored his race (Caucasian) and viewed blacks and Australian aberigenies as inferior; as sub species of man. He justified this belief by his theory.

I hope you understand the usage of the word justify in this context.

So, the former?

 

Let me explain it again, He looked down on blacks and aberigenies. He wanted to believe they were inferior, his theory which emphasized natural selection produced the idea of sub species and all that. He thought to justify his prejudice with his theory. It doesn't mean it was a true conclusion (in fact it isn't) but it was his conclusion.

Hitler thought to justify his genocidal actions and so do the KKK.

They would say they were/are justified.

I would say they weren't/aren't, because evolution isn't true.

People who are racists look down on others. They could easily use evolution as a vehicle to justify their racism.

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:It

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

It doesn't mean it was a true conclusion (in fact it isn't) but it was his conclusion.

Quote:
I would say they weren't/aren't, because evolution isn't true.

So...yes? No?

*sigh*

Okay, I'll try to rephrase the question. If evolution was true, would Darwin's conclusion that black people were inferior be valid?

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


wkirby
Posts: 69
Joined: 2009-04-12
User is offlineOffline
This reply is long enough

This reply is long enough without having quotes all over the place apologies if you need to bounce between the various toing and froing but I’m conscious of the fact that we’re on someone else’s platform here.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
It’s very difficult to keep up with your flip flopping…

It may appear to you that I am flip-flopping but I am attempting one thing and one thing alone - to show you that you cannot prove that the Bible or anything that it contains is anything more than (admittedly a very entertaining) a fairy tale. You can no sooner prove that there has been no change in the Bible than a person at the end of a line of chinese whispers can tell what was actually said at the beginning. For example why was the Gospel of Judas excluded? (ref:http://www.nationalgeographic.com/lostgospel/)

I apologize if demonstrating that there is at least the possibility of errors or omissions from the Bible or indeed inconsistencies and contradiction with the way the church interprets it’s words are not to your liking. May I suggest you don’t engage in conversations with people who might point that out to you?
Why do I reference Homer? Because Homer also wrote fairy tales that contained elements of verifiable historical fact a very long time ago. I could just have easily cited Herodotus or perhaps Shakespeare…

You keep promising to provide proof but you have not and I put it to you that you can not. Neither can you use your proposed methodology to to prove it (being disprove everything else) because you clearly do not understand every other worldview. How can you say “My view is the only valid view” when without doubt you do not know or understand all of the other worldviews on offer? I handed you Buddhism, gift-wrapped it even, to allow you to show me how your ‘disproving-proves-my-argument’ system works and your response to that demonstrated you don’t even understand the basics of this extremely common worldview. Imagine if I had given you something obscure like Skoptsy (as a fundamentally Christian faith) or Akan culture’s religion.

You continually assert that your beliefs are “devoid of inconsistencies and contradictions” often masking it behind the Scriptures. By the simple fact there are estimates that indicate there may actually be more than 30,000 various sects of the Protestant Christian religion this cannot possibly be correct. If the scriptures were devoid of inconsistencies and contradictions, there could only be one form of Christianity.  This in itself demonstrates that it’s not the Scriptures at all that produce a worldview (your definition of worldview), it’s man’s interpretation of the scriptures that creates it. See here http://www.religioustolerance.org/ifbooks.htm for a description of the different Bibles you can choose from further underlining my point that there is no absolute truth and there is without question inconsistencies and contradictions within Christianity.

Do I see the connection between my point on Calvin and yours on Dawkins? Absolutely! But I do not claim - and never have claimed Dawkins to be - of the same import in my life as you have claimed with Calvin. I strongly doubt whether he is the world authority on Evolutionary Theory but I think he does a very good job of trying to explain it to simpletons such as myself.

I agree completely that I cannot use this to disprove your worldview. I don’t think that it is possible to disprove your worldview because right now, at this point in human history, I don’t think we’re even close to being able to determine the ‘truth’ of matters such as these. The best that I can hope to achieve is demonstrate to you that you cannot prove it either.

I have no quarrel with you as to Atheism being flawed as a worldview - I don’t even consider Atheism to be a worldview!

You are almost correct in your understanding that I am“one of those people who claim that you can never know the effective meaning of any text of any writing” but I would add “that has the ability to be interpreted”. Any work of literature (both fiction and non-fiction, and make no mistake, I believe the Bible to be fiction) falls into this category, including the Bible, the Qur’an, the Torah, the Tripitaka, Tao-te-Ching, Shakespeare, Harry Potter and The Bourne Identity.
The only form of writing that we can know the true meaning of is that which requires no interpretation, Mathematics for example. Mathematics, being the only pure language, is not open to interpretation. It does not require tone or inflection or body language to be correctly understood.

Whether you recognize this or not, you too understand this. In English, we use such crude substitute as bold text or italics or CAPITALS in the written word to substitute for our inability to express ourselves correctly. We do this to emphasize a certain point because we cannot use our voice or body to do it for us. Many European languages use accents to do the same. This most certainly includes me and my writings here. I have lost count of the amount of times I have chatted with someone online trying to describe something for hours only to have it resolved in minutes by a phone conversation. I don’t consider this to be unique to me because great writers use this exact flaw in written communication to their advantage. Often that is exactly what makes their works great! I doubt whether even you would disagree with that.

Does that make this conversation meaningless? I guess that depends on what you are hoping to achieve from the conversation. If you hope to convert me and likely anyone else visiting this site, I dare say yes, this is meaningless. If I for a minute thought that you may disavow your beliefs then that too would be meaningless. Establishing truth? Definitely meaningless. Having an interesting and entertaining conversation with someone who’s point of view is diametrically opposed, that I consider to be a wonderful way to expand my understanding of people that are different to me. You are a curiosity to me. I have never had the privilege of speaking directly with someone who steadfastly refuses to believe any ‘science’ (other than that which God gave us the knowledge for - in itself a ridiculous distinction) and insists on attacking the merits of scientific conclusions without sufficient knowledge of the discipline they are attacking! To borrow a term from Mastercard, it’s priceless. If this is not enough for you, I will not think ill of you for ending the conversation.

I’d appreciate it if you refrained from patronizing me for not being an expert on the scriptures or the bible or any of the other fallacies you believe in. The onus is not on me to to prove the truth of it, that responsibility falls squarely on you.

If you’ve told me all there is to know about Christian’s epistemology - and thereby established inconsistencies and contradiction are completely absent from your beliefs - then all you’ve managed to do is reaffirm but initial thoughts before we started this conversation. Not only is a belief in God folly, it is completely unnecessary for my life.

It is not even my responsibility to prove to you that Atheism is a worldview, let alone a valid one. If I do not understand you, that is your inability to effectively convey your opinion - something that could perhaps be overcome if we weren’t simply using the written word?

Am I saying it’s a legitimate argument to judge a system (whether it be Christianity, Atheism, or what have you) on the ignorance or faithlessness of its professors?

Almost - I am saying it’s a legitimate argument to judge a system (whether it be Christianity, Atheism, or what have you) or any authority. I don’t think you should accept anything on faith. Incidentally, that includes anything I say. I should also qualify that I do not consider Atheism to be a ‘system’.
As to “So that when an atheist lies, cheats, steals, rapes, or murders, etc I can fault the atheism that they profess to?” To that the answer is absolutely and categorically no.

You have not proven to me that Jesus claimed to be God. The passages from Luke demonstrate that his followers regarded him as God, the passage you supplied from John comes closest but again he claims to be the son of God not God himself. He claims that God is inside him but then again, so do you. Are you claiming to be God?

I asked you to provide me a passage in which Jesus himself claims to be God. Not the son of God, not to have God inside him but to be the living God. I will not accept accounts from disciples or prophets, only a direct quote from Jesus.

I will concede that Jesus believed himself to be the son of God but I have not questioned that.You accuse me of creatively taking passages out of context, which makes it curious to me that you would begin with the line of ‘He and I are one’. The set up to this statement implies he and I are one refers to their ability to protect and preserve their sheep (followers), not an outright claim of being God. Indeed he repeated refers to God as his father throughout Matthew 10. 

You are continually asking me to concede. Concede what? That you have managed to point out all those around Jesus thought him God but at no point quoted Jesus claiming deification? Conceded.

That I do not understand the Bible like you do? Conceded.

When it comes to pointing out the vile and obscene behavior of Christians you seem to be responding with ‘they weren’t really Christians’. Or you may be saying that they didn’t interpret the Bible correctly - which is exactly what I am saying! Neither they, nor you - not even a talking parrot - are capable of interpreting the Bible correctly. So yes, I concede.

I also see an interesting parallel here with your thinking. It is quite reasonable and rational for you to attack those fields of science that you perceive to be undermining your beliefs while at the same time supporting those that make your life easier. Apparently God gave those scientist would provide ‘good’ thing the knowledge to do so. It seems as though it’s fine that medical scientists haven’t found a cure for cancer yet because some day, when God feels like it, he’ll grant man the knowledge to sort that little inconvenience out (sincere apologies to you or anyone else reading this is if that appears callous or inconsiderate on my part). Why not take the same stance with these other fields of science that (because they don’t have all the answers) they must be false and we should cease all support of these clearly incomplete theories? Alternatively, why not accept that fields like evolution are just as incomplete in their knowledge but no less valid?
You’ve asked me to explain human thought, unless I want to concede that there are non physical things that exist - well I concede there are non physical things that exist. I’d prefer not to allow you to narrow it to human thought alone because it is undeniable that animals can think as well.  In answer to non-physical things - I’ll start with Blue, mainly because I like the color, but any other one will do. How about happy? Again use any emotion you like, I sense frustration would likely be more applicable for you. Before you start on about ‘blue is only blue because of the physical properties of an object reflecting only one spectrum of light, blah, blah’ I am referring to the concept of blue. If that’s not enough, try explaining blue to a blind man. Equally, try explaining happy to someone with autism.

There are uncounted physical and non physical things in this world however I choose not to substitute the lack of knowledge with a God. I am quite happy to accept that I don’t know it all and nor does humankind. In the interests of not seeming to dodge the question, I think that thought is an extension of the ability to learn and life experiences. Again, I am not the right person to ask this of but as I understand it the frontal lobe of our brain is where we store memory and it’s only those animal with a frontal lobe that are capable of of thought. Perhaps you may want to ask a neurosurgeon.

Which leads me on to the illusion of choice. I don’t blame you for not picking up “The Lucifer Principle”, it is a long and involved book with very heavy concepts and ultimately irrelevant to your life. The particular point I was referring to is the concept that our decisions and choices are driven largely by the society in which we live and crucially the position we hold in that society. Bloom references various university studies on human behavior that strongly indicate that we have no more choice in the role we play in society as a whole than ants in a colony do. Of all people I think the comedian Chris Rocks summed it up best with “A man is as faithful as his options allow”.

I’m disappointed you didn’t follow the links though. I would have thought you’d have some interesting things to say about the discovery and verification of a new species of human that became extinct about 21,000 years ago. As I understand it, that is well before Adam and Eve. Did God get it wrong the first time and decide to start over? In case you want to follow them, here they are again http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8036396.stm and http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2008/s2563065.htm

I find it interesting you think Darwin would have considered black people inferior. Aren’t you claiming ‘might is right’? By that reckoning, physically black people on the whole seems to be far superior to caucasians or asians. In fact I can’t think of an ethnicity that can hold a candle to black people.

And I should also point out, it’s Australian Aborigines. I’m trying not to believe it was just a simple typo when you spelt it ‘aberiginies’ but I can’t help but ignore that it's possible you don’t have enough respect for this race of people to be bothered getting the spelling right...

Have we reached the seventh day already! How time flies. Enjoy your rest, I'll look forward to hearing from you again when you return. I'll remind you, it's never too late to remove the scales and see the world still exists and is wonderful even without God.

Why can't people accept that Atheism is by definition no faith? I don't believe in Atheism, I simply am Atheist.


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
Evolution logically promotes racism

butterbattle wrote:

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

It doesn't mean it was a true conclusion (in fact it isn't) but it was his conclusion.

Quote:
I would say they weren't/aren't, because evolution isn't true.

So...yes? No?

*sigh*

Okay, I'll try to rephrase the question. If evolution was true, would Darwin's conclusion that black people were inferior be valid?

The problem with evolution is, if evolution were true it wouldn't matter whether Darwin's conclusions were right or wrong. Might makes right. You can you be the dumbest SOB on the planet but as long as you have might you can backup your stupidity. There's no obligatory authority anywhere in the universe, no eternal consequence for your actions, only the here and now. So if you only have one life to live, go for all the gusto. What transcendent authority is out there to tell you to be kind to your neighbor or to care for the future of your children or any of those things are good or honorable? None. What's worse, you'd be nothing but molecules in motions; on autopilot. One's thoughts and actions would be purely automatic and reactive.

____________________________________________________

butter, are you sure you want to tangle with me?

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
REPLY TO #169 PART 1 & REPEAT One opponent at a time please

If it's OK with you all I would like to engage in dialog with one of you at a time until one of us says no longer wants to interact with the other. All of you seem to be arguing on the same side, but I'm only one person. I cannot respond to you all, but I want to. If you all can agree to restrain yourselves until the active opponent steps aside, I think we can have an interesting dialog. If anyone who is not the active responder posts, I will not respond to your comments unless it's to notify of changes or updates. I would like begin with HisWillness. Please wait for my post if your comment is aimed at me; otherwise continue to talk amongst yourselves.

____________________________________________________

 

Read the following and see what damage you can do. I've done plenty of damage to your worldview already, let's see if you can find any inconsistencies within the presupposition and/or with what we see in the physical world.

After you're done, I'll respond to both Post #169 & your next post.

The following claims are derived from the Old and New Testament Scriptures.

 

AtheismIsNonsense (From Post#123) wrote:

The Christian worldview begins with the God who is all powerful and all knowing who created all things outside of himself (nothing is excluded) and sustains his creation. To exist therefore is to be divine or created. There aren’t any ultimate forces out there. The natural laws that we see existing in the temporal realm are a result of God's providential governing of his creation (which is logical considering he created all things in our universe). Again, because he created all things, it’s logical that he determined the basic classes and natures of those existent things; gives the distinguishing unity or common natures to things; categorizing things by placing His interpretation on them; He makes things to differ from each other; assigning all things their definite characters. The decree by which God providentially ordains historical event is eternal, effectual, unconditional, unchangeable, and comprehensive. Therefore considering all the above, it logically follows that he sets the limits of possible reality.

It logically follows that his knowledge is primary and whatever we might know is a reflection/receptive reconstruction of his knowledge. As humans made in his image, we are the creaturely representation of the divine. We must think his thoughts after him. Therefore Scripture (His revelation) has absolute authority for us and is the final criterion of truth. God is personal, infinitely perfect, a pure spirit, triune in his nature, unique in his nature and works. Being made in his image we too are rational, intelligent, and consciously aware.

How do we know these things, He reveals them to us.

If you ask how non-believers know things without actively presupposing the God of the Bible (given the Christians claim that God’s revealed truth is absolutely required as the tacit foundation of understanding and knowledge), the answer is that the unbeliever does have revealed presuppositions, despite his espoused rejection of God’s truth and cannot but have them as a creature made as God’s image and living in God’s created world. No unbeliever is inwardly and sincerely devoid of a knowledge of God. It is not a saving knowledge of God to be sure, but even as condemning knowledge, natural revelation still provides a knowledge of God. And because they know God (even though they know Him in curse and reprobation) they are able to attain a limited understanding of the world. The unbeliever is actually double-minded. At base all men know God as His creatures, but as sinners all men refuse to acknowledge their Creator and live by His revelation. He can attain knowledge despite himself. In principle his unbelief would preclude understanding of anything, for one must believe in order to understand. However, in practice the unbeliever is restrained from a consistent, self-destructive following of his unbelieving profession. If the unbeliever were a total idiot he would be free from guilt. But the Apostle Paul’s point in Romans 1 is that the unbeliever’s rebellion is willful and knowledgeable; he sins against his better knowledge and is thus “without excuse” (vv. 20-21).

Central to the position of biblical presuppositionalism is an affirmation of the clarity and inescapability of natural revelation. The world was created by the word of God (Gen. 1:3 John 1:3, Col. 1:16; Heb 1:2) and thereby reflects the mind and character of God (Rom. 1:20). Man was created as the image of God (Gen.1:16-27) and thus cannot escape the face of God. There is no environment where man can flee to escape the revelational presence of God (Ps. 139:


Cool. God’s natural revelation goes out to the end of the world (Ps. 19:1-4) and all people see His glory (Ps 97:6). Therefore, even when living in open (idolatrous) rebellion, men are in the condition of “knowing God” (Rom 1:21)-the living and true God, not merely “a god.” Christ enlightens every man (John 1:9).

AtheismIsNonsense (From Post #142) wrote:

the scriptures are revelation (supernatural revelation) and even further still redemptive revelation. It is redemptive, because that’s its main purpose for existing. If man never rebelled against God’s authority, God would’ve continued to communicate with man not only through the natural order (natural revelation), but supernaturally as He did with Adam and Eve in the garden. Because man is fallen and rejects God’s authority, man tries to understand himself and his place in existence from the standpoint of himself, so morality is whatever is right in his own eyes, when he tries to give an explanation for the origin of the universe for example, he excludes God from the picture and concludes that matter beget matter (or something like that). The Bible tells us who we are and how we ought to behave and about our creator and our relationship to him and how we are to be saved. Again it provides the foundational knowledge. Everything else should be consistent with it.

AtheismIsNonsense (From Post #144) wrote:

according to scripture, God is the creator and sustainer of all there is. Nothing is out of His providential care (consider that the hairs of your head are counted and not one sparrow dies unless our heavenly father wills it or decrees it). He speaks of the future and brings them to pass; He directs the course of history and this logically follows given the above. Are we to assume that His word is less important than sparrows? Because history is ultimately in His control, the scriptures can be anything He wants them to be, including infallible whether or not through the instrumentality of human hands. Also the scriptures are said to be inspired, “God-breathed” and Jesus even told His disciples that the Holy Spirit, when He comes to dwell with them will bring things to their memory, i.e. supernatural aid.

AtheismIsNonsense (From Post #157) wrote:

We are made in God’s image: we possess rational minds, self-awareness, and an ethical disposition. When converted we are “renewed” in our mind and no longer walk according to the thinking of fallen humankind. We begin to presuppose God in our thinking (unfortunately slowly for many believers) so that our thinking, decisions, and ultimately our behaviors are affected (including our understanding of His word)

AtheismIsNonsense (From Post #157) wrote:

God’s knowledge is primary. Man’s is a reflective reconstruction of God’s knowledge. Because He knows all things and reveals knowledge to us through the natural order (providentially), ourselves (being made in the image of God – possessing rationality, self-awareness, and ethics), supernaturally (as He did before the fall and after the fall – prophetic word: spoken and written). Because of this we can know things for certain even though we are finite.

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:The

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

The problem with evolution is, if evolution were true it wouldn't matter whether Darwin's conclusions were right or wrong. Might makes right. You can you be the dumbest SOB on the planet but as long as you have might you can backup your stupidity. There's no obligatory authority anywhere in the universe, no eternal consequence for your actions, only the here and now. So if you only have one life to live, go for all the gusto. What transcendent authority is out there to tell you to be kind to your neighbor or to care for the future of your children or any of those things are good or honorable? None. What's worse, you'd be nothing but molecules in motions; on autopilot. One's thoughts and actions would be purely automatic and reactive.

Ah, okay, thanks.

Quote:
butter, are you sure you want to tangle with me?

No, but I'm one of the regulars on this forum, so I might as well give it a shot. What you've said about evolution intrigues me, so once you're done with wKirby, I think that's a topic I want to focus on. In fact, I'm considering starting a new thread just for that purpose. 

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


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
Evolution logically promotes racism

Just some more info for Darwin fans out there to chew on.

Some online source wrote:
Some view Charles Darwin’s famous opus, The Origin of Species, as a negative turning point for human society; others revere it as practically sacrosanct. While both the author and the book have become historical icons, few people likely are aware of the full title of Darwin’s most famous work: The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection—or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. The Oxford English Dictionary denotes that, historically speaking, the term “race” referred to a group of persons, animals, or plants connected by common descent or origin—in other words, similar to the way it is used today.

While many have argued that Darwin himself was not a “racist” (referring specifically to the fact that The Origin of Species did not include much discussion about Homo sapiens), his second book left little question about his personal views. Titled The Descent of Man, one entire chapter was dedicated to “The Races of Man.In that book, Darwin wrote:

At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla (1874, p. 178).

While some have argued that Darwin was simply “predicting the future,” the chapter on human races makes painfully clear his beliefs on the subject. For instance, a few pages later in chapter seven, he noted:

Their mental characteristics are likewise very distinct; chiefly as it would appear in their emotional, but partly in their intellectual faculties. Everyone who has had the opportunity of comparison must have been struck with the contrast between the taciturn, even morose, aborigines of S. America and the light-hearted, talkative negroes.

While Darwin may have maintained an outward concern for social justice, Thomas Henry Huxley, a close personal friend of Darwin’s and an indefatigable champion of evolution (who frequently referred to himself as “Darwin’s Bulldog&rdquoEye-wink observed:

No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average Negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man. And if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathus relative has a fair field and no favour, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried out on by thoughts and not by bites (1871, p. 20).

The point is obvious: if man evolved, then so did the various races. But more than that, Darwin and Huxley argued further that the “caucasian” race was farther along in the evolutionary process, and thus superior to all the other races.

However, evolutionists do not exactly revel in the thought of being associated with racism (which is one reason that the title of Darwin’s Origin of Species book has been truncated). Most would argue that these views are ancient, and are simply reflections of the culture of that age. Yet the stigma of an “inferior race” took root, and has from time to time continued to spring up in the literature. More than fifty years after Darwin released The Origin of Species, Henry Fairfield Osborn remarked:

The Negroid stock is even more ancient than the Caucasian and Mongolian, as may be proved by an examination not only of the brain, of the hair, of the bodily characters such as teeth, the genitalia, the sense organs, but of the instincts, the intelligence. The standard of intelligence of the average Negro is similar to that of the eleven-year-old youth of the species Homo sapiens (1980, 89:129).

The most recent addition in this evolutionary theory of human races comes from two prominent scientists—Vincent Sarich (one of the founding pioneers of the molecular clock) and Frank Miele (senior editor of Skeptic magazine). Robert Proctor reviewed their 2004 book, Race: The Reality of Human Differences, in the February 5, 2004 issue of Nature. The first six words of his review were: “This is a very disturbing book” (2004, 427:487). Disturbing indeed! The authors categorized people according to race, thereby reinforcing the contemporary ideas of racial hierarchy. How many individuals have ever stopped to fully grasp the true extent of evolutionary beliefs? And yet, the foundations for this racist thinking are being taught in classrooms all across the country. The Bible is clear—God created simply the human race—not a multiplicity of races.

REFERENCES

Darwin, Charles (1874), The Descent of Man (New York: A.L. Burt Co.), second edition.

Huxley, Thomas H. (1871), Lay Sermons, Addresses and Reviews (New York: Appleton).

Osborn, Henry Fairfield (1980), “The Evolution of the Human Races,” Natural History, 89:129, April; reprinted from Natural History, 1926.

Proctor, Robert N. (2004), “Racial Realities or Bombast?,” Nature, 427:487-488, February 5.

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense wrote: The

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:


The Bible is clear—God created simply the human race—not a multiplicity of races.

 

  During the American civil war era a significant portion of southern slave owners were church-going folk  ( hence the breakaway and formation of the Southern Baptist denomination.  SBC apologizes for endorsing slave ownership. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_n21_v112/ai_17332136/ ).  All these god fearing slave owners seemed to have regarded only African blacks as being fit for involuntary servitude but I have never yet encountered any evidence of them enslaving members of their own white ethnic group.  These Christian slave owners apparently had no need of a darwinian world view in order to rationalize their race-based slave ownership.

  You need not respond to my post.  It is not actually a question but merely a historical citation, and as such not open to much equivication.

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
I think people pretty much

I think people pretty much understand that intellectual and social elites in the 19th century believed in eugenics and racism. They not only believed that other "races" were inferior, they believed that all humans outside their peculiar social group were inferior. This is a belief that has existed through the entirety of recorded human history and it says nothing about the theory of evolution any more than the fact that the religion that you espouse has been used as justification for racism says about christianity.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
  The edit function seems

  The edit function seems to be screwed up at the moment...


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
 WTF ? I don't espouse

 WTF ? I don't espouse religion.  That's why I'm an atheist.  

I was contrasting the so-called worldview of Christian theism ( which supposedly regards all humans as being equally deserving of human dignity ) with the historical record of slave owning Christians in America.  Cognitive dissonance was the issue that I was addressing.

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote: WTF

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

 WTF ? I don't espouse religion.  That's why I'm an atheist.  

I was contrasting the so-called worldview of Christian theism ( which supposedly regards all humans as being equally deserving of human dignity ) with the historical record of slave owning Christians in America.  Cognitive dissonance was the issue that I was addressing.

My comment was directed at the one above you.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
  Sorry, my bad.

  Sorry, my bad.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
I already knew Darwin and

I already knew Darwin and Huxley were racist. Doesn't bother me. It's not like I worship them or something.

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


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
REPLY TO #173 PART 1 & REPEAT One opponent at a time please

If it's OK with you all I would like to engage in dialog with one of you at a time until one of us says no longer wants to interact with the other. All of you seem to be arguing on the same side, but I'm only one person. I cannot respond to you all, but I want to. If you all can agree to restrain yourselves until the active opponent steps aside, I think we can have an interesting dialog. If anyone who is not the active responder posts, I will not respond to your comments unless it's to notify of changes or updates. I would like begin with HisWillness. Please wait for my post if your comment is aimed at me; otherwise continue to talk amongst yourselves.

____________________________________________________

I couldn't help myself, but I’ll only respond first to your first two paragraphs and one closer to the end because of the subject covered. I’ll respond to the rest sometime after I receive your response to Christian presuppositions.

 

wkirby wrote:
It may appear to you that I am flip-flopping but I am attempting one thing and one thing alone - to show you that you cannot prove that the Bible or anything that it contains is anything more than (admittedly a very entertaining) a fairy tale. You can no sooner prove that there has been no change in the Bible than a person at the end of a line of chinese whispers can tell what was actually said at the beginning. For example why was the Gospel of Judas excluded? (ref:http://www.nationalgeographic.com/lostgospel/)

 

I apologize if demonstrating that there is at least the possibility of errors or omissions from the Bible or indeed inconsistencies and contradiction with the way the church interprets it’s words are not to your liking. May I suggest you don’t engage in conversations with people who might point that out to you?

 

You ought to point out that you haven’t pointed out the possibility of errors or omissions from the Bible. You simply assume from your worldview assumption (that there’s the absence of supernatural aid to combat the fallibility of man – a point we disagree on – which begs the question on your part) and from that draw your conclusion. Have I done that in my critique of atheism? I’ve attacked it on its own assumptions, I don’t bring mine into the argument to disprove it because that would be begging the question wouldn’t it? Now I’ve asked you repeatedly to demonstrate how inorganic matter can be made into a living organism (that is what evolution teaches you). I can ask this of you because of your worldviews heavy emphasis on empirical verification or even inference (that is after all the yardstick you claim, measures the validity of something). But you can’t provide me an answer, not even in the simplest way (except for the question begging or arbitrary variety).

 

I’ve brought up objections about evolution, that it renders human thought and actions to be nothing more than purely automatic stimulant reactive processes (which you in some weird way agree with but it goes completely over your head when this shows that human thoughts and reason (derived from human thought from your words) are not really thoughts and reason as we think and reason in reality). I mean are we debating? Or are my thoughts and actions not really in my control. If this is the case, why are we debating? I can no more help arguing the Christian theist position as you can the atheist position.

 

This tells me that evolutionists do believe in things they haven’t experienced or seen but with a degree of blindness and intellectual hypocrisy that rivals absurdness. The most basic theist position is even more intelligent than that; at least they’ve rationalized that it’s far more believable to assume a supernatural being than to believe that matter is all there is in the universe. I’m going to conclude as you have arbitrarily concluded (I’ve provided proof however) that you cannot prove evolution to be anything more than a fairy tale.

Regarding changes in the Bible, I’ve told you about the manuscript data available and even secular (non Christian) professional conclusions on the matter. If there are inconsistencies why hasn’t someone come forth yet to prove that the doctrine of the trinity (for example) is wrong because in this copy of John’s Gospel, it reads that God is three gods thus emphasizing polytheism or something like that? I told you if you take a copy that is a thousand years old and compare it to the earliest extent manuscript, you’ll find no essential variation.

 

The rule in ancient writings is that, as the number of copies multiply and the span of years between them widens the greater the probability of errors, but we see the New Testament documents beating these odds with “miraculous” results (there are hundreds of manuscripts – far far far more than any other writing of antiquity). The best you can do at this point is to exercise prejudicial conjecture and arbitrarily say that people back then simply destroyed the incriminating evidence to which I’ll respond why stop there, why not destroy all the rest that got the prepositions, the articles, and even some words here and there and throughout copied incorrectly to produce even better results? You got nothing Kirby.

 

As for the Gospel of Judas, what would you say if some unknown author wrote a paper that had a title like “Secret confessions of Sir Thomas Huxley” and in there was found all kinds of contradictory statements (beyond what is already found) regarding evolution, based on your argument, evolutionist would have to count that as part of evolutionist teaching?

 

Did you know that the Gospel of Judas contains no doctrines taught in the canonical four and not only this it makes reference to the four Gospels later canonized in 4th Century A.D (implying that the four Gospels were at the time the GOJ was written already circulating within the Christian community which is no surprise to me) in its epilogue. Not only that, it exist in the Coptic text, not Greek. You have so much going against you Kirby.

 

Finally in regards to the different interpretations of the scriptures by Christians, does this mean that if one evolutionist disagrees with another (now I know that there is not one universal catholic orthodox view of evolution) that that automatically proves evolution to be false? If this is your argument it’s a self defeating argument. The same as your other two (1) that no historic literary data can be a reliable source unless it’s the original or a photocopy of the original and (2) no letter or writing can be accurately understood unless the author’s tone of voice or body language is present in the reading of the writing.

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

 

To ProzacDeathWish, not that your conclusion of my thoughts on the human race is not correct but the quote system is to quote.

 

 

wkirby wrote:
I find it interesting you think Darwin would have considered black people inferior. Aren’t you claiming ‘might is right’? By that reckoning, physically black people on the whole seems to be far superior to caucasians or asians. In fact I can’t think of an ethnicity that can hold a candle to black people.

And I should also point out, it’s Australian Aborigines. I’m trying not to believe it was just a simple typo when you spelt it ‘aberiginies’ but I can’t help but ignore that it's possible you don’t have enough respect for this race of people to be bothered getting the spelling right...

 

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:


The Bible is clear—God created simply the human race—not a multiplicity of races.

 

  During the American civil war era a significant portion of southern slave owners were church-going folk  ( hence the breakaway and formation of the Southern Baptist denomination.  SBC apologizes for endorsing slave ownership. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_n21_v112/ai_17332136/ ).  All these god fearing slave owners seemed to have regarded only African blacks as being fit for involuntary servitude but I have never yet encountered any evidence of them enslaving members of their own white ethnic group.  These Christian slave owners apparently had no need of a darwinian world view in order to rationalize their race-based slave ownership.

  You need not respond to my post.  It is not actually a question but merely a historical citation, and as such not open to much equivication.


I feel like a broken record having to repeat this over and over again. What a person who professes to be Christian does or a Christian (but is ignorant of the scriptures in certain areas) does, doesn’t disprove Christianity. Over and over again in the Bible we’re warned by God, not to think and do anything that is beyond what He teaches or commands. If they do evil, they didn’t get it from the Bible.

Having said that, no where in the Bible does it say that the Christian is to abolish Slavery in the world, but puts things that man’s laws permit in perspective. For example that the man is still the head of the house, has authority over the wife, the Governing authorities have power over it’s subjects, and concerning slavery, that masters have authority over their slaves. But it also says that husbands love their wives even as Christ loves His Church and died for her, that the Governing authorities ultimately exist because God decreed it and they are in that respect in His service and for the better part is to punish evil doers and reward those who do good, and for masters to not mistreat slaves because the master is God’s servant and the slave is the Lord’s free man. Now remember that this life is temporal in the Christian's worldview, the next world is what Christians live for. Slavery wasn’t meant to be a perpetual institution (I distinctly remember mentioning in earlier posts that it was meant as an object lesson for God’s people).

As for Kirby’s response to my Darwin comment, did he forget that at the time Darwin lived, there was no black nation that could even come close to the military might of Europe and America (not to mention even to this day). They were still fighting with swords and arrow, while the white man had guns and explosives. Tell me Kirby, in light of this who had might? The Asian with all their “superior” intellect could fair no better (although Japan did eventually adopted western warfare). Hitler had his German war machine and the KKK have white menacing hoods.

Now just because Darwin or Huxley and other atheists are racists doesn't mean that all evolutionists are racists. But what I've been pointing out in my posts is that in an evolutionist universe there is no obligatory authority and where there is the lack of an obligatory authority, morality is relative (which a lot of you happily confess to but miss the point of that ideology). If morality is relative, racism is not wrong, murder is not wrong, rape, torture, infanticide is not wrong. It may be painful, unpleasant to the person on the receiving end, but it's not wrong if it's just matter in motion and relative.

Regarding the Aborigines, my MS Word spell checker didn’t show me the correct spelling and when I googled the way I spelled it, it showed it spelled that way in the search results. So I apologize for that, no disrespect meant. So chill out Kirby.

_____________________________________________________________________

 

I’ll respond to the rest after your response to Christian presuppositions provided. Have a good weekend Kirby and remember God can be your savior also. It’s never too late while you still draw breathe.

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


wkirby
Posts: 69
Joined: 2009-04-12
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:Read

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:


Read the following and see what damage you can do. I've done plenty of damage to your worldview already...

You have done no damage to Atheism as a worldview because Atheism isn’t a worldview no matter how many times you say it. You cannot believe in Atheism. Atheism won’t provide you with a free pass to all of the answers to the universe. Atheism won’t give you  a warm feeling inside or answer your prayers. All Atheism will do is open your mind to the idea that God isn’t the one-size-fits-all answer to life, the universe and everything. In some cases this has lead some people to search for some of the answers and I applaud them for this initiative. This doesn’t apply to me. In many ways I am similar to you and quite content with my state of ignorance - the primary difference is that you use God as an excuse for it. Call me apathetic, call me lazy, call me whatever you like. My interest in these matters stems purely from my curiosity in knowledge, I don’t have a burning desire to unlock these secrets. For me it’s more a case of “oh did you hear a new species of human was discovered? BTW, pass the sauce, please.” Understanding matters like these have virtually zero influence on my life other than giving me something interesting to talk about with my fellow humans down at the local watering hole.

How does that even remotely equate to your definition of a worldview? How does that even remotely equate to most of the other Atheists who frequent this site? The simple answer is; it doesn’t.

The only damage you have done is to the English language with bad sentence structure, terrible grammar and appalling spelling.
Now onto your posts:

Post#123 - The whole argument is based on the completely unsubstantiated claim of God’s existence. I say unsubstantiated because the Bible is only a vaguely accurate historical story -  it’ll make you laugh, it’ll make you cry - but it’s no more credible as a source than any other ‘Guide to the Universe’ texts. You have done absolutely nothing to prove anything to the contrary. You go on to state assumptions on my state of mind (I use ‘my’ because I am an unbeliever) that are again completely baseless and for the record, completely untrue. But you know this because I have already responded to this quote.

Post #142 - Now you are presuming to know what God would and would not have done in response to Adam and Eve’s reactions. How can you possibly know that? Have your delusions of grandeur gone so far that you now think you can claim to know what God would or would not have done? Even for a Christian that’s stepping over the line.

Post #144 - “He directs the course of history” and “...history is ultimately in His control…” while I think it’s pointless to comment again on how unsubstantiated this claim is, I can’t let it go by for a second time without commenting on how vile, inhumane and evil your God must be to have allowed all those deaths, all the torture, all the evils committed in his name to have come to pass.

Post #157 - “We begin to presuppose God in our thinking”. This is clearly your justification for filling in the gaps of the Bible. “If the Bible doesn’t say it, we know God well enough to know what he would’ve said!” Sadly it must be this kind of self-righteousness that has instigated so many atrocities in the name of God.

Post #157 - “He knows all things and reveals knowledge to us through the natural order (providentially)” - good luck waiting for that to happen. I guess we should all go and sit around in church waiting for God to providentially imbue us with the knowledge to repair such shattered human beings as Clayton Schwartz (Post #149). I guess our lives would be better off hanging out waiting for this knowledge to providentially come to us. Comments such as these, aside from being laughable, only serve to denigrate the hours of toil and labor people with far greater mental capacity than either you or I have gone to in order to unlock the secrets of the universe.

In the immortal words of Billy Bob Thornton in the classic “Bad Santa” - “That’s great kid, wish in one hand and shit in the other and see which one fills up first”

I should also comment on Post #173 - These quotes are completely at odds with your claim in Post #170 “You can you be the dumbest SOB on the planet but as long as you have might you can backup your stupidity.” According to your own research, Darwin said the exact opposite “...the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world.” All you’ve done is underline your ignorance.

It's also becoming apparent that others are chomping at the bit to engage in conversation with you, so while I'd appreciate your promise of following up on this and my previous post, I urge you to take up the challenge of butterbattle, hopefully he has started the new thread on Evolution by now because clearly that is what you really want to talk about. I will still be around, so any time you want to restart our dialogue all you need to do is throw up a post directed at me.

Why can't people accept that Atheism is by definition no faith? I don't believe in Atheism, I simply am Atheist.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
wkirby wrote:Why can't

wkirby wrote:
Why can't people accept that Atheism is by definition no faith?

Eh, not to be annoying, but you can be believe in many irrational things and still be an atheist. I guess, what I'm saying is, I would change this to, "Atheism is by definition no faith in a god or gods."

 

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


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
Quick REPLY TO #182

Kirby I like the word you used Unsubstantiated. Make sure you all read my POST #181

 

The Father and Holy Spirit are spirit, neither of them can materialize in front of you. The Son (since the incarnation) has also a human nature now (a gloried human nature) but no one will see Him until that terrible day when He comes to judge the peoples (does that make that Christian claim automatically falsifiable?).

The substantiated proof is the universe around you. The substantiated proof is you reasoning and arguing, dreaming, maybe even writing poetry, contemplating some really deep philosophical notion, maybe conducting some experiment in the laboratory, being indignant over child pornography or murder or government brutality.

That's mine substantiated proof. My worldview can account for all that, your evolution can't even get you past human thought and logic.

________________________________________________________

Please continue to wait for Part 2 of my post.

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


wkirby
Posts: 69
Joined: 2009-04-12
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Eh, not

butterbattle wrote:

Eh, not to be annoying, but you can be believe in many irrational things and still be an atheist. I guess, what I'm saying is, I would change this to, "Atheism is by definition no faith in a god or gods."

I agree you be an Athiest and believe in many irrational things, no question in my mind about that, but that has nothing to do with whether or not Atheism is a faith. I use 'faith' as a noun meaning a system of beliefs, eg. The Christian Faith. There is no such thing as "The Atheist Faith" and this seems to be beyond the comprehension of those that need to believe in something. What you have said is equally true.

But thank you for pointing it out - it provides further reinforcement to my argument that any written text that can be interpreted is open to misinterpretation Sticking out tongue

Why can't people accept that Atheism is by definition no faith? I don't believe in Atheism, I simply am Atheist.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:What

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

What a person who professes to be Christian does or a Christian does,... doesn’t disprove Christianity.


  Would that you were this charitable toward the concept of atheism based upon what atheists do.  Double standard anyone ? 

 (  As to my mention of Christian slave ownership and how that reflected a Christian worldview, well you just side-stepped the obvious issue of compatibility between slavery and OT ordinances given by God to the Hebrews but that's okay, ....anyway it doesn't really matter if those 19'th century Christians didn't have a conflict between their faith and  owning African slaves.  All they had to do was ask Jesus for forgiveness and then wait to go to Heaven after they died.  Seriously, is that what passes for God's justice ? )

   Have a "bless" day. 

 

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
Reply TO # 183 & 186

 

butterbattle wrote:
wkirby wrote:
Why can't people accept that Atheism is by definition no faith?

Eh, not to be annoying, but you can be believe in many irrational things and still be an atheist. I guess, what I'm saying is, I would change this to, "Atheism is by definition no faith in a god or gods."

 

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
What a person who professes to be Christian does or a Christian does,... doesn’t disprove Christianity.

  Would that you were this charitable toward the concept of atheism based upon what atheists do.  Double standard anyone ? 

 (  As to my mention of Christian slave ownership and how that reflected a Christian worldview, well you just side-stepped the obvious issue of compatibility between slavery and OT ordinances given by God to the Hebrews but that's okay, ....anyway it doesn't really matter if those 19'th century Christians didn't have a conflict between their faith and  owning African slaves.  All they had to do was ask Jesus for forgiveness and then wait to go to Heaven after they died.  Is that what passes for God's justice ?  What a sad joke.)

   Have a "bless" day. 

Now I know you guys live in perpetual denial all the days of your atheist lives. The intellectual and philosophical credibility and integrity of evolution is being destroyed and you’re worried about the word Atheism being misconstrued as a belief system. Here’s a parallel, you’re house is burning up all around you but you’re worried about being seen in your sleepwear.

 

I’m going to correct butterbattle’s remark it should rather read like this “…there’s apparently no rational reason to be an atheist…”

 

As for ProzacDeathWish, I’m convinced you don’t even read my posts. You made your irrelevant comments, but I posted what’s quoted below 5 posts before yours. Did it take you two hours to write your comment?

 

AtheismIsNonsense (From Post #181) wrote:
I feel like a broken record having to repeat this over and over again. What a person who professes to be Christian does or a Christian (but is ignorant of the scriptures in certain areas) does, doesn’t disprove Christianity. Over and over again in the Bible we’re warned by God, not to think and do anything that is beyond what He teaches or commands. If they do evil, they didn’t get it from the Bible.

Having said that, no where in the Bible does it say that the Christian is to abolish Slavery in the world, but puts things that man’s laws permit in perspective. For example that the man is still the head of the house, has authority over the wife, the Governing authorities have power over it’s subjects, and concerning slavery, that masters have authority over their slaves. But it also says that husbands love their wives even as Christ loves His Church and died for her, that the Governing authorities ultimately exist because God decreed it and they are in that respect in His service and for the better part is to punish evil doers and reward those who do good, and for masters to not mistreat slaves because the master is God’s servant and the slave is the Lord’s free man. Now remember that this life is temporal in the Christian's worldview, the next world is what Christians live for. Slavery wasn’t meant to be a perpetual institution (I distinctly remember mentioning in earlier posts that it was meant as an object lesson for God’s people).

 

Now just because Darwin or Huxley and other atheists are racists doesn't mean that all evolutionists are racists. But what I've been pointing out in my posts is that in an evolutionist universe there is no obligatory authority and where there is the lack of an obligatory authority, morality is relative (which a lot of you happily confess to but miss the point of that ideology). If morality is relative, racism is not wrong, murder is not wrong, rape, torture, infanticide is not wrong. It may be painful, unpleasant to the person on the receiving end, but it's not wrong if it's just matter in motion and relative.

(I do have to make a correction I made it sound as if the man having authority over the woman in the family and church is man's doing, it was the design of God, including governments. Out of the three listed only slavery is man's doing including divorce but God uses them as object lessons to teach His people)

BACK TO ProzacDeathWish, You seem to claim that slavery is evil (and your point contained in parentheses seems to depend on this claim). I want to know from you, how slavery can be "evil" from within the evolutionist worldview (where morality is relative and there's no obligatory authority anywhere in the universe - What can "evil" or "good" even mean in an evolutionist universe). If I was somewhere in Asia that permitted the owning of slaves, would my owning a slave be evil? (Come on Pro, I'm giving you a chance to remedy the inconsistency I'm implying)

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

 Now I know you guys live in perpetual denial all the days of your atheist lives. The intellectual and philosophical credibility and integrity of evolution is being destroyed and you’re worried about the word Atheism being misconstrued as a belief system.

If you actually think that the credibility of evolution is actually in that state you simply demonstrate you are totally self-deluded and out of touch with reality.

 

Quote:
 

Now just because Darwin or Huxley and other atheists are racists doesn't mean that all evolutionists are racists.

You are wrong, yet again.

From Pharyngula:

Quote:
After leaving Brazil, in their mess discussions (remember: Darwin was along to talk to FitzRoy at meals, to keep FitzRoy from going insane as his predecessor had), Darwin noted the inherent injustice of slavery. Darwin argued it was racist and unjust, and therefore unholy. FitzRoy loudly argued slavery was justified, and racism was justified, by the scriptures. It was a nasty argument, and Darwin was banned to mess with the crew with instructions to get off the boat at the next convenient stop. FitzRoy came to his senses after a few days of dining alone. Two things about this episode: First, it shows Darwin as a committed anti-racist; second, it contrasts Darwin's views with the common, scripture-inspired view of the day, which was racist.

Please update your preconceptions, they are totally out-of-step with reality.

Quote:

But what I've been pointing out in my posts is that in an evolutionist universe there is no obligatory authority and where there is the lack of an obligatory authority, morality is relative (which a lot of you happily confess to but miss the point of that ideology). If morality is relative, racism is not wrong, murder is not wrong, rape, torture, infanticide is not wrong.

The obligatory 'authority' for secularists consists of things like the laws of nature - if you jump off a tall building or stop eating you will die, etc - and the obvious truth that a species, whose evolutionary strength is mutual support in a group, will not survive without instincts and/or group agreement that behavior leading to murder and internal conflict are not ok. 

Of course, morality does not come from authority, that is legalism, ie just enforced obedience to a set of issued laws. Morality in such a regime would be demonstrated more clearly in acts of disobedience against arguably unjust or unfair edicts of the authority, rather than in subservient obedience.

Whereas the imagined 'obligatory authority' in the Biblical universe allows slavery, racism, rape, and torture....

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

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

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

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


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
 You were timing how fast I

 You were timing how fast I responded to your post ?   Were you in a race with me to see who can post the fastest ?  You base your sense of superiority on some pretty weak premises.  

   My knowledge of the intricacies of evolution is superficial and shall likely remain that way because I don't really give a damn.  Evolution has no moral aspect in my world view.  As well, I don't care about Quantum Mechanics or any other scientifically based discoveries that currently exist or whether they have any significance to theist critics or atheist proponents. 

  My atheism stems from being a former Christian who made the mistake of looking too closely at my religion not from being some kind of Darwin nut hugger. 

   

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
wkirby wrote:butterbattle

wkirby wrote:

butterbattle wrote:

Eh, not to be annoying, but you can be believe in many irrational things and still be an atheist. I guess, what I'm saying is, I would change this to, "Atheism is by definition no faith in a god or gods."

I agree you be an Athiest and believe in many irrational things, no question in my mind about that, but that has nothing to do with whether or not Atheism is a faith. I use 'faith' as a noun meaning a system of beliefs, eg. The Christian Faith. There is no such thing as "The Atheist Faith" and this seems to be beyond the comprehension of those that need to believe in something. What you have said is equally true.

But thank you for pointing it out - it provides further reinforcement to my argument that any written text that can be interpreted is open to misinterpretation Sticking out tongue

Wow, I see. When I read, "Atheism is by definition no faith," I thought you were saying that atheists approach all subjects with unwavering reason, that atheists don't believe anything without sufficient evidence. This is, of course, simply incorrect, as the only difference between atheists and theists is that atheists don't believe in a god or gods. However, you were using the term, "faith," more like a "religion" or a "belief system." I completely agree. Atheism, by itself, cannot be a faith; it doesn't contain enough possible premises. You can't derive anything from it.    

Now, imagine the miscommunication that might have occurred if one of us had been a theist.

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


wkirby
Posts: 69
Joined: 2009-04-12
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote: Now,

butterbattle wrote:
Now, imagine the miscommunication that might have occurred if one of us had been a theist.

You don't have to imagine - just read the posts above!

Why can't people accept that Atheism is by definition no faith? I don't believe in Atheism, I simply am Atheist.


wkirby
Posts: 69
Joined: 2009-04-12
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:wkirby

butterbattle wrote:

wkirby wrote:

butterbattle wrote:

Eh, not to be annoying, but you can be believe in many irrational things and still be an atheist. I guess, what I'm saying is, I would change this to, "Atheism is by definition no faith in a god or gods."

I agree you be an Athiest and believe in many irrational things, no question in my mind about that, but that has nothing to do with whether or not Atheism is a faith. I use 'faith' as a noun meaning a system of beliefs, eg. The Christian Faith. There is no such thing as "The Atheist Faith" and this seems to be beyond the comprehension of those that need to believe in something. What you have said is equally true.

But thank you for pointing it out - it provides further reinforcement to my argument that any written text that can be interpreted is open to misinterpretation Sticking out tongue

Wow, I see. When I read, "Atheism is by definition no faith," I thought you were saying that atheists approach all subjects with unwavering reason, that atheists don't believe anything without sufficient evidence. This is, of course, simply incorrect, as the only difference between atheists and theists is that atheists don't believe in a god or gods. However, you were using the term, "faith," more like a "religion" or a "belief system." I completely agree. Atheism, by itself, cannot be a faith; it doesn't contain enough possible premises. You can't derive anything from it.    

Now, imagine the miscommunication that might have occurred if one of us had been a theist.

AiN - this is called clarification. Some people in the world choose to use this as a form of communication if they don't quite understand a particular phrase, sentence or even word.

In reference to you "the house is burning" comment, all of the statistical data I can find shows a growing trend, year upon year away from the notion of Creationism. I'd suggest that if you can see the flames, that warm and fuzzy feeling may not be the Lord.

Why can't people accept that Atheism is by definition no faith? I don't believe in Atheism, I simply am Atheist.


Faithbuster
Posts: 7
Joined: 2009-04-09
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:I'm halfway

Anonymouse wrote:

I'm halfway through reading it. Powerful stuff. Thank you for the link.

 

It is isn't it? glad if you get something out of it. 


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
It

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


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
I'VE REPLIED TO POST #194 IN BUTTER'S THREAD.

I'D STILL PREFER TO STAY HERE AND I'LL REPLY BACK TO YOU WHENEVER YOU POST IN YOUR THREAD BUTTER, BUT MY ANSWERS MAY NOT COME AS QUICK.

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


wkirby
Posts: 69
Joined: 2009-04-12
User is offlineOffline
From Post

From Post #181

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
  Now I’ve asked you repeatedly to demonstrate how inorganic matter can be made into a living organism (that is what evolution teaches you). I can ask this of you because of your worldviews…

Again I point out to you that by your definition of a worldview, I completely agree with you that Atheism isn’t a worldview.

This only proves Atheism is not what you want to discuss, prove or disprove. Your central argument is that the Theory of Evolution is not a valid worldview, not Atheism. That is not what we agreed to argue. I asked you a series of questions at the start of our little exchange you asserted “Any worldview that isn’t the worldview presented in the Scriptures cannot make sense of either logic, science, or/and morality.” and “What we do is prove the truthfulness of the Christian faith by proving any other system of truth to be impossible including religions and other atheistic worldviews (worldviews that are atheistic)”.  You have failed on these points.

In fact, I have demonstrated that there cannot be absolute truth for such matters whether that be Christian Faith or any other system of beliefs.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Regarding changes in the Bible, I’ve told you about the manuscript data available and even secular (non Christian) professional conclusions on the matter. If there are inconsistencies why hasn’t someone come forth yet to prove that the doctrine of the trinity (for example) is wrong because in this copy of John’s Gospel, it reads that God is three gods thus emphasizing polytheism or something like that? I told you if you take a copy that is a thousand years old and compare it to the earliest extent manuscript, you’ll find no essential variation.

Actually that is false, not all Christian Faiths recognize the trinity.

 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

The best you can do at this point is to exercise prejudicial conjecture and arbitrarily say that people back then simply destroyed the incriminating evidence to which I’ll respond why stop there, why not destroy all the rest that got the prepositions, the articles, and even some words here and there and throughout copied incorrectly to produce even better results? You got nothing Kirby.

If I wasn’t such a supporter of freedom of speech or the historical value, I’d agree with you that it’s a great idea to destroy the lot.

Sadly this is not the point I have been trying to make. I didn’t say that they destroyed incriminating evidence, I suggested it was possible that they either interpreted incorrectly or interpreted based on their own prejudicial requirements.
 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

As for the Gospel of Judas, what would you say if some unknown author wrote a paper that had a title like “Secret confessions of Sir Thomas Huxley” and in there was found all kinds of contradictory statements (beyond what is already found) regarding evolution, based on your argument, evolutionist would have to count that as part of evolutionist teaching?

What a wonderful thing that would be! I suspect that if that did occur, hundreds (if not thousands) of people around the world, with far greater intellect than you or I, would set out to either prove or disprove these secret confessions. This is how the scientific process works. Do you think that we use penicillin to combat infection just because Alexander Fleming thought it’d be a good idea? While it’s a recognized fact that penicillin does indeed kill certain bacteria, it doesn’t apply to others does that mean that we should completely disregard it? Unlike you, I am not claiming that Sir Huxley provides all of the answers to the universe, I’m not even claiming that he was correct in his conclusions about evolution.
 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Finally in regards to the different interpretations of the scriptures by Christians, does this mean that if one evolutionist disagrees with another (now I know that there is not one universal catholic orthodox view of evolution) that that automatically proves evolution to be false? If this is your argument it’s a self defeating argument. The same as your other two (1) that no historic literary data can be a reliable source unless it’s the original or a photocopy of the original and (2) no letter or writing can be accurately understood unless the author’s tone of voice or body language is present in the reading of the writing.

*sigh* I accept responsibility for not making my point in a way that you can understand but I do wish that you would read the words and try to rationalize what I’ve written rather than try to construe them to create a non-existent argument.

I suppose I should be thankful because you continually underline my point - NO-ONE can presume to know the truth of any interpretive text. It’s irrelevant whether it is photocopied or printed or hand written by monkeys. Translations of literary (that is interpretive) text by necessity lend themselves to misinterpretation of the original text regardless of the source. Even if the text is written in someone’s native language, especially English, the exact same prose can be interpreted entirely differently by the reader. Try this little exercise. Grab a Thesaurus and look up a word, any will do but just for fun use “faith”. Now look up the very first word that the Thesaurus suggests as a synonym, then the first word from that synonym and marvel at how quickly the meaning of first word you looked up has changed. If you really want to reinforce this concept, grab a different Thesaurus and try it again.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
As for Kirby’s response to my Darwin comment, did he forget that at the time Darwin lived, there was no black nation that could even come close to the military might of Europe and America (not to mention even to this day). They were still fighting with swords and arrow, while the white man had guns and explosives. Tell me Kirby, in light of this who had might? The Asian with all their “superior” intellect could fair no better (although Japan did eventually adopted western warfare). Hitler had his German war machine and the KKK have white menacing hoods.

Again, it is not I that is claiming “Might is right” and “You can you be the dumbest SOB on the planet but as long as you have might you can backup your stupidity.”

You might also like to know that the Chinese invented gunpowder and it may be worth your while looking up an obscure historical figure by the name of “Genghis Khan”.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Regarding the Aborigines, my MS Word spell checker didn’t show me the correct spelling and when I googled the way I spelled it, it showed it spelled that way in the search results. So I apologize for that, no disrespect meant. So chill out Kirby.

I apologize, that was a cheap shot. Just for general knowledge, Aborigines are not unique to Australia, it can be used as a generic term for indigenous people of any region who are the earliest known inhabitants.

 
For all your lambasting and all of you recalcitrance, we have finally gotten to the thing that drives you most in the post I’m responding to now, Post #181:

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Over and over again in the Bible we’re warned by God, not to think and do anything that is beyond what He teaches or commands.

You do not have a problem with Atheism or evolution or perceived truth in other systems. You are terrified of thinking. You are on a mission to save all of us here from ourselves because we are thinking.

You are here to save our souls. What better place to find people who think than an Atheist forum?

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Over and over again in the Bible we’re warned by God, not to think and do anything that is beyond what He teaches or commands.

I thank you for your concern. I’m touched that you would go to such great effort to save me and everyone else here from the terrible consequences of thinking.

But my soul doesn’t need saving.

I’ll sign off with reminding you that it’s never too late to open your mind and stop holding onto your fear. It’s OK to think.

Why can't people accept that Atheism is by definition no faith? I don't believe in Atheism, I simply am Atheist.


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
REPLY TO #173 PART 2, #182, #196 & REPEAT One opponent at a time

If it's OK with you all I would like to engage in dialog with one of you at a time until one of us says no longer wants to interact with the other. All of you seem to be arguing on the same side, but I'm only one person. I cannot respond to you all, but I want to. If you all can agree to restrain yourselves until the active opponent steps aside, I think we can have an interesting dialog. If anyone who is not the active responder posts, I will not respond to your comments unless it's to notify of changes or updates. I would like begin with HisWillness. Please wait for my post if your comment is aimed at me; otherwise continue to talk amongst yourselves.

____________________________________________________

AtheismIsNonsense from post 159 wrote:
wkirby wrote:
…a) His words were recounted faithfully and b) that they have been passed down through the ages without distortion and NEITHER of these things can be shown to be true.
Again from your own words are you suggesting that no writing before photocopying can be reliable unless we have the original writing? If not, you should drop this argument. And besides that how is this an attack on my worldview? If anything it tells us more about your worldview that no writing in the past is can be used as a reliable source.                                                              Regarding the passing down of the text, the evidence is out there for you to examine. You have both Christians and non Christians scholars who will vouch the fact that the transmission of the text is remarkable even over a span of about a thousand years for them to conclude that you have in your hands a faithful reproduction of the original. The unbelieving scholars don’t however believe the contents to be true, but they are true to their profession. And once again this is telling us more about your worldview than it is mine.

wkirby wrote:
I suppose I should be thankful because you continually underline my point - NO-ONE can presume to know the truth of any interpretive text. It’s irrelevant whether it is photocopied or printed or hand written by monkeys. Translations of literary (that is interpretive) text by necessity lend themselves to misinterpretation of the original text regardless of the source. Even if the text is written in someone’s native language, especially English, the exact same prose can be interpreted entirely differently by the reader. Try this little exercise. Grab a Thesaurus and look up a word, any will do but just for fun use “faith”. Now look up the very first word that the Thesaurus suggests as a synonym, then the first word from that synonym and marvel at how quickly the meaning of first word you looked up has changed. If you really want to reinforce this concept, grab a different Thesaurus and try it again.

wkirby wrote:
You are almost correct in your understanding that I am“one of those people who claim that you can never know the effective meaning of any text of any writing” but I would add “that has the ability to be interpreted”. Any work of literature (both fiction and non-fiction, and make no mistake, I believe the Bible to be fiction) falls into this category, including the Bible, the Qur’an, the Torah, the Tripitaka, Tao-te-Ching, Shakespeare, Harry Potter and The Bourne Identity.
The only form of writing that we can know the true meaning of is that which requires no interpretation, Mathematics for example. Mathematics, being the only pure language, is not open to interpretation. It does not require tone or inflection or body language to be correctly understood.

I provided the following quotes because I don’t think you know what you write half the time. The comment about original writing or photocopy of the original was partly in response to your comment in Post #158. You are essentially saying that unless the person writes his own autobiography (from point a.) and the copy you have is the original (from point b.), no writing in that time of history (yes I include all writings, because you can’t be arbitrary and only include Biblical writings) that doesn’t meet those qualifications can be used as a reliable source.

Now regarding understanding writing (forget the fact that it’s translated from one language to another because your argument implies all writings of any derivative) do you know how ridiculous your claim is? If your claim is true, why do people write anything at all? Why even have historians to record events and give accounts from their eye witness perspective if in the end, the readers will most certainly misinterpret it or miss any truth in it? You not only hurt theists but atheists as well (all people). Why are we even exchanging writings? Your prejudice against Christianity is so irrational that you undermine all written communication.

(It should be noted that the theory of evolution excludes knowing anything at all, including mathematical logic. Knowledge would be impossible if the theory of evolution were true - man’s behavior (at best) would be automatic and purely stimulant driven, instinctive, and therefore mindless (not brainless).

wkirby wrote:
Whether you recognize this or not, you too understand this. In English, we use such crude substitute as bold text or italics or CAPITALS in the written word to substitute for our inability to express ourselves correctly. We do this to emphasize a certain point because we cannot use our voice or body to do it for us. Many European languages use accents to do the same. This most certainly includes me and my writings here. I have lost count of the amount of times I have chatted with someone online trying to describe something for hours only to have it resolved in minutes by a phone conversation. I don’t consider this to be unique to me because great writers use this exact flaw in written communication to their advantage. Often that is exactly what makes their works great! I doubt whether even you would disagree with that.

If there’s any miscommunication, it’s not because of the absence of voice or body. I don’t care how it sounds coming out of your mouth or what movements your body’s making. If the same exact words are coming out of your mouth, I still would point out your poor arguing skills.

wkirby wrote:
Again I point out to you that by your definition of a worldview, I completely agree with you that Atheism isn’t a worldview.

This only proves Atheism is not what you want to discuss, prove or disprove. Your central argument is that the Theory of Evolution is not a valid worldview, not Atheism.

wkirby wrote:
I have no quarrel with you as to Atheism being flawed as a worldview - I don’t even consider Atheism to be a worldview!

First of all Kirby, I’ve tried to satisfy your little quirk about the word usage. I’ve called your position by many things to avoid it, like materialist, physicalist, evolutionist, so forth. You have a worldview (everyone does); however your worldview is atheistic (ask Gauche about it sometime), from whence atheistic worldview is derived.

Now if you have a problem still and tell me that my problem is with evolution and not atheism, I have to ask you Kirby, for what reason are you even an atheist? Is it even rational? Maybe it’s emotional like ProzacDeathWish’s, who thinks Bob is a Darwin nut hugger and maybe you too.

 

wkirby wrote:
You keep promising to provide proof but you have not and I put it to you that you can not. Neither can you use your proposed methodology to to prove it (being disprove everything else) because you clearly do not understand every other worldview. How can you say “My view is the only valid view” when without doubt you do not know or understand all of the other worldviews on offer? I handed you Buddhism, gift-wrapped it even, to allow you to show me how your ‘disproving-proves-my-argument’ system works and your response to that demonstrated you don’t even understand the basics of this extremely common worldview. Imagine if I had given you something obscure like Skoptsy (as a fundamentally Christian faith) or Akan culture’s religion.

 

The information I’ve provided you on the Christian can account for the universe, human intelligence, rationality, science, knowledge. It’s all in that post. You won’t like the answer but you won’t be able to show any inconsistencies between the parts and if they disagree with your methods, you’ll have to prove your methods are valid methods within your own worldview or else you have no right to employ them.

wkirby wrote:
You continually assert that your beliefs are “devoid of inconsistencies and contradictions” often masking it behind the Scriptures. By the simple fact there are estimates that indicate there may actually be more than 30,000 various sects of the Protestant Christian religion this cannot possibly be correct. If the scriptures were devoid of inconsistencies and contradictions, there could only be one form of Christianity.  This in itself demonstrates that it’s not the Scriptures at all that produce a worldview (your definition of worldview), it’s man’s interpretation of the scriptures that creates it. See here http://www.religioustolerance.org/ifbooks.htm for a description of the different Bibles you can choose from further underlining my point that there is no absolute truth and there is without question inconsistencies and contradictions within Christianity.

wkirby wrote:
Actually that is false, not all Christian Faiths recognize the trinity.

Do you even know what you’re talking about (30,000 sects)? I distinctly remember you asking me about what group I belonged to and I replied correcting you on how Christians group themselves and what qualifies as a Christian according to Christians. The three creeds provided are the benchmark of Christian orthodoxy. Christians are Trinitarian. Mormons, Jehovah’s Witness, etc are considered cults to us because they reject Trinitarian doctrine. I can talk to Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Pentecostals, and Presbyterians and call them my brothers and sister and they can do the same with me, so what’s the problem?

As for scripture, I distinctly remember CORRECTING your understanding of the passages you provided (demonstrating your lack of simple reading comprehension and expository skills and the error not stemming from inconsistencies in the text). I told you that the reform faith has THE correct understanding of it because it’s bullet proof from critics like you. We didn’t “decide” what books were in the Bible, we just understand it. You haven’t pointed out any inconsistencies; you just assume it based on really poor premises. I mean if the text was inherently contradictory, it wouldn’t matter how you read it, it’ll still be wrong on the whole. And that is what I’m pointing out to you about the materialist worldview. No matter who defends it, you or Sapient, or the Infidel Guy, or Richard Dawkins, it still can’t explain how human thoughts, rationality, ethics, or argumentation can result from a matter & energy only universe, because our behavior in the real world IS NOT automatic and purely stimulant responsive/reactive and if it was, it would make no sense for us to reason or to argue or to label something good or evil/right or wrong because all these actions require the ability to choose.

Therefore you conclusion is in error.

wkirby wrote:
I agree completely that I cannot use this to disprove your worldview. I don’t think that it is possible to disprove your worldview because right now, at this point in human history, I don’t think we’re even close to being able to determine the ‘truth’ of matters such as these. The best that I can hope to achieve is demonstrate to you that you cannot prove it either.

But I can and I have Kirby. I’ve proven that my worldview doesn’t violate the demands of rationality (logic) and yours does. This would be a bad argument on my part if being logically cogent wasn’t a concern of yours, but again we are “arguing” so I would have to say that logic is important in this discussion.

The funny thing though is that your worldview can’t account for the TRUTH of anything, naturally or supernaturally. Your worldview places you as finite man with no trustworthy point of reference and I think that is why many of you claim that there’s no such thing as absolute truth and that knowledge is at best probable, including your claims of mathematical truth (do you see how atheists are always undermining their own positions). I hope you can see the contradiction in this; if there’s no absolute truth, how do you KNOW that there’s no absolute truth?

The Christian knows that God must be true, because He knows everything (because all knowledge belongs to Him) and reveals truth about the universe to us in the natural order (His providential governing), in our mind’s constitution (being made in the image of God), and through supernatural revelation (His spoken, written, and incarnate word); so that even though we’re finite, we can know things; know truth. Jesus said, “I am the truth” and the scriptures declares that Jesus is “the true light that gives light to every man.” and “in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge”

wkirby wrote:
Does that make this conversation meaningless? I guess that depends on what you are hoping to achieve from the conversation. If you hope to convert me and likely anyone else visiting this site, I dare say yes, this is meaningless. If I for a minute thought that you may disavow your beliefs then that too would be meaningless. Establishing truth? Definitely meaningless. Having an interesting and entertaining conversation with someone who’s point of view is diametrically opposed, that I consider to be a wonderful way to expand my understanding of people that are different to me. You are a curiosity to me. I have never had the privilege of speaking directly with someone who steadfastly refuses to believe any ‘science’ (other than that which God gave us the knowledge for - in itself a ridiculous distinction) and insists on attacking the merits of scientific conclusions without sufficient knowledge of the discipline they are attacking! To borrow a term from Mastercard, it’s priceless. If this is not enough for you, I will not think ill of you for ending the conversation.

wkirby wrote:
I also see an interesting parallel here with your thinking. It is quite reasonable and rational for you to attack those fields of science that you perceive to be undermining your beliefs while at the same time supporting those that make your life easier. Apparently God gave those scientist would provide ‘good’ thing the knowledge to do so. It seems as though it’s fine that medical scientists haven’t found a cure for cancer yet because some day, when God feels like it, he’ll grant man the knowledge to sort that little inconvenience out (sincere apologies to you or anyone else reading this is if that appears callous or inconsiderate on my part). Why not take the same stance with these other fields of science that (because they don’t have all the answers) they must be false and we should cease all support of these clearly incomplete theories? Alternatively, why not accept that fields like evolution are just as incomplete in their knowledge but no less valid?

Kirby, your behavior doesn’t surprise me one bit. Atheists are so ignorant of so many things and cannot support or defend their theories, so they go around purposefully misinterpreting their opponent’s arguments and trying to draw them away from the deficiencies of their atheistic worldview’s assumptions.

What science are you claiming that I’m refusing? The only science I’m refusing is the science that is atheistically biased, because Christians can do science just fine without believing in evolution (isn’t this sounding like your argument – but my argument is a lot better than this).

In fact I argue (I think I’ve argued this in the previous posts) that only Christians have a justification for doing science in the first place. We have a God who created and governs the world and makes it uniform so that we can apply induction and causation and not only that, we have the mandate to do science; “be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.”; to know chemistry and physics and biology so as to have dominion over the earth and subdue it. To build the great pyramids, extract metals out of the earth to create stronger metals, use moving water for electricity, discover medicines, perform surgeries, promote athleticism, etc.

While all you have as a materialist atheist is matter in motion. Curiosity is just what is. The brain of man just does what it does according to the “inherent” character of the matter he’s comprised of. A total automated but “lifeless” piece of  organic “machinery”. Furthermore, there’s no basis for the uniformity in nature; no accounting for induction and therefore no science. David Hume and Bertrand Russell both renown atheists, both confessed to this huge problem they saw as atheists (you can’t prove induction by using induction to prove it – that would be begging the question).

wkirby wrote:
I’d appreciate it if you refrained from patronizing me for not being an expert on the scriptures or the bible or any of the other fallacies you believe in. The onus is not on me to to prove the truth of it, that responsibility falls squarely on you.

And I have proved the consistency of the contents of scripture to you and if you continue to make uneducated and superficial claims as you’ve made, I wouldn’t have to. I pointed this out to you already.

And the only fallacies present in our discussions are your fallacious arguments. I have to ask how old you are. I have an image of some teenager or early twenties something.

wkirby wrote:
If you’ve told me all there is to know about Christian’s epistemology - and thereby established inconsistencies and contradiction are completely absent from your beliefs - then all you’ve managed to do is reaffirm but initial thoughts before we started this conversation. Not only is a belief in God folly, it is completely unnecessary for my life.

Tell me Kirby when are you going to answer my questions and objections regarding man being nothing more than a mindless piece of organic machinery in your materialist worldview?

If you don’t know the answer and no one else here knows the answer, then the reason as I have concluded before is that evolution is the blindest “religion” there is. Isn’t that what you claim theism to be?

There is no reason to reject the Christian God, because only His existence can account for human intelligence, knowledge, rationality, morality, and science. All humans are without excuse, because you know that the belief system you adhere to is contradictory to human experience.

wkirby wrote:
It is not even my responsibility to prove to you that Atheism is a worldview, let alone a valid one. If I do not understand you, that is your inability to effectively convey your opinion - something that could perhaps be overcome if we weren’t simply using the written word?

Once again you show your ignorance and dodge my questions, Dodger.

wkirby wrote:
Am I saying it’s a legitimate argument to judge a system (whether it be Christianity, Atheism, or what have you) on the ignorance or faithlessness of its professors?

wkirby wrote:
Almost - I am saying it’s a legitimate argument to judge a system (whether it be Christianity, Atheism, or what have you) or any authority. I don’t think you should accept anything on faith. Incidentally, that includes anything I say. I should also qualify that I do not consider Atheism to be a ‘system’.
As to “So that when an atheist lies, cheats, steals, rapes, or murders, etc I can fault the atheism that they profess to?” To that the answer is absolutely and categorically no.

According to you, atheism is not based on rationality. It’s actually based on the lack of empirical evidence, again something your materialist worldview places heavy emphasis on. Not to mention philosophically it’s inconsistent internally and contradictory to human experience.

Regarding the question, it was meant to be sarcastic by the way Kirby. Remember I’m always pointing out your poor arguing abilities.

wkirby wrote:
You have not proven to me that Jesus claimed to be God. The passages from Luke demonstrate that his followers regarded him as God, the passage you supplied from John comes closest but again he claims to be the son of God not God himself. He claims that God is inside him but then again, so do you. Are you claiming to be God?

wkirby wrote:
I asked you to provide me a passage in which Jesus himself claims to be God. Not the son of God, not to have God inside him but to be the living God. I will not accept accounts from disciples or prophets, only a direct quote from Jesus.

wkirby wrote:
I will concede that Jesus believed himself to be the son of God but I have not questioned that.You accuse me of creatively taking passages out of context, which makes it curious to me that you would begin with the line of ‘He and I are one’. The set up to this statement implies he and I are one refers to their ability to protect and preserve their sheep (followers), not an outright claim of being God. Indeed he repeated refers to God as his father throughout Matthew 10. 

wkirby wrote:
You are continually asking me to concede. Concede what? That you have managed to point out all those around Jesus thought him God but at no point quoted Jesus claiming deification? Conceded.

wkirby wrote:
That I do not understand the Bible like you do? Conceded.

Kirby, you must have the dullest mind on the face of the earth. The title Son of God means God. The Jews understood it as that and that’s why their encounters with Jesus were so “controversial”. What did the Jews say was their reason for wanting to kill him in the John passage because, He (Jesus) being a man claims to be God. And in His trial (the Luke passage), they couldn’t get out of Him whether He was the Messiah, so they asked Him if He was the Son of God, to which He replied, “IT IS AS YOU SAY.” The Jewish reason for wanting Him dead besides Him exposing their ignorance and hypocrisy was for what they claimed was Blasphemy; no man can claim deity, but Jesus being God could and He did. And did they not say that Jesus testified Himself. Whether He said He was God or not instead of claiming to be the “Son of God”, the point is the title is synonymous with God, when the Jews prosecuted Him for blasphemy, Jesus could have easily explained to them that the phrase Son of God is not synonymous with God and so would have avoided being put to death.

You seem to be just as deluded as Bob who refuses to believe that Darwin was racist when the proof is in Darwin’s own writing which I posted for you all to read.

If you read back Kirby, I continually asked you to concede because that was something you kept demanding of me from the very beginning and maybe you forgot but the section of my POST with all the concedes were about the claim that Jesus was a communist. REMEMBER. Your memory is like crap (much like what is in your head it appears). You go and read back on it and learn something please, like how to read. Or go read a math book and learn about all the PROBABLE truths in it because according to your materialist universe, you can’t know anything to be true.

Tell me Kirby when are you going to answer my questions and objections regarding man being nothing more than a mindless piece of organic machinery in your materialist worldview (according to your worldview’s own assumptions)?

 

wkirby wrote:
When it comes to pointing out the vile and obscene behavior of Christians you seem to be responding with ‘they weren’t really Christians’. Or you may be saying that they didn’t interpret the Bible correctly - which is exactly what I am saying! Neither they, nor you - not even a talking parrot - are capable of interpreting the Bible correctly. So yes, I concede.

You concede because you lack any simple reading comprehension and if there were no God and only matter and energy, you or I wouldn’t even be able to function anywhere at the level of a bird (remember mindless piece of organic machinery), so maybe a talking parrot is a complement?


wkirby wrote:
You’ve asked me to explain human thought, unless I want to concede that there are non physical things that exist - well I concede there are non physical things that exist. I’d prefer not to allow you to narrow it to human thought alone because it is undeniable that animals can think as well.  In answer to non-physical things - I’ll start with Blue, mainly because I like the color, but any other one will do. How about happy? Again use any emotion you like, I sense frustration would likely be more applicable for you. Before you start on about ‘blue is only blue because of the physical properties of an object reflecting only one spectrum of light, blah, blah’ I am referring to the concept of blue. If that’s not enough, try explaining blue to a blind man. Equally, try explaining happy to someone with autism.

How old are you Kirby, really? I must be talking to a kid, because you reason like a fifteen year old.

For one, animals are nowhere near the level of man’s intellect (maybe yours however). Secondly, animals don’t think like man can. Their actions are almost automatic and stimulant responsive, that’s why when it’s mating season, they mate. When winter’s approaching, they hibernate or travel to warmer client, they’re very regular in their behavior; purely instinctive. Man on the other hand is unpredictable; no two men are the same. Man can choose to conceive a child only to leave it in a garbage can. He can choose to kill a family member to collect on the insurance policy, a mother can choose to abandon her children in the midst of danger (while a mother bear will always fight to the death for her cubs), etc. You get the point: Humans chose and can rationalize.

Now if evolution were true, man would only be a mindless body composed of matter, subject to the uniform behavior of the matter he’s comprised of. He wouldn’t be responsible for getting himself from point A to point B.

wkirby wrote:
There are uncounted physical and non physical things in this world however I choose not to substitute the lack of knowledge with a God. I am quite happy to accept that I don’t know it all and nor does humankind. In the interests of not seeming to dodge the question, I think that thought is an extension of the ability to learn and life experiences. Again, I am not the right person to ask this of but as I understand it the frontal lobe of our brain is where we store memory and it’s only those animal with a frontal lobe that are capable of of thought. Perhaps you may want to ask a neurosurgeon.

My objection still stands: man would be nothing more than a mindless piece of organic machinery if materialist atheist theories were true (based on the atheist’s own assumptions of reality – what the universe is comprised of)

wkirby wrote:
Which leads me on to the illusion of choice. I don’t blame you for not picking up “The Lucifer Principle”, it is a long and involved book with very heavy concepts and ultimately irrelevant to your life. The particular point I was referring to is the concept that our decisions and choices are driven largely by the society in which we live and crucially the position we hold in that society. Bloom references various university studies on human behavior that strongly indicate that we have no more choice in the role we play in society as a whole than ants in a colony do. Of all people I think the comedian Chris Rocks summed it up best with “A man is as faithful as his options allow”.

You are begging the question always. Again how do you go from the brain of man that is nothing but matter subject to immutable laws to self and social awareness. You seemed to have arbitrarily skipped what constitutes as thoughts and logic (totally dodged it). Again my objection is that this formula will only make the man’s behavior (at best) automatic and purely stimulant driven, instinctive, and therefore mindless (not brainless) from the human perspective.

wkirby wrote:
I’m disappointed you didn’t follow the links though. I would have thought you’d have some interesting things to say about the discovery and verification of a new species of human that became extinct about 21,000 years ago. As I understand it, that is well before Adam and Eve. Did God get it wrong the first time and decide to start over? In case you want to follow them, here they are again http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8036396.stm and http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2008/s2563065.htm

Kirby, you know this is not proof. Some fossilized remains of ONE deformed person or ape appears and automatically it’s a missing link? The scientist who hold to this belief are atheists and so their conclusions will be made in this light.

I should point out how funny the atheist faith works here. Here’s a quote from butterbattle for example:

butterbattle wrote:
Evidence for evolution:

- Creationism asserts that God created all organisms at the same time, in their present forms. If this were true, then fossils of all kinds of organisms should distributed everywhere in the geological column. Upon radiometric dating, they should also be dated to all periods in natural history. However, this is not the case. Instead, the fossil record shows a clear progression to more complicated life forms. We also observe that all organisms existed exclusively within a certain time period. So, we never find an elephant older than a Triceratops or a penguin in the pre-cambrian.”

So now whenever you encounter a situation where the remains of what’s clearly defined as human is found along side the remains of this “missing link” you conclude from this that “17,000 years ago Homo sapiens were sharing the Earth with another species of human that they dubbed Homo floresiensis.”

So I have to ask which is it, (1) a clear progression to more complicated life forms or (2) humans and their physically and intellectually inferior cousins residing together?

In the beginning, point (1) was emphasized but when the “new” evidence that arrived that contradicted point (1), that didn’t make you drop point (1), it made you modify your belief system to incorporate point (2). So we get things like “living fossils” and several different species of man living together simultaneously (you not only have this new discovery but Cro-Magnon man and of course Homo sapiens). This illustration only proves what I’ve pointed out earlier before. That atheists believe things they have yet to see or experience; but as I point out it’s BLIND faith.

Also you know that fossil dating techniques are not accurate and are not agreed upon. The funny thing is you could never know if the dating methods worked or not past 4000 years and I personally don’t even know how the scientist who developed it knows that carbon dating is accurate only up to 4000 years and unpredictable after that.

wkirby wrote:
Have we reached the seventh day already! How time flies. Enjoy your rest, I'll look forward to hearing from you again when you return. I'll remind you, it's never too late to remove the scales and see the world still exists and is wonderful even without God.

wkirby wrote:
I’ll sign off with reminding you that it’s never too late to open your mind and stop holding onto your fear. It’s OK to think.

Yes, so much freedom to murder, rape, sodomize, steal, lie, or what have you and not feel any guilt but on the contrary feel justified for anything we do. Absolute freedom.

_______________________________________________________________________

MORE SPECIFICALLY TO POST #182 & #196

AtheismIsNonsense (from POST #184) wrote:
Kirby I like the word you used Unsubstantiated. Make sure you all read my POST #181

The Father and Holy Spirit are spirit, neither of them can materialize in front of you. The Son (since the incarnation) has also a human nature now (a gloried human nature) but no one will see Him until that terrible day when He comes to judge the peoples (does that make that Christian claim automatically falsifiable?).

The substantiated proof is the universe around you. The substantiated proof is you reasoning and arguing, dreaming, maybe even writing poetry, contemplating some really deep philosophical notion, maybe conducting some experiment in the laboratory, being indignant over child pornography or murder or government brutality.

That's mine substantiated proof. My worldview can account for all that, your evolution can't even get you past human thought and logic.

 

I should point out that in order for you to even judge God’s actions to be vile or inhumane (on a universal stage), you would first have to explain how in an atheistic universe (where morality is relative - evil, good, right, or wrong is defined by the individual and therefore meaningless) it makes sense to call someone vile or inhumane and for it to have timeless universal meaning (because your “outrage” over His actions suggest that).

wkirby wrote:
Post #142 - Now you are presuming to know what God would and would not have done in response to Adam and Eve’s reactions. How can you possibly know that? Have your delusions of grandeur gone so far that you now think you can claim to know what God would or would not have done? Even for a Christian that’s stepping over the line.

It’s simple deduction Kirby, you should learn how to employ it. We know from His revelation that after the fall, man’s condition put him at enmity with God, so that God’s supernatural revelation became redemptive (the main theme in all of scripture is God’s salvation of man). Before the fall, God communicated with man “face to face” and there was unhindered fellowship between God and man, it would be illogical to reason that He would not need to have anything in writing. Do you see how simple that was.

wkirby wrote:
Post #157 - “We begin to presuppose God in our thinking”. This is clearly your justification for filling in the gaps of the Bible. “If the Bible doesn’t say it, we know God well enough to know what he would’ve said!” Sadly it must be this kind of self-righteousness that has instigated so many atrocities in the name of God.

What are you talking about Kirby? How is it that even now you still don’t know what presupposing means. Could it be because you don’t really read much of what I write or conveniently forget it? It doesn’t mean that we make up stuff about God. It means we start our thinking with the truths found in His word, as opposed to the thinking pattern of the world which is inherently hostile toward the truth of God and works to suppress the knowledge of God that is present in every man. Only then when we presuppose the truth of His word can we arrive at the right conclusions.

Here’s a parallel: You’re putting together a fancy desk (it arrived unassembled). You could ignore the instructions altogether, but if you don’t know any of the physical features of the desk, have never experienced a desk like this one, or even assembled any furniture or worked with wood and tools, etc, you would most certainly get the assembly wrong. But if you take the time to carefully read the instructions, you’ll be assembling the desk correctly from point A to point B so that in the end you would know that your conclusion is correct.

Another parallel is this: Suppose you’re solving a complicated mathematical equation and at the very onset, you make a calculatory error but continue to progress until you arrive at your answer. You would be wrong in your conclusion because of the initial error committed in the beginning. That explains well the dilemma of all atheistic and all non Christian theistic worldviews; your beginning assumptions are wrong therefore your conclusions in the end are wrong.

wkirby wrote:
Post #157 - “He knows all things and reveals knowledge to us through the natural order (providentially)” - good luck waiting for that to happen. I guess we should all go and sit around in church waiting for God to providentially imbue us with the knowledge to repair such shattered human beings as Clayton Schwartz (Post #149). I guess our lives would be better off hanging out waiting for this knowledge to providentially come to us. Comments such as these, aside from being laughable, only serve to denigrate the hours of toil and labor people with far greater mental capacity than either you or I have gone to in order to unlock the secrets of the universe.

You conveniently left out the image of God in man and His supernatural revelation. His revelation is comprehensive and therefore there is no reason or excuse to reject the Christian God, because only His existence can account for human intelligence, knowledge, rationality, morality, and science. All humans are without excuse, because you know that the belief system you adhere to is so antithetical to human experience. The natural order tells us that there is intelligent design, that life didn’t originate from non life, that the concept of morality is meaningless if it’s relative, how complex and amazing our thoughts and rationality are and how uniform and error free the scriptures are.

And with that, we can go out and discover and learn things about the universe, how it operates, and how to manipulate it for our use and for the glory of God.

(Yes, your mental capacity is very little – but be of good cheer – it’s because of your atheism – accept truth and be free)

wkirby wrote:
I should also comment on Post #173 - These quotes are completely at odds with your claim in Post #170 “You can you be the dumbest SOB on the planet but as long as you have might you can backup your stupidity.” According to your own research, Darwin said the exact opposite “...the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world.” All you’ve done is underline your ignorance.

Kirby, I don’t mean to diminish your dignity in anyway but your atheism certainly hasn’t helped you in anyway to think coherently.

Pointing out Darwin’s ideas has nothing to do with what atheism logically concludes.  Darwin didn’t carry out his atheism to its logical conclusion as most atheists do not and they wouldn’t agree with my statement about “might makes right” He underestimated the theory of evolution, He didn’t foresee that anyone with a screwed up ideology and military might to back it up could impose his will on anyone who lacked the resources to protect himself. The one subjugated could be a genius mind compared to the aggressor.

Understand that when I say that atheism is true to explain morality in an atheistic universe, it’s hypothetical. I’m granting you that human intelligence is possible (remember my reasoned objection about it being impossible which you haven’t removed). Now in light of this granting on my part, it wouldn’t matter if a man of Darwin’s intellect was right or not, if his opponent was significantly less intelligent but had might in any form over Darwin, he could enforce his will on Darwin.

Here’s a parallel situation: suppose you’re walking with a couple of your friends at night and suddenly are surrounded by a group of thugs with guns and knives possessing less than a high school education who want to hurt you, would you get out of it unscathed because your intellect surpasses theirs? Not likely

wkirby wrote:
What a wonderful thing that would be! I suspect that if that did occur, hundreds (if not thousands) of people around the world, with far greater intellect than you or I, would set out to either prove or disprove these secret confessions. This is how the scientific process works. Do you think that we use penicillin to combat infection just because Alexander Fleming thought it’d be a good idea? While it’s a recognized fact that penicillin does indeed kill certain bacteria, it doesn’t apply to others does that mean that we should completely disregard it? Unlike you, I am not claiming that Sir Huxley provides all of the answers to the universe, I’m not even claiming that he was correct in his conclusions about evolution.

Kirby if it’s alright with you, I would like you to step down and give someone else a chance. I’ve told you that it’s frustrating debating with you because you don’t answer the questions I ask, your arguments are fallacious, and when you respond to my posts, they’re usually not even related to the quote you’re responding to. All this means that I have to correct you first before I can even begin to answer or respond and that’s a lot of writing. Even now you still don’t understand what we’re supposed to be doing and regardless of tone of voice or body language, you will not anytime soon. Now if you think I’m in error, in your next POST, explain to me what we’re suppose to be doing and if I think you understand, then we’ll go on, otherwise this correcting of your objections before responding is tiresome.

Now you have to remember that you asked me why the Gospel of Judas was excluded from the New Testament canon and I answered that it was written after the canonical 4 were already widely used in the church because they're mentioned and it's implied in its own epilogue and the teachings were new (not taught in the 4) and Gnostic. Not to mention the text that was found was Coptic and not Greek. And from your statement it implied that it should have been included in the New Testament canon because, I don’t know, it mentioned Jesus and Judas in its text and had a title that sounded like it belonged. That’s what was implied in your question/statement. I went on to show you how fallacious this argument was by giving you a parallel:

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
As for the Gospel of Judas, what would you say if some unknown author wrote a paper that had a title like “Secret confessions of Sir Thomas Huxley” and in there was found all kinds of contradictory statements (beyond what is already found) regarding evolution, based on your argument, evolutionist would have to count that as part of evolutionist teaching?

My point was that atheists have no obligation to include this as their own. If it contradicts their theory, they can exclude it on that basis alone.

You’re so blind and dull minded that you can’t even see that, but instead talked about the scientific process and Alexander Fleming and penicillin. The fact that you use penicillin as a parallel to literary writing is beyond mine or anyone’s comprehension and demonstrates your poor arguing skills?

___________________________________________________________________

(Kirby if it’s alright with you, I would like you to step down and give someone else a chance. I’ve told you that it’s frustrating debating you because you don’t answer the questions I ask, your arguments are fallacious, and when you respond to my posts, they’re usually not even related to the quote you’re responding to. All this means is that I have to correct you first before I can even begin to answer or respond and that’s a lot of writing. Even now you still don’t understand what we’re supposed to be doing and regardless of tone of voice or body language, you will not understand anytime soon. Now if you think I’m in error, in your next POST, explain to me what we’re suppose to be doing and if I think you understand, then we’ll go on, otherwise this correcting of your objections before responding is tiresome.)

 

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


wkirby
Posts: 69
Joined: 2009-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Temper, temper AiN. Breathe

Temper, temper AiN. Breathe in through the nose and out through the mouth. Deep breaths now.

I imagine it is quite tiresome when you come across someone who doesn’t simply acquiesce to your opinions and refuses to allow you to misconstrue their answers to suit whatever ridiculous claim you are trying to make.

Might I suggest trying to read the responses without the red mist over your eyes, perhaps that will help with your comprehension?

I have given you every opportunity to prove to me you are right. I have not only opened the door for you, I’ve tried to push you through to get your point across but you have failed.

Now as to our respective skills of argument, so far I have demonstrated;

  • Any text that can be interpreted can be misinterpreted.
  • The sheer volume of differing Christian Faiths proves the Bible is one of the most misinterpreted texts on the planet.
  • There is no evidence to prove the Bible is nothing more than an entertaining story.
  • Atheism isn’t a system of beliefs and therefore cannot be considered a worldview by your definition.
  • Being Atheist, or Christian for that matter, has nothing to do with one’s morality.


You have demonstrated;

  • You cannot prove truthfulness of the Christian faith.
  • You cannot even truthfulness of your Christian faith.
  • Jesus did not claim to be God. He did claim to be the Son of God however and those around him thought him to be God.
  • You believe God doesn’t want us to think.
  • You think you know what God would or would not do in certain situations.
  • You have a mid-range High School level grasp on the English language.


For the record, my arguments have been consistent throughout this discussion, I have varied the way I’ve tried to express myself to help you gain an understanding of what I’m trying to say. If you think that my correspondence is indicative of my age you are wrong. It is indicative of my trying to put it to a level you will understand.

And incidentally, the analogy with penicillin was between the ‘completeness’ of penicillin and the ‘completeness’ of evolution. I was trying to say that just because penicillin doesn’t hold all the answers for killing bacteria, it is no less valid. It is little wonder you couldn’t comprehend the non-existent parallel to literary writing.

Thank you for an interesting exchange of ideas, it has been a very entertaining experience for me.

Why can't people accept that Atheism is by definition no faith? I don't believe in Atheism, I simply am Atheist.


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
REPLY TO #198 & REPEAT One opponent at a time please

 

If it's OK with you all I would like to engage in dialog with one of you at a time until one of us says no longer wants to interact with the other. All of you seem to be arguing on the same side, but I'm only one person. I cannot respond to you all, but I want to. If you all can agree to restrain yourselves until the active opponent steps aside, I think we can have an interesting dialog. If anyone who is not the active responder posts, I will not respond to your comments unless it's to notify of changes or updates. I would like begin with HisWillness. Please wait for my post if your comment is aimed at me; otherwise continue to talk amongst yourselves.

____________________________________________________

Unfortunately for me Kirby, it has not been entirely entertaining for me except only when your ridiculous arguments were shown to my friends for a good laugh. I liken the experience to arguing with a retarded child. J

Most if not all you wrote in your last and final post (Thank God) was gibberish. You didn’t prove what you were suppose to prove, only that if the evidence and reason didn’t approve with evolution (based on blind and non provable assumptions), you didn’t accept it.

So let me recap what has been shown in our exchanges:

·        I’m sure that some writings out there are purposefully written as riddles or such, but other than those, all writing is not meant to be “interpreted”. All writing can be understood or misunderstood depending on the level of attention paid to it by the reader. So what you have argued is that all writing is unreliable, even your own.

·        The reason why people misunderstand the text is because of lack of proper attention to the Bible, especially as a whole (As you have repeatedly pointed out in your writing and arguing. One reason they get it wrong is because they adopt the thinking pattern of non-Christians and we know what that results in; fallacious arguments, poor literary comprehension, and lack of honesty in debate (but then again I shouldn’t have thought that an atheist had any obligation to be honest)

·        That if one judges an opposing view with his (the judge’s) own assumptions and arbitrary standards, there’s no way to prove anything to him (the one judging).

·        I never in any of our discussions assumed that Atheism is a worldview (you need to look back at page one and read that I acknowledged this error) and you only brought it up to steal attention away from the fact the theory of evolution requires blind and contradictory faith to accept.

·        That if morality jumped up and bit you on your butt, you wouldn’t know it. It simply flies over your tiny “monkey” brain (I hope that wasn’t an admission of conceding). Relative morality means, murder can be interpreted by one person one way and by another person the complete opposite. And this goes well with rape, stealing, lying, cheating, etc.

Furthermore that;

·        Truth can be known and can only be known if God is true otherwise all your claims are not true and not even probable if atheism is true.

·        I have proven the truthfulness of Christianity because of the impossibility of the contrary. If God is not true, you have no basis for morality, logic (never got an answer to that), or science, and certainly no basis for debate at all.

·        That Jesus claimed to be God but because the way in which He claimed it wasn’t satisfactory to your arbitrary standard, it wasn’t accepted. You should go and polish your reading comprehension skills. Claiming to be the Son of God meant that you were claiming to be God (as was shown in John’s Gospel), and when asked by the Jews whether He was the Son of God, He said “It is as you say”, but if I’m wrong and you’re right, then after being found guilty because of His statement, it would mean that Jesus consciously and purposefully failed to correct their misunderstanding and save His life. Yes your explanation is much more plausible on the literary level.

·        Because God is true we are able to think, even you Kirby. J But if God is not true then you and I are nothing more than mindless organic “machines” saying and doing whatever the matter in our brains and body are “programmed” to do according to the laws of science internally and reactively to stimuli.

·        I have effectively and demonstrated my use of deductive reasoning which cannot be accounted for and explain by the evolutionist theory.

·        Kirby must be a foreign exchange student, possibly from Dumb Town, Stupidburg. J

 

I suppose only intelligent and honest minds will decide for us, so keep hoping that you wrote and reasoned clearly Kirby. Keep your dream alive.

As for your so called Penicillin/evolution analogy, your reason is flawed there also. Penicillin works and is practical while evolution is a theory and is not necessary to believe to perform science.

Penicillin is something we can physically hold and administer to the ill and infected, while evolution is read about (talked and discussed about – I’ll easily grant that) in books and writings (literary).

I just can’t see the connection you’re claiming, sorry I really don’t. J

Goodbye E.T., don’t forget to phone home.

WHO’S NEXT? BUTTER DO YOU WANT TO DISCUSS HERE OR ON ONLY ON YOUR THREAD? I CAN DEBATE HERE WITH SOMEONE ELSE AND CONTINUE WITH OUR DISCUSSION ON YOUR THREAD.

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:1. You don't

jcgadfly wrote:

1. You don't know what you're talking about.

2. (just in case) Hi Matt! Hate us so much you can't live without us?

Yeah!