If the God of the bible does not exist, then why debate it?

Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
If the God of the bible does not exist, then why debate it?

In attacking Jesus Christ , Atheism might render itself a disservice. 

Do you lead an attack on a non existent being? 

Atheism to the logistician seems unreasonable. 

 

 

At night we see many stars in the sky. But when the sun rises, they disappear. Can we claim, therefore, that during the day there are no stars in the sky? If we fail to see God, perhaps it is because we pass through the night of ignorance in this matter. it is premature to claim He does not exist. 

Richard Wurmbrand

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Unless

Beyond Saving wrote:

Unless you can explain to me why you blindly accept whatever god says is good as good I don't think this particular tangent can go further.

Beyond that we believe what God has defined as good is good because He created in our hearts and minds what is determined as good or not?  

I accept it because of all the actions I've seen, the afteraffect has not been anything worse, if anything it has been better than the previous situation.  What came out of destroying people in the flood?  A fresh start for humanity, what could be better than that?  

Beyond Saving wrote:

So since he doesn't want us to be robots, why can't/shouldn't you question the rules he put in place? If he doesn't want you to be a robot, then why do you feel a need to blindly follow his rules without questioning them?

No one says you can't question them, I don't because i understand their purpose.  Read Job.  That explains our place in questioning God.

The thing with questioning the rules God put in place is we have to be prepared to understand that in our finite 100 year life span, we couldn't possibly understand the full effect and ramifications of Gods Law over the possibly millions of years of existence.  

We can't even understand the full intentions of the Law our forefathers wrote into our countries Law today without extensive study into them.

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

I am missing what is supernatural about my beliefs. I accept that most humans have a different morality than I do. I tolerate other moralities insofar as they do not threaten me or my standard of living. If they do threaten me or my standard of living I am willing to use physical force against them. What is supernatural about that?

caposkia wrote:

your belief that that is a valid resolution to the problem

First, how is the solution not valid? It has been more or less the standard practice of humanity for as long a time as history can recall. And second, do you know the meaning of the term "supernatural"?

it's not valid because it is the exact thought process of the very people groups you're so against.  That is also what makes it abnormal as supernatural is defined.

Beyond Saving wrote:

It is far more moral than stoning the criminal and for many of the acts which god endorsed stoning as a punishment, I think it is moral to let them go without so much as a fine. 

and in today's world with the NT, stoning is not appropriate nor valid.  Back when stoning was a valid form of punishment, it might be interesting for you to look into the laws of many lands... if you think this was severe, you're in for quite a shock.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Oh yeah, right. I keep forgetting death is great when god is responsible. Yet Christians almost universally consider death to be a bad thing and go to great lengths to avoid it and punish those who are responsible for it....except god. 

um... not what I said.  

Death is not the end is what I said, I did not say Death is good death is great.  you can worship death if you want, but i know that's not what you were getting at.

God is only responsible for following through with the Law and His creation.  Again, your'e getting angry at God for punishing those who broke the Law.  I know we're never going to see eye to eye on this.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Exactly, so why does god have any more authority as designer of everything than the designer of a car has over local drug laws?

because... God is the designer of everything!  a car designer is not also a lawmaker, however God is a designer AND lawmaker.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

But why? Perhaps I should phrase the question better. Obviously, his rule trumps all other rule because he is significantly more powerful than us and will judge us whether we like it or not. But why should we accept it? 

You should only accept it if you believe that God is creator and almighty over all creation and gods.  If you can believe that, then why not?

Beyond Saving wrote:

Which is none. God doesn't give people freedom, he insists that you follow his rules and judges you on them. Freedom is when the governing authority restrains itself from making rules. For example, our government theoretically protects our freedom of speech by restraining itself from passing any laws regulating speech. Whether a government official likes what you say or not, they can do nothing to punish you for it. God didn't do that. He punishes us for absolutely everything he doesn't like and the only option we have is to beg for clemency. Granted, his punishment is significantly delayed so in the meantime we have the illusion of freedom, like a murderer that successfully hides from the police for a few years, but eventually, God has a 100% success rate at catching us for judgement. That is not freedom, it is totalitarian control with delayed punishment.

Except that if you accept the gift through Jesus you are not punished for everything... in fact you are punished for nothing and in the time of judgement you are seen as a saint.  God also insists taht you follow his rules, however, through Christ you are saved also through Christ you are free to make a choice.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:caposkia

Vastet wrote:
caposkia wrote:
you've really got to calm down and read before you reply.  I said "it seems you're making a lot of assumptions"  I did not tell you you were or make the claim that you were, the way you've been responded makes it seem that way.  Here i was looking for you to assure me you weren't... this reply wasn't very reassuring on that front.
I'm starting to wonder if talking to a wall would be more productive. Are you intentionally dodging comprehensibility? How is pointing out that the equation makes assumptions, an assumption? Did YOU read his sources? Do you know ANYTHING about science? You haven't even critically examined your own equation, yet you assume I assume the equation makes assumptions. How about you do some research. Until I'm getting paid to be your teacher, I'm not walking you through 12 grades of science education.
caposkia wrote:
Ok.  If so, then please explain.
The hypothesis of dark matter: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter Read the whole thing.

I have not read all of his sources, but over the years have looked into a lot of those topics.  

I'm not sure how me reading through that link has helped your case any with exception of the possibility that dark matter is not really there and that it is a gravitational phenomenon that ultimately would require us to "modify" the Laws of gravity to explain.  

I have read through it and the one thing that really jumps out at me other than the alternative highlighted in the previous sentence is; "Dark matter plays a central role in state-of-the-art modeling of cosmic structure formation and galaxy formation..."  

if that is true than dark matter is absolutely paramount to the formation of life due to the fact that any variation in size, location, material etc of our planet would deem it uninhabitable.  

So again, please explain what you got out of it and how it supports your understanding.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Hopefully,

Vastet wrote:
Hopefully, after you have, you will understand how it is a hypothesis to explain an observed behaviour of the universe. Until someone actually proves it exists and defines its properties, it shall remain a hypothesis, subject to being thrown in the trash if new information explains those behaviours sufficiently without needing it.
caposkia wrote:
With the amount of sources this guy claims for his findings,
Quantity is not an adequate substitute for quality. Did you read his sources? No, you didn't. You simply arbitrarily assume he knows what he's talking about, despite the fact I PROVED he doesn't. The first reference is to a creationist paper, not a scientific journal. Not one reference following that justifies his probability equations after that. I actually read a few of them. For example: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v359/n6391/abs/359129a0.html Has NOTHING within to justify making any probability equation towards the formation of life.

all of what we're discsussing is scientific hypothesis mainly because no one was there to observe it.  That's nothing new and of course all of it can be thrown into the trash.  I haven't seen where you proved anything so far.  

Let's dismiss his first reference then if it's of a source you don't deem credible.  I didn't see anything in the link that made me question it, though the link had too little information to really base anything off of at this point... I did not read that source.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:And we still

Vastet wrote:
And we still have that ultimate hangup where he uses life to calculate the probability of life, which automatically refutes the entire equation all by itself. I don't need to spend years cross referencing journal articles, spending a few minutes is sufficient. You should try it.
caposkia wrote:
Source
Burden of proof is on the claimant, not the skeptic. So he (you) must justify why a galaxy a hundred million lightyears away has any impact on the probability of life in this galaxy. It isn't justified in his references, I checked. Hence I make the counter claim that it isn't relevant. YOU must provide a source to say it is relevant.
caposkia wrote:
you have proved nothing.
Quite untrue, you just don't like facing reality.
caposkia wrote:
ok, then sourcing it should be easy.
I did. Go to high school and get top marks in science classes. I'll wait.

wow dude.  I give you a good summary link, among others, you throw some wiki links at me and then say burden's on me?  Being a skeptic is one thing, but you're concluding that this person who obviously took some time to do this can be discredited in one post.  Highschool science has not shown me how this person is wrong... in fact quite the opposite.  

How does a galaxy x miles away affect us?  Same way the symmetry of our galaxy affects us, same way our solar system works.  It has been proven that the gravitational waves of one galaxy affect the other and so on, so if there is a chain reaction affect, it makes sense that a galaxy 100 million miles away could affect us... minimially today, but calclulated over millions or even billions of years, the affect is much greater and ultimately could affect the formation of what we know to be our home solar system as we know it that is able to sustain our life.  

I feel this is a bit over your head though if you're stuck on high school science.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:In the

Vastet wrote:
In the meantime, how about you explain why you're still defending this equation despite the fact it uses pre-existing life to calculate the probability of life forming, which is automatically self refuting. After all, if life already needs to exist in order for life to form, then the probability of life forming is 0. Yet he claims there is still a probability of it happening. So his math and his science are both critically flawed.

or there really is no possibility of life forming on its own.  

I brought up this equation because you were complaining about how I haven't provided you a link or proof of the odds of life being slim... he is one of 100's out there.. you don't like his? find another... as you said, it's all theory.  The consensus is that the odds of life forming without some intelligence behind it is slim to the point of being almost impossible.  

I felt this guy would be a good start.. you want to tear him apart, you can't prove anything by ranting and complaining of the lack of intelligence behind this converation, rather you should use the ignorance you claim I have against me and show the world with actual proof why I and this other feller are wrong.    As i've said to you before, this shoudl be easy.  I'll wait.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:Ok. So in

Jabberwocky wrote:

Ok. So in your first paragraph, I agree. Let's shorten this and hit the topic we're focusing on. 

After that, you go on to say, basically, you believe the Qu'ran is false because you believe that the bible is true, and that the Qu'ran contradicts the bible. You of course, refuse to touch on the bible's own internal contradictions. The contradictions between testaments are generally greater than those within a testament. This is to be expected. However, you do not give the same authority to the Qu'ran. Your only reasons for this are:

1. You believe the bible to be true, and 

2. You cite that there is historical evidence that supports the truth of the bible. 

More specifically, you mention that historians agree that this Jesus character considered himself to be the son of god, or the messiah. Which historian? The only reference I could find that suggests as much is the Testimonium Flavianum, which is considered by historians to not be an authentic passage, rather it's considered to be one that was later interpolated by Eusebius.

Now, just for fun, you said that "if anyone is to add to these books or take away from these books that the plagues written within scripture should be placed upon them." Can you provide me a source that suggests that Joseph Smith had the plagues of the bible unleashed on him? If not...woullllldn't that sort of throw that idea out the window?

 

Which historians you ask... 2 that come up of course would be Flavius Josiphus...(I know how they've been discredited).  Also Tacitus.  It is understood that Tacitus would have been just too young at Jesus' death to write of it so his works are known to be second hand.    You can also find writings of Jesus in the Annals of Rome.

Considering the plagues question, read Revelation... it's basically that all who are resurrected into Judgement are going to suffer the plagues, so would include at that time those who changed, took away or added to the books.  This is how I'm understanding it anyway.  It doesn't say anywhere that it would happen immediately or even in their physical lifetime.   The book of Revelation is one of the books that makes that claim and therefore it would make sense that these plagues would be unleashed upon such a person in those end times discussed in Revelation and not necessarily any sooner.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary wrote:Beyond

danatemporary wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

caposkia wrote:

how would you be any different?  All in all our conversation is bullshit isn't it.  You're just looking for reasons to discredit me and getting frustrated when you miss.  

Just in case it wasn't clear before, i don't care that you think my God is bullshit.  If you do though, obviously you don't care to know Him or educate me as to why, so it seems we're done then.  

It's obvious our moralities are not on the same plane.  You have your reasons, I have mine.  Unless you think we can make some progress with our conversations, I think we should both move on with our lives.

Unless you can explain to me why you blindly accept whatever god says is good as good I don't think this particular tangent can go further.

  This IS WEAK, I'd be down right embarrassed IF "I" wrote this. THIS IS WEAK!! If you are so keen on challenging your position on the Bible, you've been talking to the wrong people bub. If you accumulate enough knowledge, you can NEVER go home AGAIN, I'm afraid. If you (Cap) consider yourself to be so  perceptive, then recognize your own feelings with this. You are taking it personally, like EVERYONE hasn't seen this happen before. You insult god and you've insulted everything I hold dear.

Just for the record, I did not use any emotion in this reply.  I simply used the words Beyond Saving used with me.  I had said that with a calm demenor and meant it to be a matter of fact statement.  The words Beyond Saving used could be seen as emotional and so I used the same approach back to see what would happen.  If you notice it did refocus it to the original issue which is blindly accepting what good I believe my God is.  

I've dealt with people like Beyond Saving in life and on here many times before... there's a point in the conversation when you have to call them out and make them either focus or leave.  This was not meant to be a strong stand of any kind so I don't understand you calling it weak.  It worked. 

You are right, if you accumulate enough knowledge, you can NEVER go home AGAIN.  How true is that... and I have never been home since.  

Trust me on this though... I did not mean that to be in any way personal, I did not put emotion into it, I only used words that were given to me by the person in question to reiterate their approach and refocus them.  I see it as a success because we went back to a one line statement with no emotion left in it.  I'm sorry if that offended you.  I will warn you it's likely not the last time I will have to use this approach on this thread.  

Are you really surprised though to learn of my purpose?  These people are absolutely the right people to talk to in the midst of intelligent conversation.  They bring me a break when conversations become difficult elsewhere.  I also see them as a challenge because then I have to look for new ways to explain the same old thing and new approaches to the same subject matter which has proven useful as well.  They have prepared me for the attempted surprise attacks that I get in life.  

disclaimer: I did not mean any of this or the post in question to offend anyone or degrade anyone.  


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"I'm not sure how me reading

"I'm not sure how me reading through that link has helped your case any with exception of the possibility that dark matter is not really there and that it is a gravitational phenomenon that ultimately would require us to "modify" the Laws of gravity to explain."

Modifying the equations we've made to describe gravity is a hell of an 'except'. > >
I'm glad you read and understood it.

"If that is true than dark matter is absolutely paramount to the formation of life due to the fact that any variation in size, location, material etc of our planet would deem it uninhabitable. "

IF that is true. IF. In other words the very first point of the probability equation is based on an IF.

" I give you a good summary link, among others, you throw some wiki links at me and then say burden's on me? "

It is. You made the claim that the probability of life forming is ridiculously low and then you backed it up with a horrifyingly flawed equation, as I have shown repeatedly. Whether you like it and acknowledge it or not.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:How does a

caposkia wrote:
How does a galaxy x miles away affect us?  Same way the symmetry of our galaxy affects us~snip~

So show me HOW it affects us so significantly that if it were over there instead of over here, life on Earth would be impossible. Your entire paragraph is a hypothetical which is not backed up by ANYTHING.

caposkia wrote:
I feel this is a bit over your head though if you're stuck on high school science.

Rich coming from a guy who never even made it that far. > >

caposkia wrote:
or there really is no possibility of life forming on its own.  

So then the equation is invalid by your own words, as it supposes a probability of life forming.

So we're back to you not having an equation. So I'll repeat my request for a probability equation on life forming.

caposkia wrote:
you don't like his? find another...

I'll let you in on a little secret: They are ALL subject to the same horrifyingly ridiculous flaws as this one.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
So just how many hoops are

So just how many hoops are you going to jump through before you realise you're trying to defend the indefencible anyway? I don't really want to be insulting but you leave me little choice. A six year old could see through your ridiculous argument. Every single person who reads this will laugh at your demonstration of cognitive dissonence.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Which

caposkia wrote:

Which historians you ask... 2 that come up of course would be Flavius Josiphus...(I know how they've been discredited).  Also Tacitus.  It is understood that Tacitus would have been just too young at Jesus' death to write of it so his works are known to be second hand.    You can also find writings of Jesus in the Annals of Rome.

Considering the plagues question, read Revelation... it's basically that all who are resurrected into Judgement are going to suffer the plagues, so would include at that time those who changed, took away or added to the books.  This is how I'm understanding it anyway.  It doesn't say anywhere that it would happen immediately or even in their physical lifetime.   The book of Revelation is one of the books that makes that claim and therefore it would make sense that these plagues would be unleashed upon such a person in those end times discussed in Revelation and not necessarily any sooner.  

Looking at Tacitus, it seems you're right. Tacitus does indeed imply that the founder of the Christian movement considered himself the saviour (although he doesn't seem to reference the name at all). However, if you have a group of people who are claiming that this is what their following is about, and insist that it's the case, you may be inclined to believe them. The person of Jesus is historically not well documented. 

Annals of Rome? There is Annals by Tacitus...then Annals of Rome, which seems to be a turn based strategy game. Got a link for me? 

Now when it comes to the plagues....COME ON! Are you serious??? It reminds me of playing games as a child that involved lots of imagination (although we had video games, our parents limited us and made us actually play outside lots...novel concept, but I digress). I was often guilty of this actually, I was terrible for it. I would get shot with an imaginary gun, and say "you missed me!" Then I'd get shot again, much more obviously and say "I'm wearing a bulletproof vest". Then I would get shot in the head and I would say "I'm the Terminator!". This is blatantly moving the goalposts. You have been called on your BS, and have changed the rules of the game. You trumpeted out with this verse out of revelation and said "oh this is what happens to those who attempt to modify the book". When I point out that it didn't happen to Joseph Smith you say "oh it will though. You just won't see it and we will be long dead".

Am I saying it won't happen? Yes. Yes I am. Could I be wrong? Certainly, but I'm playing the odds here.  I believe that all of these myths are equally untrue, and you believe that all except your particular myth are untrue. All you've provided in defense of it is the bible (which is not evidence, it is the claim. Let me repeat, the bible is not proof!), two historical references that you admit are second hand at BEST, and a turn based strategy game. 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote: What came

caposkia wrote:

 What came out of destroying people in the flood?  A fresh start for humanity, what could be better than that?

 

Not murdering people would be better. 

 

caposkia wrote:

it's not valid because it is the exact thought process of the very people groups you're so against.  

So what? That is exactly what a belief in subjective morality would predict. If anything, our moral conflicts validate that belief. 

 

caposkia wrote:

That is also what makes it abnormal as supernatural is defined.

No, supernatural is not defined as "abnormal". 

http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/supernatural

Quote:

adjective

(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature:

a supernatural being

 unnaturally or extraordinarily great:

A belief in subjective morality does not suggest any force beyond scientific understanding. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

It is far more moral than stoning the criminal and for many of the acts which god endorsed stoning as a punishment, I think it is moral to let them go without so much as a fine. 

and in today's world with the NT, stoning is not appropriate nor valid.  Back when stoning was a valid form of punishment, it might be interesting for you to look into the laws of many lands... if you think this was severe, you're in for quite a shock.

What difference do human laws make? I thought God's morality is unchanging? Humans have done all sorts of barbaric things in the past that are immoral.

 

caposkia wrote:
 

Beyond Saving wrote:

But why? Perhaps I should phrase the question better. Obviously, his rule trumps all other rule because he is significantly more powerful than us and will judge us whether we like it or not. But why should we accept it? 

You should only accept it if you believe that God is creator and almighty over all creation and gods.  If you can believe that, then why not?

Because his laws are bad laws. 

 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:"I'm not sure

Vastet wrote:
"I'm not sure how me reading through that link has helped your case any with exception of the possibility that dark matter is not really there and that it is a gravitational phenomenon that ultimately would require us to "modify" the Laws of gravity to explain." Modifying the equations we've made to describe gravity is a hell of an 'except'. > > I'm glad you read and understood it. "If that is true than dark matter is absolutely paramount to the formation of life due to the fact that any variation in size, location, material etc of our planet would deem it uninhabitable. " IF that is true. IF. In other words the very first point of the probability equation is based on an IF. " I give you a good summary link, among others, you throw some wiki links at me and then say burden's on me? " It is. You made the claim that the probability of life forming is ridiculously low and then you backed it up with a horrifyingly flawed equation, as I have shown repeatedly. Whether you like it and acknowledge it or not.

I get that you're going to believe what you want no matter what you say and that's fine.  No worries, but I cannot accept that you have shown how this particular equation is "horrifyingly flawed".  You have not shown this.  IT's a big IF to me to suggest that we have to change the laws of gravity to justify that dark matter doesn't exist... and even if it doesn't I would understand that there's still something else out there before I decided that it was more logical to change the laws of gravity.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
I'm terribly sorry. I

I'm terribly sorry. I somehow hit edit instead of reply. I'm quite angry with myself for this. I know you had a large post you put a lot of effort into, and this was unacceptable error on my part. I tried to resurrect it as best I could, but I cannot recover it in it's entirety. A text limit and a lack of cacheing previous versions of a page prevent it. The best I can do is take the piece Beyond quoted and the bits I quoted in their entirety, but even that significantly exceeds my text limit. I'm an idiot.

~Vastet


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:Looking at

Jabberwocky wrote:

Looking at Tacitus, it seems you're right. Tacitus does indeed imply that the founder of the Christian movement considered himself the saviour (although he doesn't seem to reference the name at all). However, if you have a group of people who are claiming that this is what their following is about, and insist that it's the case, you may be inclined to believe them. The person of Jesus is historically not well documented. 

not well documented yes, but still documented elsewhere besides scripture.

Jabberwocky wrote:

Annals of Rome? There is Annals by Tacitus...then Annals of Rome, which seems to be a turn based strategy game. Got a link for me? 

Lemme see where that was....

oh, I believe I was on a site that summarized them.  Wikipedia talks about it if you google it.  

Try this link... I didn't read through it.  don't have the time at the moment, but it claims to have the complete works of Tacitus.... I apologize if it's not.  Let me know though I will find another site.  http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/tac/index.htm

Jabberwocky wrote:

Now when it comes to the plagues....COME ON! Are you serious??? It reminds me of playing games as a child that involved lots of imagination (although we had video games, our parents limited us and made us actually play outside lots...novel concept, but I digress). I was often guilty of this actually, I was terrible for it. I would get shot with an imaginary gun, and say "you missed me!" Then I'd get shot again, much more obviously and say "I'm wearing a bulletproof vest". Then I would get shot in the head and I would say "I'm the Terminator!". This is blatantly moving the goalposts. You have been called on your BS, and have changed the rules of the game. You trumpeted out with this verse out of revelation and said "oh this is what happens to those who attempt to modify the book". When I point out that it didn't happen to Joseph Smith you say "oh it will though. You just won't see it and we will be long dead".

you're using the goalpost excuse?   Can you please show me where I claimed it did happen to Joseph Smith already?  Most people who study scripture would not assume it happens right away or even necessarily within their lifetime.  There are no stories to suggest it does myth or not and I know there are many throughout history who have broken those rules.   Why would you assume it would happen instantaniously?

Jabberwocky wrote:

Am I saying it won't happen? Yes. Yes I am. Could I be wrong? Certainly, but I'm playing the odds here.  I believe that all of these myths are equally untrue, and you believe that all except your particular myth are untrue. All you've provided in defense of it is the bible (which is not evidence, it is the claim. Let me repeat, the bible is not proof!), two historical references that you admit are second hand at BEST, and a turn based strategy game. 

well, I never actually claimed that all other alleged myths are untrue... quite the contrary if you follow some of the threads I've been on.  I can only claim those to be untrue that I can support as such with referencing and sources.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Not

Beyond Saving wrote:

Not murdering people would be better. 

yea, too bad they didn't want to change

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:

it's not valid because it is the exact thought process of the very people groups you're so against.  

So what? That is exactly what a belief in subjective morality would predict. If anything, our moral conflicts validate that belief. 

so.... you're suggesting that you have a belief in a subjective morality?  I'm saying that your approach is the very same as theirs

Beyond Saving wrote:

No, supernatural is not defined as "abnormal". 

http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/supernatural

it is by the dictionary I used:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/supernatural?s=t

Beyond Saving wrote:

What difference do human laws make? I thought God's morality is unchanging? Humans have done all sorts of barbaric things in the past that are immoral.

it is unchanging.  The Bible states that all sin is deserving of death.  To suggest that some sin does not have a law suggesting death is being quite flexible.  Why the consequence is so severe would get into the spiritual affect of sin and how that damages you.

Beyond Saving wrote:

caposkia wrote:
 

Beyond Saving wrote:

But why? Perhaps I should phrase the question better. Obviously, his rule trumps all other rule because he is significantly more powerful than us and will judge us whether we like it or not. But why should we accept it? 

You should only accept it if you believe that God is creator and almighty over all creation and gods.  If you can believe that, then why not?

Because his laws are bad laws. 

...and so are all other laws then.. but why?  only becasue you don't like them?

 

 


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Beyond Saving

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Not murdering people would be better. 

yea, too bad they didn't want to change

I don't think people refusing to change is sufficient enough reason to murder them.

 

caposkia wrote:

so.... you're suggesting that you have a belief in a subjective morality?  I'm saying that your approach is the very same as theirs

Yes and yes. Many humans have the same approach I have. Funny thing, I am human and I have a lot in common with other humans. It is one of the things that makes it so easy for to determine I am not a dog (of the cute lovable furry four legged type). How does that make my belief invalid in any way?

 

caposkia wrote:
 

Beyond Saving wrote:

No, supernatural is not defined as "abnormal". 

http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/supernatural

it is by the dictionary I used:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/supernatural?s=t

Quote:

su·per·nat·u·ral  [soo-per-nach-er-uhl, -nach-ruhl]  Show IPA

adjective

1.

of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.

2.

of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity.

3.

of a superlative degree; preternatural: a missile of supernatural speed.

4.

of, pertaining to, or attributed to ghosts, goblins, or other unearthly beings; eerie; occult.

noun

5.

a being, place, object, occurrence, etc., considered as supernatural or of supernatural origin; that which is supernatural, or outside the natural order.

6.

behavior supposedly caused by the intervention of supernatural beings.

7.

direct influence or action of a deity on earthly affairs.

8.

the supernatural.

a.

supernatural beings, behavior, and occurrences collectively.

b.

supernatural forces and the supernatural plane of existence: a deep fear of the supernatural.

Ok, that definition agrees with me too. How is my belief at all "above or beyond what is natural" pertaining to a "god or deity" or related to "ghosts goblins or unearthly beings"? I'll grant that it might be "superlative", but I'm pretty sure you weren't using the word "supernatural" to describe how amazing the idea is. There is absolutely nothing supernatural about believing morality is subjective. No gods, deities, ghosts, goblins or green space aliens necessary.

 

caposkia wrote:

it is unchanging.  The Bible states that all sin is deserving of death.  To suggest that some sin does not have a law suggesting death is being quite flexible.  Why the consequence is so severe would get into the spiritual affect of sin and how that damages you.

Not only death, but torturous death.

 

caposkia wrote:

...and so are all other laws then.. but why?  only becasue you don't like them?

No, God's laws being bad does not mean that all laws are bad- it means that God's laws are bad. It is quite possible that God's laws can be bad and other laws that exist or could potentially exist are good. Why are they bad? Because they are arbitrary, cruel, arbitrarily enforced, tyrannical, enforced against people who couldn't possibly know them, enforced long after the crime was committed, enforced unequally, enforced upon people who did not agree to abide by them, and innocents are punished simply for being related or in close proximity to a guilty person all combined with a punishment that is completely disproportionate to the crime. If a human government were modeled exactly after God's laws and enforcement style, we would decry it as one of the most tyrannical and inhumane governments on the planet. Why not too long ago in this very thread you were criticizing North Korea for their laws. North Korea kills people for far fewer things than God and has less severe punishments.  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Vastet

caposkia wrote:

Vastet wrote:
 So show me HOW it affects us so significantly that if it were over there instead of over here, life on Earth would be impossible. Your entire paragraph is a hypothetical which is not backed up by ANYTHING.

consider the butterfly effect.  One insignificant event can lead over time to a dramatic difference in whatever is in question.  If that's true, then it is logical to conclude that the same applies here.  It is theorized that all mass has an affect on all other mass no matter how insignificant through gravitiational forces.  If this is true, then neighboring galaxies would have the same affect on each other, which then would be a chain reaction through many many neigboring galaxies all the way to the one on the other side of the universe.  So if the universe on the other side of the galaxy had a hiccup of some sort due to some event big or not, how long would it take to affect us and how drastically over 1 billion years?  100 billion years?  etc? and what would that mean for life?  If you think nothing then that would be a belief you have and not anything based on empirical thinking. 

The very same argument can be made for absolutely anything that happens. The odds of any exact event happening exactly the way it happens are absolutely astronomical. Consider the odds of me and you talking to each other right now. There are over 600 million websites, over 100 million forums that we could be participating in, yet for whatever reason we both ended up at this particular forum. This requires that we both be born, which in and of itself had huge odds against because at any point in our genetic lines a single person could have done something to not have a child and we would not be us. Consider just the odds of your parents having you. A million things could have happened differently, if your parents didn't meet, if they didn't like each other, if one of them died early etc. And just like that bullshit formula you linked to, we could make up odds of these events happening. In fact, 1 blogger did just that.  

https://blogs.law.harvard.edu/abinazir/2011/06/15/what-are-chances-you-would-be-born/

Odds your parents meeting and having some sort of relationship: 1 in 20,000

Odds of you parents having sex: 1 in 2000

Odds of the particular sperm and egg combination that makes you: 1 in 400 quadrillion

Odds of all your prior ancestors reproducing successfully: 1 in 10 raised to the 45,000th power

Which he comes to the conclusion that the odds of you being you is 1 in 10 raised to the 2,685,000th power.

So you have that and combine that with the odds of me being me and the number becomes absolutely staggering. And that is without factoring in all the decisions we each made in our lives and all the external influences that led each of us to this site and made each of us a person who would be interested in the topic and people who would be willing to continue the conversation as long as we have (you will note that many people have given up on this thread out of the very small population of people who actually post here). The we also have to factor in the odds of Sapient creating this site in the first place, plus the chance that at any given time he might shut it down.

All that is before we factor in the odds of even having computers and internet in the first place. At any point in human history, something could have happened or had to happen for the internet to be invented during our lifetimes. No doubt there is a ridiculously high number of variables I can't even think of and I could sit and probably list several hundred right now all with very slim odds of happening before they happened.

So does this mean that there must be a God responsible for us being us and having this exact same conversation simply because it is extraordinarily unlikely that it would happen? But wait, what about freewill? If god didn't manipulate your parents, grandparents, great grandparents etc. to do very specific things their entire lives, you would not be you. So if extreme odds necessitate a God's interference, then you have to dismiss your entire argument regarding freewill. 

 

The main flaw in your logic is that you are taking a narrow view. Yes, it is very unlikely that me and you as particular individuals are having this conversation. However, it is not unlikely at all that on the internet, two people are having a religious conversation. Indeed, it would be exceedingly unlikely that there are not two other people somewhere on the net having a very similar conversation. Nor is it a particular surprise that we are having it on Sunday. For whatever reason in our personal lives, we both apparently have time on Sundays and both check out this website on Sundays. If we weren't here, it is safe to assume that we would probably be having a similar type of discussion somewhere else. The odds of a any specific thing happening might be very low, but something is going to happen so it isn't a surprise at all that something happened. There are uncountable possibilities, some slightly more likely than others but all extremely unlikely in particular, but at least one of those things must happen because matter moves and when matter moves something happens.

Like the lottery. It is extremely unlikely you will ever win a $100 million+ jackpot. And when a person wins, it is always extremely unlikely that particular person wins. However, it is certain that someone will win the lottery. It is very unlikely that us two particular individuals are here communicating, but it is certain that two people are communicating somewhere. It is extremely unlikely that life formed here on Earth and became what we know today, but is it so unlikely that with the vastness of the universe that we can't even comprehend and an amount of time that we can't comprehend that life would form somewhere at some time? Not really.

The odds of our particular life forming on Earth is probably astronomical. The odds of some kind of life forming somewhere in some galaxy, in some universe at some time? Probably not so much. It is impossible for us to calculate, because really we have no clue how big the universe really is except that it is really, really big. We have no clue how many possible lifeforms there are. We only know of one type, but for all we know there are thousands of other possible lifeforms that we could have been. To some extent we can try to calculate the odds of our particular planet and our particular life forming, but it is ultimately meaningless because we did form and any other exact occurrence is also extremely unlikely. Anyone who pretends to be able to calculate the odds of life forming anywhere in the universe at any non-specific time is lying. There is no possible way we have nearly enough information about the formation of life and our universe to be able to calculate those odds with any degree of certainty at all.  

  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:not well

caposkia wrote:

not well documented yes, but still documented elsewhere besides scripture.

The only thing consistent about these historical accounts with the bible is that there was a man or two thought to be a christ (a messiah, a saviour). You can NOT logically leap to "every detail of the new testament is therefore true, because this person existed". And also, the historical evidence that he did is STILL flimsy. 

If I tell you I have a friend named Jim, you are inclined to believe me. If I'm lying, being deluded to believe that I have a friend named Jim is not harmful generally, and it would be ridiculous to make up such a story (unless you had a reason to be skeptical of someone making such a claim, like someone who is antisocial and unlikely to make many friends at all). However, if I told you that Jim actually controlled all of the tax rates in North America, you would then be skeptical of the Jim who controls all of the tax rates in North America. Further, you would tell me that it is my job to prove that claim, not yours to prove that it's not true. However, it doesn't mean that I have no friends named Jim. In fact, I could have a friend named Jim that CLAIMS that he controls the tax rates, and it's not out of the realm of possibility that a group of people exists who actually believe his claim.

The Jesus claim is somewhere in that realm at best. It seems he had followers. It doesn't actually mean that a single word he spoke was true. However, it is still possible that he didn't even exist. It's not far different from how Joseph Smith existed, but the angel Moroni did not. The only reason I think that people give more weight to Jesus existing (and by people, I include the historians who wrote of him within a few decades of his alleged death) is that people were suggesting that a human was alive. "A person existed" is a less ridiculous claim (even with all of the magic attached to him) than "an angel existed". Of course the historians could easily assume that everything that the Christians kept repeating was true of their founder, except they would not believe in the supernatural details of it (or at least, not write about them if they were believers). However, I could have made the whole thing up, and I don't even have a single friend named Jim!

caposkia wrote:

Lemme see where that was....

oh, I believe I was on a site that summarized them.  Wikipedia talks about it if you google it.  

Try this link... I didn't read through it.  don't have the time at the moment, but it claims to have the complete works of Tacitus.... I apologize if it's not.  Let me know though I will find another site.  http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/tac/index.htm

The reason I asked is because you mislabeled "annals of Rome", and you actually constructed your original sentence to sound as if there were three sources you were speaking of, and not two. Your sentence was very unclear if you were saying that "annals" was the work of Tacitus referencing Christus (which is the case). Be more clear next time please.

caposkia wrote:

you're using the goalpost excuse?   Can you please show me where I claimed it did happen to Joseph Smith already?  Most people who study scripture would not assume it happens right away or even necessarily within their lifetime.  There are no stories to suggest it does myth or not and I know there are many throughout history who have broken those rules.   Why would you assume it would happen instantaniously?

Well, you seemed quite adamant that this would happen, and presented it as some sort of evidence. Either you were providing worthless commentary (the bible says this, but I suppose we can't prove it) or you were outright trying to convince someone that Joseph Smith suffered biblical plagues. Which is it?

caposkia wrote:

well, I never actually claimed that all other alleged myths are untrue... quite the contrary if you follow some of the threads I've been on.  I can only claim those to be untrue that I can support as such with referencing and sources.

Perhaps you didn't say that outright. However, when you imply that some of the Qu'ran is authentic, and the parts that are authentic are the ones that are accurate citations of the old and/or new testaments of your bible, and the ones that are not are not authentic, then it is what you are in essence saying. 

The Qu'ran bits that = the bible bits: Correct

The Qu'ran bits that don't = the bible bits: Incorrect. 

The above accurately sums what you're implying. Hence, you are saying that Islam is untrue. Further, you're saying that it's untrue because the bible is true, and it isn't exactly the bible. 

You can not use the bible as a reference or source to deduce whether the Qu'ran is true or not, until you have proven that the bible is true. You have still, this many pages in, failed to do that. 

 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:I don't

Beyond Saving wrote:

I don't think people refusing to change is sufficient enough reason to murder them.

I meant that they were the ones murdering themselves.  They're refusing to stop murdering, raping etc.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:

so.... you're suggesting that you have a belief in a subjective morality?  I'm saying that your approach is the very same as theirs

Yes and yes. Many humans have the same approach I have. Funny thing, I am human and I have a lot in common with other humans. It is one of the things that makes it so easy for to determine I am not a dog (of the cute lovable furry four legged type). How does that make my belief invalid in any way?

Same way you believe our belief is invalid.  or you seem to believe.  Your issue is the morality of God, if morality is subjective, then no matter what anyone did, it can be justified as moral and thus not bad no matter what you might think.  I don't adhere to this perspective, it doesn't make sense, but you just invalidated your own objection to my God.

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:
 

Beyond Saving wrote:

No, supernatural is not defined as "abnormal". 

http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/supernatural

it is by the dictionary I used:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/supernatural?s=t

Quote:

su·per·nat·u·ral  [soo-per-nach-er-uhl, -nach-ruhl]  Show IPA

adjective

1.

of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.

2.

of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity.

3.

of a superlative degree; preternatural: a missile of supernatural speed.

4.

of, pertaining to, or attributed to ghosts, goblins, or other unearthly beings; eerie; occult.

noun

5.

a being, place, object, occurrence, etc., considered as supernatural or of supernatural origin; that which is supernatural, or outside the natural order.

6.

behavior supposedly caused by the intervention of supernatural beings.

7.

direct influence or action of a deity on earthly affairs.

8.

the supernatural.

a.

supernatural beings, behavior, and occurrences collectively.

b.

supernatural forces and the supernatural plane of existence: a deep fear of the supernatural.

Ok, that definition agrees with me too. How is my belief at all "above or beyond what is natural" pertaining to a "god or deity" or related to "ghosts goblins or unearthly beings"? I'll grant that it might be "superlative", but I'm pretty sure you weren't using the word "supernatural" to describe how amazing the idea is. There is absolutely nothing supernatural about believing morality is subjective. No gods, deities, ghosts, goblins or green space aliens necessary.

As you said it does not apply to abnormality, it doesn't have to apply to every definition does it.  But usually the first definition is the most common understanding of the word.  What's abnormal about your belief is what you believe is also what you're opposing when it comes to Christianity.  You're opposing a morality that you yourself are claiming is subjective, and if it is subjective, then you cannot logically call it wrong or bad because... well, it's subjective.  Your skewed understanding of it allows you to not agree with it... subjectively without an objective ground, so then you can easily conclude that it's not for you... why then take so much time to convince me of your subjective perspective?  

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Not only death, but torturous death.

I didn't see that part in scripture, but from what I understand, death isn't a day at the spa.

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:

...and so are all other laws then.. but why?  only becasue you don't like them?

No, God's laws being bad does not mean that all laws are bad- it means that God's laws are bad. It is quite possible that God's laws can be bad and other laws that exist or could potentially exist are good. Why are they bad? Because they are arbitrary, cruel, arbitrarily enforced, tyrannical, enforced against people who couldn't possibly know them, enforced long after the crime was committed, enforced unequally, enforced upon people who did not agree to abide by them, and innocents are punished simply for being related or in close proximity to a guilty person all combined with a punishment that is completely disproportionate to the crime. If a human government were modeled exactly after God's laws and enforcement style, we would decry it as one of the most tyrannical and inhumane governments on the planet. Why not too long ago in this very thread you were criticizing North Korea for their laws. North Korea kills people for far fewer things than God and has less severe punishments.  

I can see your subjective morality coming out in that statement.

Arbitrary compared to what?  The laws of the time?  How can you determine that people couldn't possibly know them?  They were written for those who followed God and were told of them by Moses.  If you're referring to those in the flood, then how do you know what they knew?  I'll ask, what did they know?... and don't answer that with what they didn't know.  You know what they say about assuming. Eye-wink  

Cruel in comparison to what?   Why is it cruel to not commit adultery?  not murder?  love your neighbor?  

If you compared these laws to a human government, you would see a kingdom of the era.  You should study up on what kingdoms were like at the time.  I think you'd be surprised at how many people were beheaded for not bowing to a king properly or for not being entertaining enough for the kings liking.  That seems to me a little more "tyrannical" than God's laws.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:The very

Beyond Saving wrote:

The very same argument can be made for absolutely anything that happens. The odds of any exact event happening exactly the way it happens are absolutely astronomical. Consider the odds of me and you talking to each other right now. There are over 600 million websites, over 100 million forums that we could be participating in, yet for whatever reason we both ended up at this particular forum. This requires that we both be born, which in and of itself had huge odds against because at any point in our genetic lines a single person could have done something to not have a child and we would not be us. Consider just the odds of your parents having you. A million things could have happened differently, if your parents didn't meet, if they didn't like each other, if one of them died early etc. And just like that bullshit formula you linked to, we could make up odds of these events happening. In fact, 1 blogger did just that.  

https://blogs.law.harvard.edu/abinazir/2011/06/15/what-are-chances-you-would-be-born/

Odds your parents meeting and having some sort of relationship: 1 in 20,000

Odds of you parents having sex: 1 in 2000

Odds of the particular sperm and egg combination that makes you: 1 in 400 quadrillion

Odds of all your prior ancestors reproducing successfully: 1 in 10 raised to the 45,000th power

Which he comes to the conclusion that the odds of you being you is 1 in 10 raised to the 2,685,000th power.

So you have that and combine that with the odds of me being me and the number becomes absolutely staggering. And that is without factoring in all the decisions we each made in our lives and all the external influences that led each of us to this site and made each of us a person who would be interested in the topic and people who would be willing to continue the conversation as long as we have (you will note that many people have given up on this thread out of the very small population of people who actually post here). The we also have to factor in the odds of Sapient creating this site in the first place, plus the chance that at any given time he might shut it down.

All that is before we factor in the odds of even having computers and internet in the first place. At any point in human history, something could have happened or had to happen for the internet to be invented during our lifetimes. No doubt there is a ridiculously high number of variables I can't even think of and I could sit and probably list several hundred right now all with very slim odds of happening before they happened.

point and case, life is a miracle and quite improbable.    You'd have better odds of winning the Powerball every week for the rest of your life while getting bit by a shark and struck by lightning all at the same time... every week.  

With odds as terrible as you just pointed out, why is the possibility of God in your eyes still less likely?  If anything, from all that you should consider that there's an equal possibility.  That would at least be a step here.  Just so no one here would see that as any admission on your part to the fact that there is a God, it would still statistically leave God highly improbable.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

So does this mean that there must be a God responsible for us being us and having this exact same conversation simply because it is extraordinarily unlikely that it would happen? But wait, what about freewill? If god didn't manipulate your parents, grandparents, great grandparents etc. to do very specific things their entire lives, you would not be you. So if extreme odds necessitate a God's interference, then you have to dismiss your entire argument regarding freewill. 

If you do take all you said into consideration and assume that God had to place everything in order to make this event happen as said, then you would believe in predestination and it would dismiss my entire argument regarding free will... however i don't.  Many Christians do however.  I'm still studying it, but can't accept it due to the contradictory issues I find with scripture based on that subject.

You can look at our discussing on this site as said as a complete miracle only ordained by God, or the happenstance despite the odds that we would meet here and that if we didn't it'd be me and someone else, or you and someone else, or 2 completely different people... no internet?  face to face or on the phone, no phone?  face to face?  no face?  no life.  

The difference here is we're talking about the events that would have had to been in line in a specific moment for life to have even started... I think the link does go into how it could have progressed and continued and not just died out after being started, but the point in question is literally how it started, what had to be in a specific moment in time in order for that to take place.    Though we can look at odds of alternatives to our conversation here and now, there was only one alternative to life... nothing.  when factoring odds, the odds get better with more alternatives as i pointed out with the conversation at hand.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

The main flaw in your logic is that you are taking a narrow view. Yes, it is very unlikely that me and you as particular individuals are having this conversation. However, it is not unlikely at all that on the internet, two people are having a religious conversation. Indeed, it would be exceedingly unlikely that there are not two other people somewhere on the net having a very similar conversation. Nor is it a particular surprise that we are having it on Sunday. For whatever reason in our personal lives, we both apparently have time on Sundays and both check out this website on Sundays. If we weren't here, it is safe to assume that we would probably be having a similar type of discussion somewhere else. The odds of a any specific thing happening might be very low, but something is going to happen so it isn't a surprise at all that something happened. There are uncountable possibilities, some slightly more likely than others but all extremely unlikely in particular, but at least one of those things must happen because matter moves and when matter moves something happens.

and again, many possibilities vs. two. life or none.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Like the lottery. It is extremely unlikely you will ever win a $100 million+ jackpot. And when a person wins, it is always extremely unlikely that particular person wins. However, it is certain that someone will win the lottery. It is very unlikely that us two particular individuals are here communicating, but it is certain that two people are communicating somewhere. It is extremely unlikely that life formed here on Earth and became what we know today, but is it so unlikely that with the vastness of the universe that we can't even comprehend and an amount of time that we can't comprehend that life would form somewhere at some time? Not really.

The odds of our particular life forming on Earth is probably astronomical. The odds of some kind of life forming somewhere in some galaxy, in some universe at some time? Probably not so much. It is impossible for us to calculate, because really we have no clue how big the universe really is except that it is really, really big. We have no clue how many possible lifeforms there are. We only know of one type, but for all we know there are thousands of other possible lifeforms that we could have been. To some extent we can try to calculate the odds of our particular planet and our particular life forming, but it is ultimately meaningless because we did form and any other exact occurrence is also extremely unlikely. Anyone who pretends to be able to calculate the odds of life forming anywhere in the universe at any non-specific time is lying. There is no possible way we have nearly enough information about the formation of life and our universe to be able to calculate those odds with any degree of certainty at all.  

  

You're right, but what we do know is for every aspect of the universe that is unknown to us, the odds have to be worse for the existence of life because it would add in more factors that have to line up for life to occur.   Is it possible for life to have formed elsewhere?  Of course.. just as it's possible for life to form here.  but again, the odds bring into play the question of why did it work when it did, why are the odds so bad?... and my question to you is, why is God not a part of the equation for you?


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:The only

Jabberwocky wrote:

The only thing consistent about these historical accounts with the bible is that there was a man or two thought to be a Christ (a messiah, a Savior). You can NOT logically leap to "every detail of the new testament is therefore true, because this person existed". And also, the historical evidence that he did is STILL flimsy. 

obviously there's more to it, or we'd have a lot more believers out there wouldn't we?

Jabberwocky wrote:

If I tell you I have a friend named Jim, you are inclined to believe me. If I'm lying, being deluded to believe that I have a friend named Jim is not harmful generally, and it would be ridiculous to make up such a story (unless you had a reason to be skeptical of someone making such a claim, like someone who is antisocial and unlikely to make many friends at all). However, if I told you that Jim actually controlled all of the tax rates in North America, you would then be skeptical of the Jim who controls all of the tax rates in North America. Further, you would tell me that it is my job to prove that claim, not yours to prove that it's not true. However, it doesn't mean that I have no friends named Jim. In fact, I could have a friend named Jim that CLAIMS that he controls the tax rates, and it's not out of the realm of possibility that a group of people exists who actually believe his claim.

If you truly believe that your friend Jim controls the tax rates in North America, it would be my job to prove to you the system of government and how it works and how it's pretty much impossible for your friend Jim to control the tax rates as you believe.   With that information, it then would be your job to show me how my information is flawed and that Jim is influencing all of those aspects and truly is behind it all.  If you were able to, I would start to wonder about my own understanding. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

The Jesus claim is somewhere in that realm at best. It seems he had followers. It doesn't actually mean that a single word he spoke was true. However, it is still possible that he didn't even exist. It's not far different from how Joseph Smith existed, but the angel Moroni did not. The only reason I think that people give more weight to Jesus existing (and by people, I include the historians who wrote of him within a few decades of his alleged death) is that people were suggesting that a human was alive. "A person existed" is a less ridiculous claim (even with all of the magic attached to him) than "an angel existed". Of course the historians could easily assume that everything that the Christians kept repeating was true of their founder, except they would not believe in the supernatural details of it (or at least, not write about them if they were believers). However, I could have made the whole thing up, and I don't even have a single friend named Jim!

you could have, but the other problem with your comparison is that you are the one claiming that Jim controls the tax rates of this country.  You are one person.  With Jesus there were hundreds of unrelated people who claim the same thing about Him according to scripture.  Now sure it could be people just making it up, but then what caused people to buy into it so abundantly?  There are other religions out there that have much better promises not only for the next life, but for this one too.  If it's about idealism, then why aren't those other religions bigger than Christianity?   

Jabberwocky wrote:

The reason I asked is because you mislabeled "annals of Rome", and you actually constructed your original sentence to sound as if there were three sources you were speaking of, and not two. Your sentence was very unclear if you were saying that "annals" was the work of Tacitus referencing Christus (which is the case). Be more clear next time please.

my apologies.  didn't mean to be vague.

Jabberwocky wrote:

Well, you seemed quite adamant that this would happen, and presented it as some sort of evidence. Either you were providing worthless commentary (the bible says this, but I suppose we can't prove it) or you were outright trying to convince someone that Joseph Smith suffered biblical plagues. Which is it?

I'm claiming that if those who use the Bible as a source truly believe it they wouldn't dare change it in fear of reaping the consequences written within.  Obviously Joseph Smith didn't believe it, which then puts his whole work to shame as a contradiction to the source.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

Perhaps you didn't say that outright. However, when you imply that some of the Qu'ran is authentic, and the parts that are authentic are the ones that are accurate citations of the old and/or new testaments of your bible, and the ones that are not are not authentic, then it is what you are in essence saying. 

The Qu'ran bits that = the bible bits: Correct

The Qu'ran bits that don't = the bible bits: Incorrect. 

The above accurately sums what you're implying. Hence, you are saying that Islam is untrue. Further, you're saying that it's untrue because the bible is true, and it isn't exactly the bible. 

You can not use the bible as a reference or source to deduce whether the Qu'ran is true or not, until you have proven that the bible is true. You have still, this many pages in, failed to do that. 

We have focused on one issue in Scripture, how from that am I supposed to prove scripture?  The discussion comparing Islam to Christianity is a long one.  One statement cannot determine truth between the 2.  

However, to put it in perspective, both claim to follow the same God.   Both claim to be descendants of Abraham, but that's where they split off, one is the descendant race of Jacob, one is the descendant race of Ishmael.  Scripture talks about the descendants of both children and what they will become.  

Beyond scripture, the Qu'ran is written by one source, the Bible many unrelated sources.  The God of the Qu'ran contradicts the God of Abraham in the Bible, though both still claim to be descendants of the same God.   "for whoever sheds man's blood, their blood shall be shed" Gen 9:6, yet the Qu'ran states to eliminate those who get in the way of Islam.  The whole covenant of God was put in place long before Abraham's time and yet they contradict it yet still claim to be the descendants of Abraham.  

The also acknowledge Jesus as a great prophet, but according to any information about what Jesus has said, He supported a different understanding than they, e.g. love your neighbor as yourself, not cut down those who oppose you.  

Quran (2:191) "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out.  And Al-Fitnah [disbelief] is worse than killing..."

Bible (Mark 6:11)  "And if any place will not welcome you or listen to you, leave that place and shake the dust off your feet as a testimony against them."


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:You have not

caposkia wrote:
You have not shown this.

Yes, I have. Repeatedly and irrefutably. Which is why you are now reduced to denial instead of an argument. The only point I made that you challenged, you acknowledged while challenging it. Every single other point I made to refute the equation, you ignored. You even laughably threw the equation out yourself by acknowledging the major flaw and suggesting that there might then be 0 probability of life forming, despite the fact the equation proposes there is a probability of life forming.
You are contradicting yourself. You are actually incapable of defending the equation, and thus must desperately claim I haven't destroyed it despite the proof that I in fact did destroy it (and so did you!), in order to hold onto the mythology you hold dear.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote: consider the

caposkia wrote:

consider the butterfly effect.  One insignificant event can lead over time to a dramatic difference in whatever is in question.

And yet it might not. Suggesting it might is pointless unless you have evidence it might. You might as well suggest that if Mt. Everest were in North America instead of the East, that WW2 might never have happened. Sure, it's hypothetically possible, but that doesn't mean it is true. It certainly can't be tested. It therefore serves no purpose to science. And therefore has no business being in an equation which would determine the probability of WW2 happening anymore than the hypothesis that the positioning and densities etc of dark matter and star clusters and galaxies must be in precisely the positions they are for life to form. You and the author are making the assumption that such is the case without any valid reason for such an assumption. Asking me to believe it just so I can find the equation palatable is ridiculous.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
... a hypothesis. You've

caposkia wrote:
So which is it?  Do you accept that there is a minimal possibility of life forming on its own or can it not happen?  If you remember the orign of this was countering your understanding that the odds of life happening in the universe were pretty good.  

I believe neither, because all the evidence suggests that the probability of life forming is 100%. You attempted, and failed, to disprove this; and so I have no reason to alter my conclusions based on the evidence.

caposkia wrote:
Let's do it then.  If what you say is true, I need to see this.  I need to understand how they're flawed so I don't make the same mistake again.  Please tell me you have a better explanation than you do for this one though.  You have not shown me how this one is flawed yet, only hypotheticals on the existence of dark matter vs. modifying the laws of gravity to justify otherwise.   I can't yet buy modifying the laws of gravity... can you elaborate on that?

The hypothesis of dark matter is just...

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
... a hypothesis. You've

... a hypothesis. You've already acknowledged that. The alternatives and their viability are all irrelevant to the question. We may find out something we never expected to find that explains things, or we may find out that a modification of the way we've explained gravity solves the apparent problem (we already know the equation isn't perfect anyway, so there's adequate reason to suspect this could be the case), or we may find out that dark matter is really there. But ALL that matters right now is that we don't know that dark matter exists. Therefore it is fallacious to presume that it not only exists, but further assume it exists in specific quantities and densities in certain locations, and THEN further assume that those quantities and densities and locations must be in exactly the way they are in order for life to form. Your entire argument to defend the use of dark matter in this equation is LITERALLY based on an assumption based on an assumption based on an assumption. That's a LOT of assumptions.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:If you do

caposkia wrote:

If you do take all you said into consideration and assume that God had to place everything in order to make this event happen as said, then you would believe in predestination and it would dismiss my entire argument regarding free will... however i don't.  Many Christians do however.  I'm still studying it, but can't accept it due to the contradictory issues I find with scripture based on that subject.

You can look at our discussing on this site as said as a complete miracle only ordained by God, or the happenstance despite the odds that we would meet here and that if we didn't it'd be me and someone else, or you and someone else, or 2 completely different people... no internet?  face to face or on the phone, no phone?  face to face?  no face?  no life.  

The difference here is we're talking about the events that would have had to been in line in a specific moment for life to have even started... I think the link does go into how it could have progressed and continued and not just died out after being started, but the point in question is literally how it started, what had to be in a specific moment in time in order for that to take place.    Though we can look at odds of alternatives to our conversation here and now, there was only one alternative to life... nothing.  when factoring odds, the odds get better with more alternatives as i pointed out with the conversation at hand.  

My point is that the entire messed up equation you linked us to is attempting to calculate the odds of a specific life, created on a specific planet at a specific time. Which ultimately means nothing at all compared to the calculating the odds of life being created somewhere, sometime. So the entire argument "there must be a god because the odds are so bad" is completely flawed. We don't know what the odds are and can't know. For all we know, intelligent life was inevitable. All we know anything about is our very small corner of the universe, and we don't even know that much about it.

  

caposkia wrote:

and again, many possibilities vs. two. life or none.

We have no way of knowing how many possibilities there are. It is quite imaginable that there are dozens if not hundreds, thousands or millions of different possible types of lifeforms. Sci fi writers have been imagining non-carbon based lifeforms for over a century. Is it possible? We don't know. We can say with a fair amount of certainty that there are other planets similar to Earth that would be capable of sustaining carbon based lifeforms. So there is certainly the possibility that there might be, has been or could be in the future life forming on those planets. There are hardly two possibilities.

 

 

caposkia wrote:

You're right, but what we do know is for every aspect of the universe that is unknown to us, the odds have to be worse for the existence of life because it would add in more factors that have to line up for life to occur.  

Not necessarily. For all we know many of those factors increase the odds of life being created or even make it inevitable. You can't assume that just because you don't know how an unknown factor affects the odds that it must make them worse.

 

caposkia wrote:

Is it possible for life to have formed elsewhere?  Of course.. just as it's possible for life to form here.  but again, the odds bring into play the question of why did it work when it did, why are the odds so bad?... and my question to you is, why is God not a part of the equation for you?

Why would God be part of the equation? There is no evidence he exist(s)(ed), so there is no reason to introduce him as yet another variable. Until you can prove that he exists and prove that he had something to do with creating life all you have is a hypotheses which is not supported by any evidence whatsoever. Plus you introduce the much more complex question of where such a powerful being came from. Figuring out our current world is complicated enough without introducing a superbeing. Simply crediting a god with anything we don't understand is intellectually lazy and will probably be proven wrong in the future.  

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Same way you

caposkia wrote:

Same way you believe our belief is invalid.  or you seem to believe.  Your issue is the morality of God, if morality is subjective, then no matter what anyone did, it can be justified as moral and thus not bad no matter what you might think.  I don't adhere to this perspective, it doesn't make sense, but you just invalidated your own objection to my God.

I don't believe your belief is invalid, I believe it is stupid. People can justify any action as moral, they do it all the time, just like you are justifying God's supposed slaughter of 99.9% of humanity as moral. Just because I recognize that morality is subjective does not mean I have to accept your opinion of it, or even tolerate your opinion- anymore than I have to accept some guys opinion that his 300 pound wife is beautiful and his obnoxious kids are great. 

 

caposkia wrote:

As you said it does not apply to abnormality, it doesn't have to apply to every definition does it.  But usually the first definition is the most common understanding of the word.  What's abnormal about your belief is what you believe is also what you're opposing when it comes to Christianity.  You're opposing a morality that you yourself are claiming is subjective, and if it is subjective, then you cannot logically call it wrong or bad because... well, it's subjective.  Your skewed understanding of it allows you to not agree with it... subjectively without an objective ground, so then you can easily conclude that it's not for you... why then take so much time to convince me of your subjective perspective?

Wrong and bad are also subjective terms. What is bad for one person is often good for another. There is no logical reason why someone can't oppose something simply because it is subjective. You support/oppose things that are subjective all the time. Everyone does, that is why we have politics.

And if you will notice I have done little to try to convince you of my perspective. My perspective is that I really don't care what you think as long as you don't try to pass laws. What I have been trying to do is understand what makes you tick and how you can so readily worship a god that you believe performed actions that you no doubt would call terrible if committed by a human.

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

No, God's laws being bad does not mean that all laws are bad- it means that God's laws are bad. It is quite possible that God's laws can be bad and other laws that exist or could potentially exist are good. Why are they bad? Because they are arbitrary, cruel, arbitrarily enforced, tyrannical, enforced against people who couldn't possibly know them, enforced long after the crime was committed, enforced unequally, enforced upon people who did not agree to abide by them, and innocents are punished simply for being related or in close proximity to a guilty person all combined with a punishment that is completely disproportionate to the crime. If a human government were modeled exactly after God's laws and enforcement style, we would decry it as one of the most tyrannical and inhumane governments on the planet. Why not too long ago in this very thread you were criticizing North Korea for their laws. North Korea kills people for far fewer things than God and has less severe punishments.  

caposkia wrote:

I can see your subjective morality coming out in that statement.

Arbitrary compared to what?  The laws of the time?  How can you determine that people couldn't possibly know them?  They were written for those who followed God and were told of them by Moses.  If you're referring to those in the flood, then how do you know what they knew?  I'll ask, what did they know?... and don't answer that with what they didn't know.  You know what they say about assuming. Eye-wink  

The technology at the time and we have substantial evidence that the vast majority of people that far back were illiterate and there was very little travel. That combined with a complete lack of mention of the Abrahamic god in cultures too far away to trade. There is no evidence that they were warned at all and significant evidence that they believed in different Gods. It is highly doubtful that everyone in the Middle East had heard of him, it is virtually impossible that people in the far east, far north and south Africa had any contact or knowledge of Noah. It is certain that people in the America's and the Polynesian tribes that were spread out among the islands did not.

 

caposkia wrote:

Cruel in comparison to what?   Why is it cruel to not commit adultery?  not murder?  love your neighbor?  

Human decency. It is cruel to stone people. 

 

caposkia wrote:

If you compared these laws to a human government, you would see a kingdom of the era.  You should study up on what kingdoms were like at the time.  I think you'd be surprised at how many people were beheaded for not bowing to a king properly or for not being entertaining enough for the kings liking.  That seems to me a little more "tyrannical" than God's laws.

I wouldn't be shocked at all, I'm a bit of a student of history. Gods that people create reflect who the people are. It is hardly a surprise that a God that was fabricated by man would support laws that those men supported. It would be a huge surprise if an all knowing, all powerful, benevolent and super intelligent being would support laws similar to those created by barbarians. If there were a God, he could have changed things and brought about the concepts of human rights, freedom and empowerment of the people along with his bible. Instead, we have thousands of years where Kings justified their atrocities in the name of God.

If I was an all powerful being and a tyrannical King claimed he got his crown from me and then used the power to oppress people, I would smite him. Weird how God had no problem drowning a bunch of babies, but didn't feel the need to step in to smite all the Kings murdering in his name. 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Hi Jim

 

Hi Jim - nice work you're doing, juggling atheists. Hope you are well and happy. 

 

Jimenezj wrote:

In attacking Jesus Christ , Atheism might render itself a disservice.  Do you lead an attack on a non existent being? 

This is a straw man fallacy. Atheists deny the divinity of the jesus character in the christian doctine. And some - but only a small minority - question his existence as an actual person. This is not an 'attack'. Consider that christian doctrine threatens atheists with burning in an eternal lake of fire. The threats come out of the 'mouth' of the editorial device the author labels jesus. This is an attack. In fact, it's a fallacious appeal to force.

Further, I think you are appealing to emotion using the word 'attack' when you should use the phrase, 'denying the existence of'. 

Now, before we discuss the divinity of jesus, I want you to define that word for me, Jim. What is divine? And what is god? Use terms we can all understand and evidence we can all perceive. Don't resort to labels that themselves have no coherent definitions. I want you to show us how it is that god exists outside of language and inside the space we inhabit. Please - don't use your imagination.  

 

Jimenezj wrote:

Atheism to the logistician seems unreasonable. 

 

Given you are assuming your first premise in the absence of a definition of god and of divinity, you cannot call yourself logical in this instance.

Indeed, many of your posts and many of the biblical notations in your quotes depend on bald assertion. 

Personally, I have no great problem with bald assertion in the absence of knowledge when the assertion is acknowledged. Such assertions can be fun. This is not your position, however. You insist biblical assertions are true. 

The logical position in relation to what existed before the universe and what exists outside the universe, is skepticism, empiricism, fallibilism.

Any other position must be considered by the 'logistician' to be mere assumption. 

 

Jimenezj wrote:

At night we see many stars in the sky. But when the sun rises, they disappear. Can we claim, therefore, that during the day there are no stars in the sky? If we fail to see God, perhaps it is because we pass through the night of ignorance in this matter. it is premature to claim He does not exist. 

Yes, it's a sig but what the hell. 

Thermal sensors can still see stars in the sky during the 'day' - that state of earth spin when space is obscured by the blue and green spectrum of the sun's light reflecting from surfaces of the Earth and back into space. This analogy is anthropomorphic in the first instance and in the absence of a coherent and humanly-conceivable definition for the term 'god', it is rendered quite meaningless. The author did have the good sense to use the word 'perhaps' in this homily and so deserves slightly more than faint praise.  

You should be aware Jim, that we are mostly agnostic atheists. We don't know what created/led to the universe. But we see no evidence it was the work of a 'god' that has not been defined, whose attributes are all anthropomorphic projections and whose nature and method of interacting with material reality cannot be detected. 

If you're tempted to argue that the supernatural cannot be detected and that is what supernatural means, I'd be forced to argue the point. Supernaturalism derives its 'power' from an alleged ability to measurably control measurable reality. If anything that is supernatural ever happens we should be able to observe it. 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Jabberwocky

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

The only thing consistent about these historical accounts with the bible is that there was a man or two thought to be a Christ (a messiah, a Savior). You can NOT logically leap to "every detail of the new testament is therefore true, because this person existed". And also, the historical evidence that he did is STILL flimsy. 

obviously there's more to it, or we'd have a lot more believers out there wouldn't we?

Well, if there is more to it, then what is this more to it? I see "an obviously interpolated verse said this guy's name, and called him the Christ. Another source talks about a Christ and Christians, with the former being crucified, and the latter all persecuted" to "Everything the bible says is true. This man was real, was who he claimed he was, and performed notable miracles that somehow escaped the notice of historians. Furthermore, him being tortured was a necessary pre-requisite for our afterlives to be good instead of dreadful or non-existent". This may sound like it has a mocking tone, but it's hard for me not to given the enormous gap in information that takes you from one conclusion to another. 

caposkia wrote:

If you truly believe that your friend Jim controls the tax rates in North America, it would be my job to prove to you the system of government and how it works and how it's pretty much impossible for your friend Jim to control the tax rates as you believe.   With that information, it then would be your job to show me how my information is flawed and that Jim is influencing all of those aspects and truly is behind it all.  If you were able to, I would start to wonder about my own understanding. 

No, it wouldn't be your job to prove anything. If I have made this claim with no evidence behind it, it is worthless. Now if I actually believed it, but was also simultaneously mentally incapable of understanding how government and taxes work, then there would be nothing you could possibly do to change my mind. I would stick to the belief that Jim controls the tax rates, because the thought of them simply fluctuating randomly confuses and frightens me. Sound familiar?

caposkia wrote:

you could have

(made the whole thing up
caposkia wrote:

but the other problem with your comparison is that you are the one claiming that Jim controls the tax rates of this country.  You are one person.

If I had 6 billion people with me, it wouldn't make it true. I would just be a good con-man, or a supremely charismatic nut-job. 

caposkia wrote:

 With Jesus there were hundreds of unrelated people who claim the same thing about Him according to scripture.

According to the biased source (scripture) that claims it as the most important thing in the world. Historical sources say that at best there was a merely noticeable group of people to warrant a couple of lines of text. It was never mentioned as an extraordinary following, or something that the region had never seen. It was just a messianic cult with followers, which does occur in other historical writings. The others were eliminated before they could spread, and Christianity wasn't. 

caposkia wrote:

Now sure it could be people just making it up, but then what caused people to buy into it so abundantly?  

The Roman empire. Emperor Constantine converted, and Theodosius I made it the official religion of the Roman empire. Even under Constantine, he ordered the destruction of old Temples, etc. It's no coincidence that Christianity and Islam are the two biggest religions on Earth, being backed by the Roman and Ottoman empires respectively. It's no coincidence that Judaism is huge in Israel. It's no coincidence that Hinduism is huge in India, or Mormonism in America. Influence, child-hood indoctrination, and often just a need for socializing (with that social safety net of a nearby church or temple) are why religion still exists. 

caposkia wrote:

There are other religions out there that have much better promises not only for the next life, but for this one too.  If it's about idealism, then why aren't those other religions bigger than Christianity?   

Because I don't respond to e-mails from a Nigerian Prince that he will send me 8 million dollars. I have a job instead. I believe that my employer will pay me money. I do not believe that a Nigerian prince will. 

caposkia wrote:

my apologies.  didn't mean to be vague.

I'm claiming that if those who use the Bible as a source truly believe it they wouldn't dare change it in fear of reaping the consequences written within.  Obviously Joseph Smith didn't believe it, which then puts his whole work to shame as a contradiction to the source.  

If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or wonder, and the sign or the wonder comes true, concerning which he spoke to you, saying ‘Let us go after other gods whom you have not known and let us serve them’, you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams, for the Lord your God is testing you to find out if you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul… But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death.” [Deut. 13:1‑5]

When Your people go out to battle against their enemy, by whatever way You shall send them, and they pray to the Lord toward the city which You have chosen and the house which I have built for Your name, then hear in heaven their prayer and their supplication, and maintain their cause.” [1 Kings 8:44-45]

This, vs.

I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. [John 14:6]

So was Jesus's sacrifice necessary for salvation? It seems that according to the old testament, sacrifices aren't necessary. This would make Jesus a false prophet (and worse yet, one who encourages you to worship a false god: himself!)

The New Testament directly goes against what is said in the old in this case, no different than what the Qu'ran and Book of Mormon say about the New Testament. Absolutely no different. 

caposkia wrote:

We have focused on one issue in Scripture, how from that am I supposed to prove scripture?  The discussion comparing Islam to Christianity is a long one.  One statement cannot determine truth between the 2. 

Yes, but careful thorough examination shows nothing but similar mythological elements to both. It's far more likely that they are both untrue, than one being true, and the other not. 

caposkia wrote:

However, to put it in perspective, both claim to follow the same God.   Both claim to be descendants of Abraham, but that's where they split off, one is the descendant race of Jacob, one is the descendant race of Ishmael.  Scripture talks about the descendants of both children and what they will become.  

Beyond scripture, the Qu'ran is written by one source, the Bible many unrelated sources.  The God of the Qu'ran contradicts the God of Abraham in the Bible, though both still claim to be descendants of the same God.   "for whoever sheds man's blood, their blood shall be shed" Gen 9:6, yet the Qu'ran states to eliminate those who get in the way of Islam.  The whole covenant of God was put in place long before Abraham's time and yet they contradict it yet still claim to be the descendants of Abraham.  

The also acknowledge Jesus as a great prophet, but according to any information about what Jesus has said, He supported a different understanding than they, e.g. love your neighbor as yourself, not cut down those who oppose you.  

Quran (2:191) "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out.  And Al-Fitnah [disbelief] is worse than killing..."

Bible (Mark 6:11)  "And if any place will not welcome you or listen to you, leave that place and shake the dust off your feet as a testimony against them."

From Matthew 10

32 “Whoever acknowledges me before others, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven. 33 But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven.

34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn

“‘a man against his father,
    a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
36     a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’[c]

37 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.

This acknowledges Jesus not as a great prophet, but as a totalitarian tyrant who wishes to destroy families, and spread his word by aggression. 

 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:caposkia

Vastet wrote:
caposkia wrote:
You have not shown this.
Yes, I have. Repeatedly and irrefutably. Which is why you are now reduced to denial instead of an argument. The only point I made that you challenged, you acknowledged while challenging it. Every single other point I made to refute the equation, you ignored. You even laughably threw the equation out yourself by acknowledging the major flaw and suggesting that there might then be 0 probability of life forming, despite the fact the equation proposes there is a probability of life forming. You are contradicting yourself. You are actually incapable of defending the equation, and thus must desperately claim I haven't destroyed it despite the proof that I in fact did destroy it (and so did you!), in order to hold onto the mythology you hold dear.

Are you reading what you write???  If you have shown this repeatedly and irrefutably, then there's no possible way I can claim that you have not shown it, but yet here I am, still claiming it.  You can call it denial all you want, but unless you can back yourself up in a way that actually supports your perspective, you ultimately would be the one in denial.  I have been open and honest with you from the getgo.  If i'm missing something, my apologies, instead of coming up with excuses on why I might be missing it, why don't you try to irrefutably explain it.... So far your explanation has been quick whipped responses that have little support if any.  I have looked into links you gave me and ultimately came to the conclusion that it does not support your perspective despite it Possibly refuting one of the over 250 sources that this person used.. which still does not negate the formula as a whole.  

If I'm suggesting that there's a flaw in the equation and that there then might be 0 probability of life forming... and you accept that, then we must both agree that God has to be the possibility or life would not have formed.  Somehow I feel that is not going to happen though.   

Considering probability, we can both argue a point to where in the history of the universe life could form under the illogical ideal conditions put forth in this and many other formulas... Does that then negate God, of course not, it only puts the possibility without God with the limitation of our humanistic understanding of what really needs to take place in order for life to not only form, but thrive.  IF that formula puts life as a possibility, then there's a formula to put God as a possibility too... along with just happenstance... 

It is clear your argument is one sided.  You have all the answers... where one person has 250 sources, you must have 500 contradicting all of it, but you're selfish.. you want to keep this amazing research to yourself and just drop hints suggesting that you've spent countless hours refuting all the different formulas that propose that the probability of life is almost nil.  

I am probably one of the most open minded individuals you will discuss with on this site.   I know you have convinced yourself otherwise... mainly because you can't convince me with quick witted refutes, but like most rational thinking people, I need logical reasoning, which you are not giving, to deny what I now know


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:caposkia wrote:

Vastet wrote:
caposkia wrote:
consider the butterfly effect.  One insignificant event can lead over time to a dramatic difference in whatever is in question.
And yet it might not. Suggesting it might is pointless unless you have evidence it might. You might as well suggest that if Mt. Everest were in North America instead of the East, that WW2 might never have happened. Sure, it's hypothetically possible, but that doesn't mean it is true. It certainly can't be tested. It therefore serves no purpose to science. And therefore has no business being in an equation which would determine the probability of WW2 happening anymore than the hypothesis that the positioning and densities etc of dark matter and star clusters and galaxies must be in precisely the positions they are for life to form. You and the author are making the assumption that such is the case without any valid reason for such an assumption. Asking me to believe it just so I can find the equation palatable is ridiculous.

The butterfly effect has been tested and is proven... a.k.a the ripple effect... if you drop a stone in the water... we can say the ripples might get larger and larger until they ultimately blend in with the waves of the water or hit land, but no test has shown that they won't.   Likewise, it can be applied to any action in life.  There is nothing to suggest that one action over X amount of time won't have a larger impact... it likely will... the "maybe" comes in as to whether the impact will have positive, negative, or neutral affects to Y.  

considering all the aspects that had to come together to create life, the probability of the ripple effect not affecting the result of life forming is much less likely than life itself.  There is a greater likelyhood that it could have a positive aspect and help the formation of life, but just as likely to also have a negative affect or even neutral, which when averaged into the  already minimal odds of life cuts that number by a third.  Again, we're talking about statistics here, nothing to get youself hung up on, but the many formulas make it clear that the odds of life were never 100% as you originally claimed.  That is the refuted point so we don't lose focus.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:... a

Vastet wrote:
... a hypothesis. You've already acknowledged that. The alternatives and their viability are all irrelevant to the question. We may find out something we never expected to find that explains things, or we may find out that a modification of the way we've explained gravity solves the apparent problem (we already know the equation isn't perfect anyway, so there's adequate reason to suspect this could be the case), or we may find out that dark matter is really there. But ALL that matters right now is that we don't know that dark matter exists. Therefore it is fallacious to presume that it not only exists, but further assume it exists in specific quantities and densities in certain locations, and THEN further assume that those quantities and densities and locations must be in exactly the way they are in order for life to form. Your entire argument to defend the use of dark matter in this equation is LITERALLY based on an assumption based on an assumption based on an assumption. That's a LOT of assumptions.

I don't care what you call it, they do know that something is out there and they have a good idea of how much is there in comparison to other matter.  Whether it's dark matter or Oobleck dust it doesn't matter, it's still making changes that cannot otherwise be explained unless like your link suggests we manipulate the very laws of gravity as we understand them.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:My point

Beyond Saving wrote:

My point is that the entire messed up equation you linked us to is attempting to calculate the odds of a specific life, created on a specific planet at a specific time. Which ultimately means nothing at all compared to the calculating the odds of life being created somewhere, sometime. So the entire argument "there must be a god because the odds are so bad" is completely flawed. We don't know what the odds are and can't know. For all we know, intelligent life was inevitable. All we know anything about is our very small corner of the universe, and we don't even know that much about it.

this equation is one of many out there, each having a focus of either life forming here, or just forming in general... if you look deeper into this "messed up equation" you will see that in order to determine the odds of life happening on Earth, you first have to determine the odds of life forming period.  This is more in depth than most get I believe, which is why I linked this one over the possible 100 others.  All are in agreement though that the odds of life weren't good.   

Your point stands true though, the reason why there are many different formulas is because we really can't know the true odds of life.  it's a guessing game, why?  we weren't there... I had said that from the beginning, but because I spit out a speicifc number, in hopes of tripping me up, people had to see a formula, so I provided one, now people are whining about how it's messed up and flawed, but can't refute it to the degree that is necessary to refute such an in depth formula.  

Again, you don't like this formula, find another, there are many out there, none are perfect becasue of the very reasoning you stated above.

Beyond Saving wrote:

  

caposkia wrote:

and again, many possibilities vs. two. life or none.

We have no way of knowing how many possibilities there are. It is quite imaginable that there are dozens if not hundreds, thousands or millions of different possible types of lifeforms. Sci fi writers have been imagining non-carbon based lifeforms for over a century. Is it possible? We don't know. We can say with a fair amount of certainty that there are other planets similar to Earth that would be capable of sustaining carbon based lifeforms. So there is certainly the possibility that there might be, has been or could be in the future life forming on those planets. There are hardly two possibilities.

The question was never what types were possible, but whether life was possible or not... 2 possibilities.  all or none.

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

 

caposkia wrote:

You're right, but what we do know is for every aspect of the universe that is unknown to us, the odds have to be worse for the existence of life because it would add in more factors that have to line up for life to occur.  

Not necessarily. For all we know many of those factors increase the odds of life being created or even make it inevitable. You can't assume that just because you don't know how an unknown factor affects the odds that it must make them worse.

ok, I'll buy that... but as much as we know about the universe, something huge must be missing in order to even bring the odds of life up to the possibility equal to winning the Powerball... while getting bit by a shark while lightning strikes you.

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:

Is it possible for life to have formed elsewhere?  Of course.. just as it's possible for life to form here.  but again, the odds bring into play the question of why did it work when it did, why are the odds so bad?... and my question to you is, why is God not a part of the equation for you?

Why would God be part of the equation? There is no evidence he exist(s)(ed), so there is no reason to introduce him as yet another variable. Until you can prove that he exists and prove that he had something to do with creating life all you have is a hypotheses which is not supported by any evidence whatsoever. Plus you introduce the much more complex question of where such a powerful being came from. Figuring out our current world is complicated enough without introducing a superbeing. Simply crediting a god with anything we don't understand is intellectually lazy and will probably be proven wrong in the future.  

 

You have to figure out that God exists before you can even approach a question of where He came from.  However, science talks about a boundless universe, endless loop of Big Bangs, or even nothing existing prior to the Big Bang for the duration of history... how much less likely is God than that?   why wouldn't he be a part of the equation?  None of that has been proven, nor is there evidence that any of this happened on its own, so either none of it is possible, or all must be a possibility.  We're teetering on the cusp of the Law of Non-contradiction at this point.  To say that God is not a factor in any of this is a contradiction to considering it is possible for an endless universe, or forever loop of Big Bangs.  or even the parallel universe conspiracy.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:And if

Beyond Saving wrote:

And if you will notice I have done little to try to convince you of my perspective. My perspective is that I really don't care what you think as long as you don't try to pass laws. What I have been trying to do is understand what makes you tick and how you can so readily worship a god that you believe performed actions that you no doubt would call terrible if committed by a human.

no human has created another human like we do with other things, also humans have destroyed every creation ever made even if it was only just a few of many copies.  Why is this ok for people to do?  

God created everything we know to be true, He created in our hearts what is good and bad...  Why does He do stuff that is bad?  as I said, He is the judge, he is the Law.  His law is written in such a way that if all followed it, there would be no "bad" as we can define it.  But we are incapable of that through the sin of Adam... that's a whole differnet topic though.

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

The technology at the time and we have substantial evidence that the vast majority of people that far back were illiterate and there was very little travel. That combined with a complete lack of mention of the Abrahamic god in cultures too far away to trade. There is no evidence that they were warned at all and significant evidence that they believed in different Gods. It is highly doubtful that everyone in the Middle East had heard of him, it is virtually impossible that people in the far east, far north and south Africa had any contact or knowledge of Noah. It is certain that people in the America's and the Polynesian tribes that were spread out among the islands did not.

considering how far back this likely happened, what makes you think all these locations were inhabited at the time?

It is widely known that the Americas were one of the last locations on Earth to be inhabited by humans... also animal populations that live over here have been traced back to migrating from the ice bridge that connected Asia to the Americas.  

 

caposkia wrote:

Cruel in comparison to what?   Why is it cruel to not commit adultery?  not murder?  love your neighbor?  

Human decency. It is cruel to stone people. 

it's cruel to send people to the chair, to lethally inject people etc.  but we still do it, why?  why is that ok even in our society today?

Beyond Saving wrote:

If I was an all powerful being and a tyrannical King claimed he got his crown from me and then used the power to oppress people, I would smite him. Weird how God had no problem drowning a bunch of babies, but didn't feel the need to step in to smite all the Kings murdering in his name. 

 

judgement either had been passed on them or will have been... consider the king that killed all the newborns in his kingdom... God did the same thing to his son's child and all their children of the time.  it was eye-for an eye.  

You see God drowning a bunch of babies... where did it say that happened in scripture?  I remember going through the just as likely possibility that there were no babies to drown.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:Well, if

Jabberwocky wrote:

Well, if there is more to it, then what is this more to it? I see "an obviously interpolated verse said this guy's name, and called him the Christ. Another source talks about a Christ and Christians, with the former being crucified, and the latter all persecuted" to "Everything the bible says is true. This man was real, was who he claimed he was, and performed notable miracles that somehow escaped the notice of historians. Furthermore, him being tortured was a necessary pre-requisite for our afterlives to be good instead of dreadful or non-existent". This may sound like it has a mocking tone, but it's hard for me not to given the enormous gap in information that takes you from one conclusion to another. 

The "more to it" is extensive study into scriptures that takes decades to fully complete and comprehend.  the book of Acts alone is a multi-year study.  We can do studies if you want, but there's a LOT more to it, not just; oh I forgot something.

Jabberwocky wrote:

No, it wouldn't be your job to prove anything. If I have made this claim with no evidence behind it, it is worthless. Now if I actually believed it, but was also simultaneously mentally incapable of understanding how government and taxes work, then there would be nothing you could possibly do to change my mind. I would stick to the belief that Jim controls the tax rates, because the thought of them simply fluctuating randomly confuses and frightens me. Sound familiar?

it does, but I hope you're not suggesting I"m like that.  I have been very open to everything everyone has been telling me.  

caposkia wrote:

you could have

(made the whole thing up
caposkia wrote:

but the other problem with your comparison is that you are the one claiming that Jim controls the tax rates of this country.  You are one person.

If I had 6 billion people with me, it wouldn't make it true. I would just be a good con-man, or a supremely charismatic nut-job. 

to the contrary, it would make it much more plausible be it that you'd be the first person in history to get such a number of people on board with one persons idea.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

According to the biased source (scripture) that claims it as the most important thing in the world. Historical sources say that at best there was a merely noticeable group of people to warrant a couple of lines of text. It was never mentioned as an extraordinary following, or something that the region had never seen. It was just a messianic cult with followers, which does occur in other historical writings. The others were eliminated before they could spread, and Christianity wasn't. 

thousands of other religions around the world were not eliminated either, but what makes Christianity so much more successful than they?

Jabberwocky wrote:

The Roman empire. Emperor Constantine converted, and Theodosius I made it the official religion of the Roman empire. Even under Constantine, he ordered the destruction of old Temples, etc. It's no coincidence that Christianity and Islam are the two biggest religions on Earth, being backed by the Roman and Ottoman empires respectively. It's no coincidence that Judaism is huge in Israel. It's no coincidence that Hinduism is huge in India, or Mormonism in America. Influence, child-hood indoctrination, and often just a need for socializing (with that social safety net of a nearby church or temple) are why religion still exists. 

I believe that if that was teh reason, there would be a lot less believers, especially in the last few rebellious generations.

Jabberwocky wrote:

If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or wonder, and the sign or the wonder comes true, concerning which he spoke to you, saying ‘Let us go after other gods whom you have not known and let us serve them’, you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams, for the Lord your God is testing you to find out if you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul… But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death.” [Deut. 13:1‑5]

When Your people go out to battle against their enemy, by whatever way You shall send them, and they pray to the Lord toward the city which You have chosen and the house which I have built for Your name, then hear in heaven their prayer and their supplication, and maintain their cause.” [1 Kings 8:44-45]

This, vs.

I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. [John 14:6]

So was Jesus's sacrifice necessary for salvation? It seems that according to the old testament, sacrifices aren't necessary. This would make Jesus a false prophet (and worse yet, one who encourages you to worship a false god: himself!)

The New Testament directly goes against what is said in the old in this case, no different than what the Qu'ran and Book of Mormon say about the New Testament. Absolutely no different. 

were those OT verses you were using to support the idea that sacrifices weren't needed in the OT???  I don't see the connection here...

Jabberwocky wrote:

Yes, but careful thorough examination shows nothing but similar mythological elements to both. It's far more likely that they are both untrue, than one being true, and the other not. 

not if the other was inspired by the true one.  In which case, it is very likely that they would have many similarities.  What would make them both more likely to be untrue?

Jabberwocky wrote:

From Matthew 10

32 “Whoever acknowledges me before others, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven. 33 But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven.

34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn

“‘a man against his father,
    a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
36     a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’[c]

37 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.

This acknowledges Jesus not as a great prophet, but as a totalitarian tyrant who wishes to destroy families, and spread his word by aggression. 

 

That's what you got from that?  

What you read is the meaning of discipleship.  The first verse quoted talks about how ever much you can acknowledge following with Jesus, He will do the same for you when faced with judgement for your sins in heaven.  

Also, the reason why Jewish pharasees were so against Jesus is becasue they were teaching of a messiah taht would come to bring peace to Israel and reign as an Earthly king over the people.  the Bible states that Jesus came to bring peace, but the inevitable result of his coming was going to be conflict, even among those in teh same household, which is why you cannot depend on anyone above God.  

Those quotes you mentioned about Jesus turning family members against each other was actually from Micah 7:6, which is prophetic of the family unity disintegrating, which is the implication from Jesus.... the Gospel he brings will further cause disintegration in a family unit that is already falling apart... any Jew hearing this would be able to associate it with the quoted passage... which is why He quoted it.  

amazing how things can be distorted when taken out of context though.  


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:The "more to

caposkia wrote:

The "more to it" is extensive study into scriptures that takes decades to fully complete and comprehend.  the book of Acts alone is a multi-year study.  We can do studies if you want, but there's a LOT more to it, not just; oh I forgot something.

Sounds evasive. I'm not asking you to sum it all up with a paragraph. But you seem to agree with me that the extra-biblical references are scarce. Now you're implying that it takes decades...decades...to understand how to authenticate the bible with help from these few historical mentions? Perhaps pointing to the best starting point linking the historical mentions to the biblical ones would be something you might do. But no, instead you're simply asserting it takes decades, to put it beyond reach, just like every single religious person does. "If you don't understand something, it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Just have faith, the parts you don't understand are simply beyond your comprehension. You're too stupid. Just trust god!" Utter bullshit!

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

No, it wouldn't be your job to prove anything. If I have made this claim with no evidence behind it, it is worthless. Now if I actually believed it, but was also simultaneously mentally incapable of understanding how government and taxes work, then there would be nothing you could possibly do to change my mind. I would stick to the belief that Jim controls the tax rates, because the thought of them simply fluctuating randomly confuses and frightens me. Sound familiar?

it does, but I hope you're not suggesting I"m like that.  I have been very open to everything everyone has been telling me.  

No you haven't. You have refused to deviate from your presupposed starting point of "the bible is all true". Even when presented with the bible's own internal contradictions, you have simply stated that our understanding is faulty, not the verses themselves (at least I believe that was you, correct me if I'm wrong, as that was a while back and I can't be bothered to root through it at the moment). You have not been open to the idea of the bible being a myth, even considering its similarities to myths (which you would yourself classify as myths) that come both before, and after it.

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

If I had 6 billion people with me, it wouldn't make it true. I would just be a good con-man, or a supremely charismatic nut-job. 

to the contrary, it would make it much more plausible be it that you'd be the first person in history to get such a number of people on board with one persons idea.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

According to the biased source (scripture) that claims it as the most important thing in the world. Historical sources say that at best there was a merely noticeable group of people to warrant a couple of lines of text. It was never mentioned as an extraordinary following, or something that the region had never seen. It was just a messianic cult with followers, which does occur in other historical writings. The others were eliminated before they could spread, and Christianity wasn't. 

thousands of other religions around the world were not eliminated either, but what makes Christianity so much more successful than they?

Jabberwocky wrote:

The Roman empire. Emperor Constantine converted, and Theodosius I made it the official religion of the Roman empire. Even under Constantine, he ordered the destruction of old Temples, etc. It's no coincidence that Christianity and Islam are the two biggest religions on Earth, being backed by the Roman and Ottoman empires respectively. It's no coincidence that Judaism is huge in Israel. It's no coincidence that Hinduism is huge in India, or Mormonism in America. Influence, child-hood indoctrination, and often just a need for socializing (with that social safety net of a nearby church or temple) are why religion still exists. 

I believe that if that was teh reason, there would be a lot less believers, especially in the last few rebellious generations.

Your last quote here pretty much sums up the only rebuttal you have to what I've said. You believe that if Christianity spread due to powerful theocracies, that there would be a lot less believers. Yes, other religions have died out, but not all. Why is Islam, for instance, still big? They're creeping up on your numbers slowly. Is it because it's also true, despite not being compatible with Christianity? You refuse to consider ANY sociological reason that people are Christian, and keep on asserting that it's due to the truth of it. I think we're pretty much done here. You said you've been open, when clearly, you're not. If you started a post with "well yes, sociologically, X, Y, and Z, could contribute. But here is WHY I think that they are not enough. Here is WHY it requires divine help. Here is WHY the bible is an incoherent piece of trash but I still believe in 100% of what it says even though that's impossible. Here is HOW things were twisted to fool you into thinking it's untrue." 

 

caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:

If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or wonder, and the sign or the wonder comes true, concerning which he spoke to you, saying ‘Let us go after other gods whom you have not known and let us serve them’, you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams, for the Lord your God is testing you to find out if you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul… But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death.” [Deut. 13:1‑5]

When Your people go out to battle against their enemy, by whatever way You shall send them, and they pray to the Lord toward the city which You have chosen and the house which I have built for Your name, then hear in heaven their prayer and their supplication, and maintain their cause.” [1 Kings 8:44-45]

This, vs.

I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. [John 14:6]

So was Jesus's sacrifice necessary for salvation? It seems that according to the old testament, sacrifices aren't necessary. This would make Jesus a false prophet (and worse yet, one who encourages you to worship a false god: himself!)

The New Testament directly goes against what is said in the old in this case, no different than what the Qu'ran and Book of Mormon say about the New Testament. Absolutely no different. 

were those OT verses you were using to support the idea that sacrifices weren't needed in the OT???  I don't see the connection here...

It clearly implies that prayer is enough for salvation. It also seems to suggest in the OT that Jesus is a false prophet since he claimed, himself, to be god. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Yes, but careful thorough examination shows nothing but similar mythological elements to both. It's far more likely that they are both untrue, than one being true, and the other not. 

not if the other was inspired by the true one.  In which case, it is very likely that they would have many similarities.  What would make them both more likely to be untrue?

Seriously, at this point, I wonder if you're a troll, but I'll keep going.

You have a bunch of scriptures all of different religions. You claim that all of them are false, except for one. I claim that all of them are false. My position is consistent. Yours is not, because you claim one single exception. You must now justify why that one holy book is exempt from your dismissing them as mythology. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

From Matthew 10

32 “Whoever acknowledges me before others, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven. 33 But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven.

34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn

“‘a man against his father,
    a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
36     a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’[c]

37 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.

This acknowledges Jesus not as a great prophet, but as a totalitarian tyrant who wishes to destroy families, and spread his word by aggression. 

 

That's what you got from that?  

What you read is the meaning of discipleship.  The first verse quoted talks about how ever much you can acknowledge following with Jesus, He will do the same for you when faced with judgement for your sins in heaven.  

Also, the reason why Jewish pharasees were so against Jesus is becasue they were teaching of a messiah taht would come to bring peace to Israel and reign as an Earthly king over the people.  the Bible states that Jesus came to bring peace, but the inevitable result of his coming was going to be conflict, even among those in teh same household, which is why you cannot depend on anyone above God.  

Those quotes you mentioned about Jesus turning family members against each other was actually from Micah 7:6, which is prophetic of the family unity disintegrating, which is the implication from Jesus.... the Gospel he brings will further cause disintegration in a family unit that is already falling apart... any Jew hearing this would be able to associate it with the quoted passage... which is why He quoted it.  

amazing how things can be distorted when taken out of context though.  

WTF? It's prophetic of the family unit disintegrating? He didn't say "this will happen in the future, families will disintegrate". He said "I'm here to fuck up your family life!". I don't care if it references Micah (although, more plagiarism...). He explicitly says in that verse that he has come to break apart these families himself. How is a phrase like that, preceded by "I did not come to bring peace, but a sword" anything but awful in nature? I seriously think we might be done after this. This is pretty much the mental equivalent of banging one's head against a wall. 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:this equation

caposkia wrote:

this equation is one of many out there, each having a focus of either life forming here, or just forming in general... if you look deeper into this "messed up equation" you will see that in order to determine the odds of life happening on Earth, you first have to determine the odds of life forming period.  This is more in depth than most get I believe, which is why I linked this one over the possible 100 others.  All are in agreement though that the odds of life weren't good.   

Your point stands true though, the reason why there are many different formulas is because we really can't know the true odds of life.  it's a guessing game, why?  we weren't there... I had said that from the beginning, but because I spit out a speicifc number, in hopes of tripping me up, people had to see a formula, so I provided one, now people are whining about how it's messed up and flawed, but can't refute it to the degree that is necessary to refute such an in depth formula.  

Again, you don't like this formula, find another, there are many out there, none are perfect becasue of the very reasoning you stated above.

So what if there are a billion formulas that are made up? It doesn't change that no human could possibly have enough information to make an educated guess as to what the odds were. Whether one person is putting their ignorance on display or a billion people, it is still ignorance at best and flat out lying at worst. 

 

caposkia wrote:

The question was never what types were possible, but whether life was possible or not... 2 possibilities.  all or none.

Define life. 

 

 

Beyond Saving wrote:
Not necessarily. For all we know many of those factors increase the odds of life being created or even make it inevitable. You can't assume that just because you don't know how an unknown factor affects the odds that it must make them worse.

caposkia wrote:

ok, I'll buy that... but as much as we know about the universe, something huge must be missing in order to even bring the odds of life up to the possibility equal to winning the Powerball... while getting bit by a shark while lightning strikes you.

We can say with a significant amount of certainty that we are missing a lot of huge things. Just with what we can see from our tiny little dot in the galaxy we know there is a lot out there that we will never reach in our lifetime. For all we know, what we can see is insignificant compared to what exists beyond. We know that there are a lot of things we don't know. 

 

caposkia wrote:

You have to figure out that God exists before you can even approach a question of where He came from.  However, science talks about a boundless universe, endless loop of Big Bangs, or even nothing existing prior to the Big Bang for the duration of history... how much less likely is God than that?   why wouldn't he be a part of the equation?  None of that has been proven, nor is there evidence that any of this happened on its own, so either none of it is possible, or all must be a possibility.  We're teetering on the cusp of the Law of Non-contradiction at this point.  To say that God is not a factor in any of this is a contradiction to considering it is possible for an endless universe, or forever loop of Big Bangs.  or even the parallel universe conspiracy.  

There is evidence supporting the hypothesis of the big bang. There is no evidence supporting the hypothesis of god. 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:no human has

caposkia wrote:

no human has created another human like we do with other things, also humans have destroyed every creation ever made even if it was only just a few of many copies.  Why is this ok for people to do?  

I never said everything humans do is ok. Humans do all sorts of terrible things. I also never claimed humans were perfectly moral. You have claimed that god is perfectly moral. 

 

caposkia wrote:

God created everything we know to be true, He created in our hearts what is good and bad...  Why does He do stuff that is bad?  as I said, He is the judge, he is the Law.  His law is written in such a way that if all followed it, there would be no "bad" as we can define it.  But we are incapable of that through the sin of Adam... that's a whole differnet topic though.

 

So why didn't god create in my heart what is good and bad? My heart has a completely different definition of good and bad than god apparently has. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

The technology at the time and we have substantial evidence that the vast majority of people that far back were illiterate and there was very little travel. That combined with a complete lack of mention of the Abrahamic god in cultures too far away to trade. There is no evidence that they were warned at all and significant evidence that they believed in different Gods. It is highly doubtful that everyone in the Middle East had heard of him, it is virtually impossible that people in the far east, far north and south Africa had any contact or knowledge of Noah. It is certain that people in the America's and the Polynesian tribes that were spread out among the islands did not.

considering how far back this likely happened, what makes you think all these locations were inhabited at the time?

It is widely known that the Americas were one of the last locations on Earth to be inhabited by humans... also animal populations that live over here have been traced back to migrating from the ice bridge that connected Asia to the Americas.  

 And the America's were inhabited somewhere around 40,000-20,000 BC. If the flood happened before that the story runs into even more problems. We are talking about the stone age. How would Noah have had the tools to be able to build a ship tens of thousands of years before a ship was ever made? Tens of thousands of years before tools capable of building such a ship were ever invented?

 

caposkia wrote:

it's cruel to send people to the chair, to lethally inject people etc.  but we still do it, why?  why is that ok even in our society today?

It isn't ok which is why most civilized countries have gotten rid of the death penalty. Again, I never claimed that humans are perfectly moral. Individuals and governments do immoral things all the time. You have claimed that God is perfectly moral. 

 

caposkia wrote:

judgement either had been passed on them or will have been... consider the king that killed all the newborns in his kingdom... God did the same thing to his son's child and all their children of the time.  it was eye-for an eye.

What a moral God. Killing grandchildren and great grandchildren for the actions of the grandparent.

 

caposkia wrote:
 

You see God drowning a bunch of babies... where did it say that happened in scripture?  I remember going through the just as likely possibility that there were no babies to drown.  

No, it is not a "just as likely possibility". It is an absurd assumption you introduced to avoid the issue.  

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
Wolfie

You said:
What a moral God. Killing grandchildren and great grandchildren for the actions of the grandparent.

Moral or Judicial ?

Charles Manson was one a child, so was Stalin .

What happened in Egypt was the same as in sodom and Gamorah ; the execution of judgment on the wicked people of a nation .
Does a Judge not create punishment and suffering when executing judgment on the wicked ?

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote:You said:

Jimenezj wrote:
You said: What a moral God. Killing grandchildren and great grandchildren for the actions of the grandparent. Moral or Judicial ? Charles Manson was one a child, so was Stalin .

He didn't kill a child because that child did something evil, he killed the child because the parent did something evil. Should we kill Stalin's children and grandchildren because Stalin was bad? Stalin had two sons and a daughter. I believe one son, the daughter are still alive and I know they had children. The daughter moved to the US, I believe she is still here. I would consider it extremely immoral for us to kill them, wouldn't you?

Charles Manson fathered an unknown number of children. Unknown because of his sexual practices, but there were many children born from the various women he is known to have slept with. Should we track down and kill all of those children? 

 

Jimenezj wrote:
 

What happened in Egypt was the same as in sodom and Gamorah ; the execution of judgment on the wicked people of a nation . Does a Judge not create punishment and suffering when executing judgment on the wicked ?

What did the children do that was wicked?

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
Wolfie

Only a Judge can pronouced Judgment on Stalin and Manson Family. We have no say.

What did the children do that was wicked? I don't know, I was not there.

I do know that being a child is not an excuse . There are horrifying stories of wicked children around the world .

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
This thread obviously has

This thread obviously has enormous baggage that I can't be expected to read through. (Although I may have posted in it along time ago, not actually sure)

@OP: It is very simple, religious people often try to legislate, dictate, and infiltrate their ideas into public life with varying levels of intention and success. While a single politician, priest, or person can introduce superstition and ignorance into anyone else's lives without their explicit opt-in informed consent to de-reasoning themselves I will want to debate and contend religion and any other irrational belief at every turn. (A lofty ideal, and perhaps not at all practical, but that is the point of ideals, to have something to strive for.)

As to the mythical beings in question, the major world religions have horrifically twisted and otherwise distorted concepts of morality which are often supposedly dictated from the 'god(s)' of the religion. Attacking the deity concept is a way to demonstrate the religion's moral and ethical dysfunction and inferiority to secular morality, thereby hopefully forming a persuasive argument against the idea of religious moral superiority and easily debunk absurd claims of 'benevolent' gods when said gods are also described to be omniscient and omnipotent.

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote:Only a Judge

Jimenezj wrote:
Only a Judge can pronouced Judgment on Stalin and Manson Family. We have no say.

What did the children do that was wicked? I don't know, I was not there. I do know that being a child is not an excuse . There are horrifying stories of wicked children around the world .

Just a post ago you had no problem judging Stalin and Manson, that is why you brought them up as examples of bad people. Now suddenly you have a problem with judging and it isn't your role? How convenient.  

They were infants. They couldn't walk, talk and certainly incapable of hurting anyone. How could one possibly be "wicked"?

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
Wolfie

There is a diffrence between formal judiciary and informal judgment .
We cannot pronouce judiciary judment on them. Only a judge .

How do you know they could not walk, where you there ?
Read the bible .

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote:There is a

Jimenezj wrote:
There is a diffrence between formal judiciary and informal judgment . We cannot pronouce judiciary judment on them. Only a judge .

I never asked you to pronounce judiciary judgement on them. I asked you to make a moral judgement on what is good and what is bad. I never assumed that you have/had/should have any kind of judicial power to actually punish them and you know it. 

 

Jimenezj wrote:

How do you know they could not walk, where you there ? Read the bible .

Infants can't walk and there is substantial archaeological evidence that human babies never came out of the womb walking. Does the bible say that infants could walk at one day old? 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Could you please be more specific

Beyond Saving wrote:

Jimenezj wrote:

How do you know they could not walk, where you there ? Read the bible .

Infants can't walk and there is substantial archaeological evidence that human babies never came out of the womb walking. Does the bible say that infants could walk at one day old? 


To the :: 0P


'Like' newborns be desirous of, ..meaning usage of an analogy 1 Pet 2:2

The child not yet born, In Utero, leaped within her. Lk 1:41


Moses found by the bank of the-river (among the Bulrushes) was carried. Exodus 2:3-9


Starvation with nothing about walking Jer. 11:22-25


And at least two other references in the OT; of young children being 'ripped away' from their Mothers' arms,.


p.s. -- What-ya-doin'


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:Sounds

Jabberwocky wrote:

Sounds evasive. I'm not asking you to sum it all up with a paragraph. But you seem to agree with me that the extra-biblical references are scarce. Now you're implying that it takes decades...decades...to understand how to authenticate the bible with help from these few historical mentions? Perhaps pointing to the best starting point linking the historical mentions to the biblical ones would be something you might do. But no, instead you're simply asserting it takes decades, to put it beyond reach, just like every single religious person does. "If you don't understand something, it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Just have faith, the parts you don't understand are simply beyond your comprehension. You're too stupid. Just trust god!" Utter bullshit!

Evasive except that I offered to go through it with you... suggesting a different thread obviously.  

You say: "perhaps pointing to the best starting point linking the historical mentinons to the biblical ones would be something you might do... " like I am currently doing with PJTS on OT stories myth legends or real thread.  If that's what you're looking for, I'll see you on that thread.  it has a very focused progressive intention and so nothing that would distract from the current focus please.

I'm simply asserting that it takes decades... something you can investigate... probably with a few simple google searches and discover yourself... kind of takes the assertion out of it doesn't it?

It's one thing to claim the Bible says X then to claim ti didn't happen, but a whole other ball game to realize that your comprehension of X was a bit flawed and when you better understand X it seems much more plausible. 

People get doctoral degrees in this stuff, are you really going to dispute the idea that it takes years to understand the finer details of scripture?  

Jabberwocky wrote:

No you haven't. You have refused to deviate from your presupposed starting point of "the bible is all true". Even when presented with the bible's own internal contradictions, you have simply stated that our understanding is faulty, not the verses themselves (at least I believe that was you, correct me if I'm wrong, as that was a while back and I can't be bothered to root through it at the moment). You have not been open to the idea of the bible being a myth, even considering its similarities to myths (which you would yourself classify as myths) that come both before, and after it.

I suppose the Bible is true because that's what I understand... no one has given me sound reason to consider otherwise.  presupposed internal contradictions have been presented and debunked... unless i forgot something... you can bring it up again.  I'll look into the contradiction to see.  

You seem to think it's much simpler than it is, so please do explain to me what I'm missing here.  I want to understand.

Jabberwocky wrote:

The Roman empire. Emperor Constantine converted, and Theodosius I made it the official religion of the Roman empire. Even under Constantine, he ordered the destruction of old Temples, etc. It's no coincidence that Christianity and Islam are the two biggest religions on Earth, being backed by the Roman and Ottoman empires respectively. It's no coincidence that Judaism is huge in Israel. It's no coincidence that Hinduism is huge in India, or Mormonism in America. Influence, child-hood indoctrination, and often just a need for socializing (with that social safety net of a nearby church or temple) are why religion still exists. 

You know, that makes sense really.   Though it still doesn't explain its continued success and its migration from the north to the south.

Jabberwocky wrote:

Your last quote here pretty much sums up the only rebuttal you have to what I've said. You believe that if Christianity spread due to powerful theocracies, that there would be a lot less believers. Yes, other religions have died out, but not all. Why is Islam, for instance, still big? They're creeping up on your numbers slowly. Is it because it's also true, despite not being compatible with Christianity? You refuse to consider ANY sociological reason that people are Christian, and keep on asserting that it's due to the truth of it. I think we're pretty much done here. You said you've been open, when clearly, you're not. If you started a post with "well yes, sociologically, X, Y, and Z, could contribute. But here is WHY I think that they are not enough. Here is WHY it requires divine help. Here is WHY the bible is an incoherent piece of trash but I still believe in 100% of what it says even though that's impossible. Here is HOW things were twisted to fool you into thinking it's untrue." 

You try to demote my defenses, but you've been taking the same approach... typically with less support.  I see what you're saying, yes that has an influence on why these particular religions had gotten big, but the progression of Christiandom cannot be supported with that understanding anymore.  it is diminishing in the north and growing like wildfire in the south.  (I mean hemispheres, not U.S.)

I have considered and accepted your sociological reasonings for growth... that supports the historical progression of the religions very well.. what about today, Is it still supported in the same manner?  if not, why still so strong?  

Jabberwocky wrote:

It clearly implies that prayer is enough for salvation. It also seems to suggest in the OT that Jesus is a false prophet since he claimed, himself, to be god. 

This is the very understanding that not only led to Jesus' crucifixion, but also what keeps Jews of the time and current Jews from accepting Jesus as the true Messiah.  This could be a discussion in itself, but to get there, we need to accept the possibility of God first and foremost, then the validity of at least OT scripture in history.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

You have a bunch of scriptures all of different religions. You claim that all of them are false, except for one. I claim that all of them are false. My position is consistent. Yours is not, because you claim one single exception. You must now justify why that one holy book is exempt from your dismissing them as mythology. 

I've attempted to go there, but you're all over the board.  We can discuss those other religions, how the Bible is 1000's of separate unrelated scripts from separate authors and scribes whereas the Quran, book of Mormon, etc are written by one person claiming to have special insight into the texts in question that claim nothing else is to be added or taken away.  How the Muslims accept Jesus as a powerful prophet yet ignore that even secular historians who accept that Jesus was at least a real person claim that He was suggesting to be Gods son and not just another prophet which contradicts their understanding of who He is.  

You need to be focused though... are you really interested in the differences or are you flying all over the place just trying to find holes?  

Jabberwocky wrote:

WTF? It's prophetic of the family unit disintegrating? He didn't say "this will happen in the future, families will disintegrate". He said "I'm here to fuck up your family life!". I don't care if it references Micah (although, more plagiarism...). He explicitly says in that verse that he has come to break apart these families himself. How is a phrase like that, preceded by "I did not come to bring peace, but a sword" anything but awful in nature? I seriously think we might be done after this. This is pretty much the mental equivalent of banging one's head against a wall. 

...and here's the difference between someone who is trying to find problems solely to support their understanding vs. someone who is trying to understand and with that understanding possibly modify their understanding.  You will see what you want to see and that's fine.  Let me know when you want to have a progressive rational conversation


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Define

Beyond Saving wrote:

Define life. 

the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes orginating internally. (dictionary.com)

Beyond Saving wrote:

We can say with a significant amount of certainty that we are missing a lot of huge things. Just with what we can see from our tiny little dot in the galaxy we know there is a lot out there that we will never reach in our lifetime. For all we know, what we can see is insignificant compared to what exists beyond. We know that there are a lot of things we don't know. 

...and that's the first step to understanding what I do

Beyond Saving wrote:

There is evidence supporting the hypothesis of the big bang. There is no evidence supporting the hypothesis of god. 

 

that is a long time debate really.  I think anyone who takes one side over another on this is ignoring a lot of evidences from either side.  What evidences for God?  well like i said, this is a long time debate... many have had debates for many years as to whether there are evidences or not.  After listening to many of them, I think it takes more faith and belief to buy the guesses as to what caused the Big Bang than it is to accept that there could be a higher power behind the Big Bang.    The thing is, evidence is there that there was a great expansion... that in no way disproves a God behind it, so that takes us back to before the Big Bang, as to which there is no scientific evidence.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:I never

Beyond Saving wrote:

I never said everything humans do is ok. Humans do all sorts of terrible things. I also never claimed humans were perfectly moral. You have claimed that god is perfectly moral. 

no, you said humans are "good"... yet they do all sorts of terrible things?

Beyond Saving wrote:

So why didn't god create in my heart what is good and bad? My heart has a completely different definition of good and bad than god apparently has. 

He has, but life and choices can modify those definitions within an individuals heart.  You can choose to modify them further yourself at any time

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

 And the America's were inhabited somewhere around 40,000-20,000 BC. If the flood happened before that the story runs into even more problems. We are talking about the stone age. How would Noah have had the tools to be able to build a ship tens of thousands of years before a ship was ever made? Tens of thousands of years before tools capable of building such a ship were ever invented?

...as far as we know.  I can't answer that.  It sounds to me as if those tools were available.  If the flood story is true, it is likely that a lot of technology had been washed away with the people... maybe buried deeper than we've searched yet... There were discussions on another thread I think about how it has been found that axes existed around 2 million years ago... if that's true, then it's not too far fetched to assume other types of tools may have existed as well that we haven't found.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

No, it is not a "just as likely possibility". It is an absurd assumption you introduced to avoid the issue.  

 

It's very clear that I'm trying to avoid the issue.  I can see that, it must be why we're still talking about it right?    

what I'm trying to show you is not avoidance, but assumptions that are just as rational as what you're coming up with.  We have pretty much no information on the culture/people of the time and who they were, how many, how far spread etc and you're coming up with these things that must mean God made a bad immoral decision.  Your passing judgement on a being that not only witnessed the event, but had a direct hand in it.  Ultimately it's like you hearing about something happening 10 years ago from the other side of the globe, then coming to that country ready to testify against the person based on what you know from the news.  I hope if I'm ever in court, you're not in my jury of peers.