Atheistforums.com

I can't understand when people talk as if they know there is no God or Higher power.  But yet can't explain the natural phenomena that happens everyday in front of them.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: g2perk on August 17, 2016, 01:00:30 PM
I can't understand when people talk as if they know there is no God or Higher power.  But yet can't explain the natural phenomena that happens everyday in front of them.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Oh dear. Another chew toy. Pile in heathens!

Oh and wellcome to hell.

First, look up "argument from ignorance".

So there is no higher power. Is that what you are saying.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Let's say that some supernatural intelligence created the universe and we call it God. What does that tell us? It doesn't mean God still exists. It doesn't mean the universe provides any information about God, a computer circuit tells use nothing about human beings. It doesn't mean God cares about human life, much less the concerns of an individual human. God created the universe, if true, provides no useful information. Eventually faith in a personal God rests on faith.

Quote from: g2perk on August 17, 2016, 01:33:33 PM
So there is no higher power. Is that what you are saying.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Yep--no higher power, no lower power, no middle power.  There are no gods; never were and never will be.  Your god is simply a fiction.  If not, maybe you could supply us with a few facts?

Explain life?  Read about evolution to get a good start.  And just because one does not know how something works does not make 'god did it' legitimate--just lazy.  Good luck in your quest for god and facts fitting together in any way.

Everyone evolves but from what is the question.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: Mike Cl on August 17, 2016, 02:22:59 PM
Yep--no higher power, no lower power, no middle power.  There are no gods; never were and never will be.  Your god is simply a fiction.  If not, maybe you could supply us with a few facts?

Explain life?  Read about evolution to get a good start.  And just because one does not know how something works does not make 'god did it' legitimate--just lazy.  Good luck in your quest for god and facts fitting together in any way.

You can read any book you want on God and or life but until you experience God you don't know him. I knew about Michael Jackson doesn't mean I could walk up to his house and he would of let me in. 

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Abiogenesis.

/thread

Quote from: g2perk on August 17, 2016, 01:00:30 PM
I can't understand when people talk as if they know there is no God or Higher power.  But yet can't explain the natural phenomena that happens everyday in front of them.

Which natural phenomena are you concerned with?

Quote from: g2perk on August 17, 2016, 01:33:33 PM
So there is no higher power. Is that what you are saying.

There certinally isn't any verifiable evidence for any higher power.

Unless maybe you're talking about something like SCOTUS or energised high tension lines...

Quote from: g2perk on August 17, 2016, 02:28:03 PM
Everyone evolves but from what is the question.

You evolved from your parents. They evolved from theirs. Way before that you and the chimp in the zoo both evolved from ancestors descended from a common ancestor. Before that you share an ancestor with other primates, then other mammals, then amphibians, then fish and so on all the way back to a common ancestor of all life on Earth.

If you are asking how the first life arose then insisting it required a higher power then please tell us what it is about life that is so special that it requires a higher power.   

Quote from: GSOgymrat on August 17, 2016, 01:53:27 PM
Let's say that some supernatural intelligence created the universe and we call it God. What does that tell us? It doesn't mean God still exists. It doesn't mean the universe provides any information about God, a computer circuit tells use nothing about human beings. It doesn't mean God cares about human life, much less the concerns of an individual human. God created the universe, if true, provides no useful information. Eventually faith in a personal God rests on faith.

Lets start with something simple. Thy shall not kill. If it was not for the bible would it be okay to kill. If not how would you know?

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on August 17, 2016, 03:09:43 PM
Abiogenesis.

/thread

?

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: PopeyesPappy on August 17, 2016, 03:59:29 PM
Which natural phenomena are you concerned with?

There certinally isn't any verifiable evidence for any higher power.

Unless maybe you're talking about something like SCOTUS or energised high tension lines...

You evolved from your parents. They evolved from theirs. Way before that you and the chimp in the zoo both evolved from ancestors descended from a common ancestor. Before that you share an ancestor with other primates, then other mammals, then amphibians, then fish and so on all the way back to a common ancestor of all life on Earth.

If you are asking how the first life arose then insisting it required a higher power then please tell us what it is about life that is so special that it requires a higher power.

Your brain. Does anything that you say you evolved from have the exact brain like humans. Please inform me.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

The words 'god' and 'God' convey no meaning, since we could call the four natural forces 'gods,' and the unified force that existed in the very early universe 'God' if we like, and we wouldn't necessarily be wrong. But why call it that? The forces, either separately or collectively, have no discernible agency, intention or personality. This 'God' the Christians worship also has no discernible agency, since it seems to rely on the natural forces and random chance to act, with seemingly no will, intention or personality.

Many humans claim to know "God's will" in order to push their agendas, when in reality (there's that pesky word!):
1. No God exists
2. A non-existent God cannot have a will
3. No human can know the "will of God," since by (1) and (2) no will of God exists.

QuoteBut yet can't explain the natural phenomena that happens everyday in front of them.

This is the basic argument from ignorance, assuming that because we don't know how something happened God must've done it. But even if we admitted God did it, we still wouldn't have an explanation, we'd end all possibility of explanation.

For one you talk as if you believe in GOD. Let me tell you why...because you are so willing to dispute that he doesn't exist. How do you know? Who told you he doesn't? Is it because you don't get what you ask for...lol.Then that must mean some parents don't exist either....

REALLY.....lol

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: g2perk on August 17, 2016, 04:09:22 PM
Your brain. Does anything that you say you evolved from have the exact brain like humans. Please inform me.

You are kinda missing the point of evolution here. Human brains evolved from the (usually) smaller brains of our distant ancestors. Their brains evolved from more primitive brains all the way down to nerve clusters which evolved from a single nerve which evolved as a specialized cell in a simple but multicellular organisms due to a random mutation to a different kind of cell.

(http://atskoolwithmrsjohns.weebly.com/uploads/1/5/4/7/15478108/6597574_orig.jpg)

(http://acces.ens-lyon.fr/acces/ressources/neurosciences/phylogenie-et-evolution-des-systemes-nerveux/comprendre/arbres-phylogenetiques/Arbre%20phylo%20dorsal%20avec%20legende.jpg/image_large)

Really...then why doesn't it happen any more. Primates still exist. I never heard of a primate becoming human. Have you. Have you seen that happen?

Or is it the amount of neurons in the brain that make them diff.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

LoL!

If god created us from dust, why is there still dust?

Quote from: g2perk on August 17, 2016, 04:07:26 PM
Lets start with something simple. Thy shall not kill. If it was not for the bible would it be okay to kill. If not how would you know?

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Because if we are to have rational discourse about ethics we have to accept some axioms like the fundamental laws of thought (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_though) We have to also accept we must preserve all things necessary for the rational dialogue of ethics to even be possible, in my opinion this also includes individual self-determination and preserving the existence of the environment where this dialogues can occur. All those things preclude unjust killing of people. But unlike your inferior theory of divine command (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_command_theory) they allow for self-defense killing in extenuating circumstances and for properly tailored punishments depending on the nature of the ethical infringement which are not based on the authority of an ineffable entity and therefore can never be properly understood, debated, falsified or justified.

Quote from: g2perk on August 17, 2016, 04:22:52 PM
Really...then why doesn't it happen any more. Primates still exist. I never heard of a primate becoming human. Have you. Have you seen that happen?

Or is it the amount of neurons in the brain that make them diff.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

humans are primates.

Kingdom:    Animalia
Phylum:    Chordata
Clade:    Synapsida
Class:    Mammalia
Order:    Primates
Suborder:    Haplorhini
Superfamily:    Hominoidea
Family:    Hominidae

The Hominidae (/hÉ'ˈmɪnáµ»diː/), whose members are known as great apes[note 1] or hominids, are a taxonomic family of primates that includes seven extant species in four genera: Pongo, the Bornean and Sumatran orangutan; Gorilla, the eastern and western gorilla; Pan, the common chimpanzee and the bonobo; and Homo, the human and near-human ancestors and relatives (e.g., the Neanderthal).

Quote from: g2perk on August 17, 2016, 04:07:26 PM
Lets start with something simple. Thy shall not kill. If it was not for the bible would it be okay to kill. If not how would you know?

That is a completely different topic and one don't have the energy to explain. I'll pass the "how can an atheist be moral without God" ball to one to someone else.

I understand and somewhat agree with you. But Followers of both monotheistic and polytheistic religions in ancient and modern times have often accepted the importance of God's commands in establishing morality. At least that's what your resource said. Its not religion that Makes any person become closer with his creator its the relationship that one has with Him. Yes if your confused I understand but experience will teach you more than books ever will.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: GSOgymrat on August 17, 2016, 04:28:40 PM
That is a completely different topic and one don't have the energy to explain. I'll pass the "how can an atheist be moral without God" ball to one to someone else.

Oh, so now we're playing 'hot potato'?  :thanx:

Quote from: mauricio on August 17, 2016, 04:27:59 PM
humans are primates.

Kingdom:    Animalia
Phylum:    Chordata
Clade:    Synapsida
Class:    Mammalia
Order:    Primates
Suborder:    Haplorhini
Superfamily:    Hominoidea
Family:    Hominidae

The Hominidae (/hÉ'ˈmɪnáµ»diː/), whose members are known as great apes[note 1] or hominids, are a taxonomic family of primates that includes seven extant species in four genera: Pongo, the Bornean and Sumatran orangutan; Gorilla, the eastern and western gorilla; Pan, the common chimpanzee and the bonobo; and Homo, the human and near-human ancestors and relatives (e.g., the Neanderthal).

I'm not disagreeing with you. But primates are not humans they may be related from a distance but that's it. Apples and oranges are both fruits but they come from two different trees.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Just saying its easy not to believe in something that you can't see. But takes faith to believe in what you can't see.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

After some analysis comparing the various gods of mythology to omnipotent characters in fiction, you will find there are no differences between the two.

I know that gods don't exist. It's surprisingly simple to sum up: Any being claiming to fit the human concept of a god can offer no proof that cannot equally be offered by this guy:


It sounds like overly simplistic logic, but this is only because the nature of mythological gods itself speaks to how simplistic human imagination tends to be. Even the broadest interpretation of a god separate from the universe, that of deism, only exists to say, "The universe exists, therefore no matter how complex it is God surely must be able to make it," which is really just expanding an already made-up term to encompass new discoveries, rather than just admit that the concept was flawed to begin with.

Then you have the pantheistic and panentheistic definitions, respectively stating that god is the universe and the universe is within god; both of which pretty much mean the same thing after any deep analysis, and both of which beg the question, "If God and the universe are indistinguishable, then why separate the terms at all?" Like deism, the answer is obvious: it's expanding an older term to fit new discoveries, rather than admitting that the concept was flawed from the get-go.

The human concept of a god gets even more ridiculous once you introduce the concept of higher dimensions. Rob Bryanton's Imagining the Tenth Dimension (http://https//www.youtube.com/watch?v=gg85IH3vghA), while by no means describing a currently accepted scientific theory, nevertheless illustrates just how ridiculously huge our universe is should any concept of higher dimensions prove to be accurate (especially given the size of the observable universe we are already well aware of). As the universe gets bigger and bigger, any concept of gods must expand accordingly, to ludicrous levels as this concept should demonstrate.

Even if the observable universe is all there is, if it is really designed then it seems to act like what we would expect of a simulator; and any being capable of designing it should more accurately be referred to as a programmer than a god. "Why can't we just call the programmer God?" you ask. For the same reason we wouldn't call it a leprechaun: fictional though it may be, it already exists as a concept and, for the sake of not invoking confusion and/or emotional validation for irrational beliefs, the term should not be continually expanded to include any and every version of the universe's hypothetical creator. If it is more like a programmer than a god, then that is what we should call it, and how we should regard it. Given all of this, I cannot think of any explanation abiding by Occam's Razor that would lead me to believe that a being conforming to the mythical concept of a god exists.

tl;dr version: There is no way anything we would regard as a god could ever prove that it is what it claims to a skeptical individual. Because the universe less resembles a mythical god's realm than it does a simulator, any designer we did find should be called a programmer, not a god. Therefore, we can reasonably conclude that there is no god.

I don't disbelieve in God because I can't see Him, I disbelieve because the concept of 'God' is too ill-defined, too ambiguous a term to have any real meaning at all. If I can't even define something, there's no compelling reason to believe that something exists.

Quote from: g2perk on August 17, 2016, 04:34:10 PM
I'm not disagreeing with you. But primates are not humans they may be related from a distance but that's it. Apples and oranges are both fruits but they come from two different trees.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

in the same way that oranges and apples are fruits so are gorillas and humans hominids. And hominids are primates. Primates cannot be related to humans because primate is a higher category than humans. What would be accurate to say is that humans are not gorillas, but they are related.

Ok

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Does anybody here believe in the devil. Or is that made up as well.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: g2perk on August 17, 2016, 04:47:03 PM
Does anybody here believe in the devil. Or is that made up as well.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

I'm a substance monist I do not believe in any being or thing which is made of some kind of supernatural substance. Be they ghost,gods,spirits,souls,magic,psychics,demons,angels, etc.

Quote from: g2perk on August 17, 2016, 04:47:03 PM
Does anybody here believe in the devil. Or is that made up as well.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Yeah, it's made up: for any Superman you must have a Lex Luthor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RS4PW35-Y00
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZTCK8ZluEc

Nice to meet you...

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: mauricio on August 17, 2016, 04:50:01 PM
I'm a substance monist I do not believe in any being or thing which is made of some kind of supernatural substance. Be they ghost,gods,spirits,souls,magic,psychics,demons,angels, etc.

No ghosts, no goblins, no gods, as I like to say.

Quote from: g2perk on August 17, 2016, 02:32:26 PM
You can read any book you want on God and or life but until you experience God you don't know him. I knew about Michael Jackson doesn't mean I could walk up to his house and he would of let me in. 

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

That is almost nonsensical.  Even if I did not know Michael Jackson I could see that he is real.  I don't know President Obama--but I do know he is real.  I don't have to experience him to know that he is real.  I can't experience a fiction, which is what your god is.  How does one experience a fiction????

Quote from: Mike Cl on August 17, 2016, 04:54:24 PM
That is almost nonsensical.  Even if I did not know Michael Jackson I could see that he is real.  I don't know President Obama--but I do know he is real.  I don't have to experience him to know that he is real.  I can't experience a fiction, which is what your god is.  How does one experience a fiction????

I like to call this the god is Tinkerbell argument. You gotta believe it to see it!

Ok. First off your on the wrong track. I said until you experience God, and that means having a relationship with God. You can know about a person but if you don't know them personally then you have nothing. You can make fun of this its fine with me but my experience trumps any of your words.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: mauricio on August 17, 2016, 04:56:44 PM
I like to call this the god is Tinkerbell argument. You gotta believe it to see it!

I like that.

Quote from: g2perk on August 17, 2016, 04:59:42 PM
You can make fun of this its fine with me

We wouldn't be able to make fun of it if it just wasn't so darned ludicrous.

Quote from: g2perk on August 17, 2016, 01:00:30 PM
I can't understand when people talk as if they know there is no God or Higher power.  But yet can't explain the natural phenomena that happens everyday in front of them.

I can't understand when people talk as if they know there is a God or Higher power. But yet can't explain why he only communicated to men in odd little corners of the world, out of site from skeptical analysis, nor can they show me how he acts upon matter, to perform any interventions, when every event is clearly cause-and-effect, nor can they even simply explain why he is hiding himself now.

Your responses are closed minded and shallow. You can't see in the dark unless someone or something shines a light. But you are snuffing out the illumination that science offers you, and prefer the dark cave of myth and dogma. Free your mind g2perk. There is still love, an awe of nature, and a rich moral and ethical nature to behavior, without the scripture. You won't kill anybody. You won't start stealing. You won't turn gay. But you just might start questioning yourself, and your preconceptions about the world. The Bible is just a collection of ancient writings. It's only power is in the religion that has grown around it for so many centuries. If you were to read it, from front to back, without external input, you would dismiss it as mythology.

I'm done. :banghead:

Ok....let me get this straight. You are telling me to open my mind but you believe in a person that tell you guys you come from monkeys.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: g2perk on August 17, 2016, 05:49:27 PM
Ok....let me get this straight. You are telling me to open my mind but you believe in a person that tell you guys you come from monkeys.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

We do not come from monkeys go google homo sapiens taxonomy and evolution. Monkeys are our cousins. We come from a common ancestor which was neither human nor monkey.

here  i do the job for you:

Human evolution is the evolutionary process that led to the emergence of anatomically modern humans. The topic typically focuses on the evolutionary history of the primatesâ€"in particular the genus Homo, and the emergence of Homo sapiens as a distinct species of the hominids (or "great apes")â€"rather than studying the earlier history that led to the primates. The study of human evolution involves many scientific disciplines, including physical anthropology, primatology, archaeology, paleontology, neurobiology, ethology, linguistics, evolutionary psychology, embryology and genetics.[1] Genetic studies show that primates diverged from other mammals about 85 million years ago, in the Late Cretaceous period, and the earliest fossils appear in the Paleocene, around 55 million years ago.[2] Within the Hominoidea (apes) superfamily, the Hominidae family diverged from the Hylobatidae (gibbon) family some 15â€"20 million years ago; African great apes (subfamily Homininae) diverged from orangutans (Ponginae) about 14 million years ago; the Hominini tribe (humans, Australopithecines and other extinct biped genera, and chimpanzees) parted from the Gorillini tribe (gorillas) about 8 million years ago; and, in turn, the subtribes Hominina (humans and biped ancestors) and Panina (chimps) separated about 7.5 million years ago.[3]

The basic adaptation of the hominin line is bipedalism. The earliest bipedal hominin is considered to be either Sahelanthropus or Orrorin; alternatively, either Sahelanthropus or Orrorin may instead be the last shared ancestor between chimps and humans. Ardipithecus, a full biped, arose somewhat later, and the early bipeds eventually evolved into the australopithecines, and later into the genus Homo.

The earliest documented representative of the genus Homo is Homo habilis, which evolved around 2.8 million years ago,[4] and is arguably the earliest species for which there is positive evidence of the use of stone tools. The brains of these early hominins were about the same size as that of a chimpanzee, although it has been suggested that this was the time in which the human SRGAP2 gene doubled, producing a more rapid wiring of the frontal cortex. During the next million years a process of rapid encephalization occurred, and with the arrival of Homo erectus and Homo ergaster in the fossil record, cranial capacity had doubled to 850 cm3.[5] (Such an increase in human brain size is equivalent to each generation having 125,000 more neurons than their parents.) It is believed that Homo erectus and Homo ergaster were the first to use fire and complex tools, and were the first of the hominin line to leave Africa, spreading throughout Africa, Asia, and Europe between 1.3 to 1.8 million years ago.

According to the recent African origin of modern humans theory, modern humans evolved in Africa possibly from Homo heidelbergensis, Homo rhodesiensis or Homo antecessor and migrated out of the continent some 50,000 to 100,000 years ago, gradually replacing local populations of Homo erectus, Denisova hominins, Homo floresiensis and Homo neanderthalensis.[6][7][8][9][10] Archaic Homo sapiens, the forerunner of anatomically modern humans, evolved in the Middle Paleolithic between 400,000 and 250,000 years ago.[11][12][13] Recent DNA evidence suggests that several haplotypes of Neanderthal origin are present among all non-African populations, and Neanderthals and other hominins, such as Denisovans, may have contributed up to 6% of their genome to present-day humans, suggestive of a limited inter-breeding between these species.[14][15][16] The transition to behavioral modernity with the development of symbolic culture, language, and specialized lithic technology happened around 50,000 years ago according to many anthropologists[17] although some suggest a gradual change in behavior over a longer time span.[18]

Are these questions serious?  I can't really tell if you are really asking these things are just being funny.  If you're serious, you do realize that if I am unable to explain why the sun is round, it's still round because of various physics, not the least of which is gravity, right?  If you explain it with magic and I don't have enough understanding to explain it, that doesn't mean that "magic" is the right answer by some default.

Likewise, if I can't answer all your questions about how life came about and evolved to its current form, that doesn't mean that some deity just poofed it into being.  That's just not how reality works.  I could ask you to explain something you know nothing about and then give you my own, made up explanation and it won't change how it really works.  I am not a biologist.  I am not a geneticist.  I am not a paleontologist.  I don't have a full and complete understanding of abiogenesis (the beginnings of life) and evolution (changes in life over time).  But that I admit to not knowing and you don't doesn't actually mean you "know" anything.

That being said, I do not believe in magic of any sort.  No gods, devils, angels, demons, spirits, psychic powers, magic spells, bigfoot, etc.  If you can't give a scientific explanation for it then it is not worth considering.

Consider this.  "How did we all get here?"  This question is important to many.  There are generally two answers:

One is long and wordy and not easy to understand.  It is the scientific answer, which covers many fields of research and is held to standards of research which demand observational data and testing and peer review.  Each answer leads to more questions and the likelihood of ever having all the answers is pretty slim.

The other is short and simple.  It is easily understood by all.  It is that some god made everything.  It requires no training, it requires no knowledge, it is held to no standards, there are no demands and it is the answer to all such questions.

One of these answers leads to real understanding and knowledge.  The other just makes us think we have understanding and knowledge.  Learning is tough, but pretending you know, that's easy.  "God did it" is the easy, lazy way out for people who just want all the answers right now, but don't care if they're right.  They will just pretend they're right because it's easier.  Science is the much harder, much more demanding approach.  It is for those who would rather have no answer at all than the wrong one.

Your computer works on magic.  Now, if you can't explain to me in great detail how it actually works, down to the atomic level, does that make me right?  Of course not.  You don't know, I claim to know.  Does that mean I am right?  Of course not.

Quote from: widdershins on August 17, 2016, 06:13:49 PM
Are these questions serious?  I can't really tell if you are really asking these things are just being funny.  If you're serious, you do realize that if I am unable to explain why the sun is round, it's still round because of various physics, not the least of which is gravity, right?  If you explain it with magic and I don't have enough understanding to explain it, that doesn't mean that "magic" is the right answer by some default.

That's what I was wondering, too.  "Oh, you don't believe in a God?  Then explain literally everything in a way I can grasp or goddidit"  Sheesh, talk about a tall order.  And for anyone genuinely curious about this stuff, there are plenty of online and offline resources.  So, I don't get the point of this sort of thread other than to hash out the basic arguments that we've hashed out a thousand times before.

Sounds bit like a poe. He went through the most classical set of believer bullshit in several posts without making any connection to them. It's like he is reading from a list.

Quote from: g2perk on August 17, 2016, 02:32:26 PM
You can read any book you want on God and or life but until you experience God you don't know him.
...

Please speak for yourself and not me, or others.  Here, read the following in front of a mirror"

"I can read any book I want on God and or life but until I experience God I don't know him."

Sorry I am late to the party.  This is a prime topic for me.

There are no explanations, just monkey shines.  Life doesn't need to be explained anyway.  What needs to be explained is why you are looking for an explanation for the obvious.  1+1=2 only idiots and mathematicians question this.  It is axiomatic, as a living being, that you are alive.  One doesn't explain the axioms of Euclid, one assumes them, and moves on from there.  So given that you are alive, what the Hell are you doing about it?

Quote from: sdelsolray on August 17, 2016, 07:49:07 PM
Please speak for yourself and not me, or others.  Here, read the following in front of a mirror"

"I can read any book I want on God and or life but until I experience God I don't know him."

The truth hurts don't it

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: g2perk on August 17, 2016, 08:14:25 PM
The truth hurts don't it

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Pilate was right, there is no truth.  Just propaganda.  Life hurts, whether you like it or not, theist or atheist it matters not.

Quote from: Baruch on August 17, 2016, 08:17:47 PM
Pilate was right, there is no truth.  Just propaganda.  Life hurts, whether you like it or not, theist or atheist it matters not.

You are right about life, but I am not alone on my journey, that's the difference in life.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: g2perk on August 17, 2016, 08:24:21 PM
You are right about life, but I am not alone on my journey, that's the difference in life.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

None of us is alone.  But your invisible friend will remain invisible, they tend to do that.  I do try to be alone when on the crapper however.  Your invisible friend can shield his dirty eyes.

Quote from: Baruch on August 17, 2016, 08:28:17 PM
None of us is alone.  But your invisible friend will remain invisible, they tend to do that.  I do try to be alone when on the crapper however.  Your invisible friend can shield his dirty eyes.

You are funny..

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: g2perk on August 17, 2016, 08:33:28 PM
You are funny..

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

If you haven't laughed today, in spite of all the tragedy, you haven't lived ;-)

Quote from: Baruch on August 17, 2016, 08:41:16 PM
If you haven't laughed today, in spite of all the tragedy, you haven't lived ;-)

Yep

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/a-mathematical-proof-that-the-universe-could-have-formed-spontaneously-from-nothing-ed7ed0f304a3#.yglj6m3yz

A mathematical proof that the universe could have formed spontaneously from nothing. The smart people, scientists, are mostly all atheists. If evidence of god was forthcoming or in any way provable, they would be believers.

Quote from: g2perk on August 17, 2016, 01:00:30 PM
I can't understand when people talk as if they know there is no God or Higher power.  But yet can't explain the natural phenomena that happens everyday in front of them.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

We don't know how life started yet. Lack of knowledge in this area does not equal evidence for your assumption that life was created. You are the one who claims to know something you can't prove. There are an estimated 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in the universe, with an estimated 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets. That one of those planets in the 14 billion years the universe has existed since the Big Bang would happen to develop life by chance should not come as a big surprise. I wouldn't even be surprised to learn that other planets have life as well, though we may never find it.

What does seem far-fetched to me is the idea that God would feel the need to create 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars just to make life on one planet. Most of these stars cannot even be seen by the naked eye and require advanced technology to locate. Every time NASA points its telescopes toward what appears to be empty space, they find more galaxies. Furthermore, if God created the entire universe in 6 days, a mere 6000 years ago, why is there light coming from galaxies that are much MUCH further away than 6000 years? The God explanation is too damn silly to take seriously.

Quote from: Blackleaf on August 17, 2016, 10:49:56 PM
We don't know how life started yet. Lack of knowledge in this area does not equal evidence for your assumption that life was created. You are the one who claims to know something you can't prove. There are an estimated 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in the universe, with an estimated 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets. That one of those planets in the 14 billion years the universe has existed since the Big Bang would happen to develop life by chance should not come as a big surprise. I wouldn't even be surprised to learn that other planets have life as well, though we may never find it.

What does seem far-fetched to me is the idea that God would feel the need to create 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars just to make life on one planet. Most of these stars cannot even be seen by the naked eye and require advanced technology to locate. Every time NASA points its telescopes toward what appears to be empty space, they find more galaxies. Furthermore, if God created the entire universe in 6 days, a mere 6000 years ago, why is there light coming from galaxies that are much MUCH further away than 6000 years? The God explanation is too damn silly to take seriously.

And what you just said makes more sense. Lol

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

I'm still waiting on your answer to my question about dust...

Quote from: g2perk on August 17, 2016, 01:00:30 PM
I can't understand when people talk as if they know there is no God or Higher power.  But yet can't explain the natural phenomena that happens everyday in front of them.

On the one hand we've got hundreds of years of documented observations and experiments that have refined our understanding of the natural world over time.

And on the other hand we've got your lack of understanding.   

I have to wonder what level of education you have, g2perk. What kind of school did you attend, that has honed your arguing skills to such a razor edge?

Yeah. But how they came to be is the question....come on come on.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on August 18, 2016, 03:43:57 AM
I have to wonder what level of education you have, g2perk. What kind of school did you attend, that has honed your arguing skills to such a razor edge?

I'm guessing Shrek's school of trolling.

Quote from: g2perk on August 17, 2016, 04:07:26 PM
Lets start with something simple. Thy shall not kill. If it was not for the bible would it be okay to kill. If not how would you know?

A basic understanding of the consequences of your actions combined with the empathy provided by socialization and evolution.
Just look at societies from before the Judeo-christian ones or those completely isolated from it. They figured it out somehow.

Quote from: g2perk on August 18, 2016, 07:34:17 AM
Yeah. But how they came to be is the question....come on come on.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

There is only one answer to that question. CHUCK NORRIS.

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on August 18, 2016, 08:25:18 AM
A basic understanding of the consequences of your actions combined with the empathy provided by socialization and evolution.
Just look at societies from before the Judeo-christian ones or those completely isolated from it. They figured it out somehow.

Ok. Did they make it a law or only Christians was smart enough to make it's law.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: g2perk on August 18, 2016, 08:52:21 AM
Ok. Did they make it a law or only Christians was smart enough to make it's law.

Of course there were societies which prohibit murder, outside of the Christian one.
BTW, I think you mean 'or only Jews were smart enough to make it's law.' Not saying that would mean there were no other societies that prohibited murder, but the OT is from before Christianity, as you must surely know.

Quote from: g2perk on August 18, 2016, 08:52:21 AM
Ok. Did they make it a law or only Christians was smart enough to make it's law.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

What is 'the law' you speak of.  Are you referring to 'thou shalt not kill'?  What does that mean (only apply to people and not animals?  Only some people?  Does it really mean murder?)
Can you show me where it commands that in your bible????

Look my point is simple people. You bash the bible but yet you still follow its rules. Why, because in your heart you know its the right thing to do. For example. The bible talks about adultery. Ok. Now why is that wrong. Its simple. It will cause some heartache down the line. Especially if both parties are married. Common sense.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: Mike Cl on August 18, 2016, 09:00:05 AM
What is 'the law' you speak of.  Are you referring to 'thou shalt not kill'?  What does that mean (only apply to people and not animals?  Only some people?  Does it really mean murder?)
Can you show me where it commands that in your bible????

What. If you are really asking that question then you need to google it. That was an elementary one mike. Come on.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: g2perk on August 18, 2016, 09:02:33 AM
Look my point is simple people. You bash the bible but yet you still follow its rules. Why, because in your heart you know its the right thing to do. For example. The bible talks about adultery. Ok. Now why is that wrong. Its simple. It will cause some heartache down the line. Especially if both parties are married. Common sense.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Yes, the rules of a particular society seem like common sense to that particular society--that's why it is called 'common' sense.  In some societies it is common sense to share a wife with a guest--in our society that would not be acceptable.  In those societies it would be mannerly. 

You keep bringing up 'the laws' of the bible.  What are they and where do you find them?????

Quote from: g2perk on August 18, 2016, 09:02:33 AM
Look my point is simple people. You bash the bible but yet you still follow its rules. Why, because in your heart you know its the right thing to do. For example. The bible talks about adultery. Ok. Now why is that wrong. Its simple. It will cause some heartache down the line. Especially if both parties are married. Common sense.

I refute that claim. I don't follow the Bible('s rules). Some parts of the Bible happen to coincide with my view on morality. (Some parts, mind you. Too few and too far in between for my liking.) It would be almost impossible not to, it's filled with contradicting laws and commandments after all. So that's a big difference.

Ok. Mike since you want me to do the work for you. Read Exodus and Deuteronomy.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on August 18, 2016, 09:09:39 AM
I refute that claim. I don't follow the Bible('s rules). Some parts of the Bible happen to coincide with my view on morality. (Some parts, mind you. Too few and too far in between for my liking.) It would be almost impossible not to, it's filled with contradicting laws and commandments after all. So that's a big difference.

Funny how the bible just happens to coincide with your views. Must be a great man.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: g2perk on August 18, 2016, 09:13:17 AM
Funny how the bible just happens to coincide with your views. Must be a great man.

Note the "some" I used. Very important.

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on August 18, 2016, 09:14:33 AM
Note the "some" I used. Very important.

I know...I was just being funny.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: g2perk on August 18, 2016, 09:15:46 AM
I know...I was just being funny.

Wouldn't have guessed.

Quote from: g2perk on August 18, 2016, 09:02:33 AM
Look my point is simple people. You bash the bible but yet you still follow its rules. Why, because in your heart you know its the right thing to do. For example. The bible talks about adultery. Ok. Now why is that wrong. Its simple. It will cause some heartache down the line. Especially if both parties are married. Common sense.

No asshole I don't follow the Bible's rules and hopefully neither do you. If we did we would be too busy selling our daughters, murdering other people's rebellious children and our adulterous neighbors to get anything else done. There are things the Bible says not to do that I don't do. As has already been pointed out many of them are in no way exclusive to the Bible. Lying, cheating, stealing, raping and murdering have been considered immoral by many cultures throughout history including some that are much older than Judaeo-Christian culture. Not only does your angry desert god not have a monopoly on morality, but he wasn't even close to the first with these concepts. Moral standards as expressed in the Bible are barbaric by my own personal standards. So you can shove your Biblical morality up your ass.

Quote from: PopeyesPappy on August 18, 2016, 10:39:01 AM
No asshole I don't follow the Bible's rules and hopefully neither do you. If we did we would be too busy selling our daughters, murdering other people's rebellious children and our adulterous neighbors to get anything else done. There are things the Bible says not to do that I don't do. As has already been pointed out many of them are in no way exclusive to the Bible. Lying, cheating, stealing, raping and murdering have been considered immoral by many cultures throughout history including some that are much older than Judaeo-Christian culture. Not only does your angry desert god not have a monopoly on morality, but he wasn't even close to the first with these concepts. Moral standards as expressed in the Bible are barbaric by my own personal standards. So you can shove your Biblical morality up your ass.

Wow. You are a mouthy little person aren't you. Ill comment when you learn respect.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

You aren't really interested in having a conversation with anyone here on any of this anyway. If you were you would try to answer some of the questions people have asked. I find your attitude to be extremely insulting. So how about this kiddo? Fuck you. Fuck Yahweh. And Fuck Jusus titty fucking Christ.

Quote from: g2perk on August 18, 2016, 09:02:33 AM
Look my point is simple people. You bash the bible but yet you still follow its rules. Why, because in your heart you know its the right thing to do. For example. The bible talks about adultery. Ok. Now why is that wrong. Its simple. It will cause some heartache down the line. Especially if both parties are married. Common sense.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

No. You fail to realize one simple thing. Most of the Ten Commandments are based on a moral code THAT WAS ALREADY STANDARD. It reflected the values of the people living during that time. Thou shalt not steal. Duh. Thou shalt not kill? (Except in the many exceptions God makes to this rule.) Duh. Six of the commandments are common sense, and they were never exclusive to the Jews. And then you have the other four, filled with rules like "thou shalt not have any other gods before me," "thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image," "thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain," and "remember the Sabbath Day, keep it holy," which virtually no Christians follow themselves. Christians put other things before their God, they make paintings of their invisible God's image, most have no problems using God's name in vain, and they most often do work on the Sabbath Day.

Then when you take into account the many other rules of the Old Testament, you get rules against eating sea creatures that don't have scales, rules against eating pig meat, eating meat with dairy (cheese burgers, anyone?), not being circumcised if you're a man, using more than one kind of seed in a field, wearing clothes made of more than one cloth, and cutting the hair on the side of your head, which Christians conveniently dismiss as being under the "Old Covenant." So basically, you Christians get to pick and choose which rules you think are "God's laws," and can dismiss all the others that society has outgrown. If it was wrong to cut your sideburns in Old Testament days, why isn't it now? I'll tell you why. Because social norms changed, and Christianity always changes to adapt. There is no God giving out his perfect laws, because those laws are frequently made obsolete. God is just a tool used to control.

Morality exists and existed before religion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_ethics

QuoteSecular ethics is a branch of moral philosophy in which ethics is based solely on human faculties such as logic, reason or moral intuition, and not derived from supernatural revelation or guidanceâ€"the source of ethics in many religions. Secular ethics refers to any ethical system that does not draw on the supernatural, such as humanism, secularism and freethinking.

Secular ethical systems comprise a wide variety of ideas to include the normativity of social contracts, some form of attribution of intrinsic moral value, intuition-based deontology, cultural moral relativism, and the idea that scientific reasoning can reveal objective moral truth (known as science of morality).

The Codex of Hammurabi and Ur Mammu both precede the bible. Civilizations that did not believe in your god existed and practiced the same common secular morality we do today. Morality is based on the mutual needs of a society. The bible allows rape and slavery because in that time frame and place it made sense to the lawgivers. It doesn't now, so it is not practiced. there are societies that existed outside of religion that had laws and moral codes the same as now.

QuoteSecular ethics frameworks are not always mutually exclusive from theological values. For example, the Golden Rule or a commitment to non-violence, could be supported by both religious and secular frameworks. Secular ethics systems can also vary within the societal and cultural norms of a specific time period.

Codex Hammurabi predates the bible by more than a century

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi

Quote from: g2perk on August 18, 2016, 09:02:33 AM
...
You bash the bible but yet you still follow its rules.
...

This one thinks morality first appeared in the Bible and that his religion has a patent, trademark and copyright on moral behavior.

Ok mr. Black. Some of the laws are what you call principles of life meaning whatever era or culture you are from these commandments will affect you in a negative manner. Don't believe me try them. The other laws like not making idols these laws or for Us believers. Sorry.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: g2perk on August 18, 2016, 11:24:01 AM
Ok mr. Black. Some of the laws are what you call principles of life meaning whatever era or culture you are from these commandments will affect you in a negative manner. Don't believe me try them. The other laws like not making idols these laws or for Us believers. Sorry.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Christian strategy #1: Evade. Don't address points made by those offering criticism to your beliefs, but skirt around them in hopes that they won't notice.

I noticed. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that any of God's laws are temporary, or specific to only one culture. In fact, the Bible says, more than once, that not a single dot in the scriptures should be erased because it is all perfect. Jesus said that he did not come to abolish the law, and yet Christians abolish more and more laws as they go. The reason that laws of the Old Testament were only applied to the people who lived at the time of their writing was that the laws reflected the values of the contemporaries. One prophet says, "I don't like this. I should make a law against it." Then when the law no longer make sense, people conveniently forget that the prophet supposedly spoke for God and toss his law out the window.

In short, if your God were real, his perfect laws would be eternal. But they are not, proving that his laws were the inventions of ancient men with ancient values.

You are not understanding the meaning behind the words. Do you know what apologies are. You should. Plus You are debating religion and not a personal relationship with God.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: g2perk on August 18, 2016, 11:37:38 AM
You are not understanding the meaning behind the words. Do you know what apologies are. You should. Plus You are debating religion and not a personal relationship with God.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Christian strategy #2: When in doubt, claim that your opposition is ignorant so that you don't have to answer them.

re·li·gion
rəˈlijən/
noun
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
"ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
synonyms:   faith, belief, worship, creed;

• a particular system of faith and worship.
  plural noun: religions
  "the world's great religions"
• a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.
  "consumerism is the new religion"

Your faith in God is part of your religion. You have no personal relationship with God, aside from your religious activities. You believe in the Bible, you worship God, you go to church, you are religious.

EDIT: Also, I believe you mean "apologetics," not apologies.

Quote from: g2perk on August 17, 2016, 01:00:30 PM
I can't understand when people talk as if they know there is no God or Higher power.  But yet can't explain the natural phenomena that happens everyday in front of them.

Why is this even a problem? Can you explain string theory?

My faith in God is my worship not religion. There is a huge difference but that comes with understanding the scripture.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

It's surprising how you guys bang your heads, but I think you would have more success explaining it to a Labrador.

This chew toy never had much flavor.

Quote from: g2perk on August 18, 2016, 11:59:45 AM
My faith in God is my worship not religion. There is a huge difference but that comes with understanding the scripture.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

re·li·gion
rəˈlijən/
noun
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
"ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
synonyms:   faith, belief, worship, creed;

• a particular system of faith and worship.
  plural noun: religions
  "the world's great religions"
• a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.
  "consumerism is the new religion"

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 18, 2016, 11:59:13 AM
Why is this even a problem? Can you explain string theory?

Not sure what that is.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: g2perk on August 18, 2016, 12:12:24 PM
Not sure what that is.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

To put it simply, it's the theory that there is not just one universe, but infinite universes. It's much more complicated than that, but that's the simplest way I know to describe it.

Quote from: Blackleaf on August 18, 2016, 12:25:38 PM
To put it simply, it's the theory that there is not just one universe, but infinite universes. It's much more complicated than that, but that's the simplest way I know to describe it.

Ok...Yeah can't disagree with that.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on August 18, 2016, 12:01:08 PM
It's surprising how you guys bang your heads, but I think you would have more success explaining it to a Labrador.

This chew toy never had much flavor.

We're talking to the peanut gallery, for the most part. If someone came in here and said, "There IS a God and I don't have to prove it!" we'd be all over it, because otherwise it's just that one voice, unchallenged.

Quote from: Blackleaf on August 18, 2016, 12:25:38 PM
To put it simply, it's the theory that there is not just one universe, but infinite universes. It's much more complicated than that, but that's the simplest way I know to describe it.

Each with it's own god?  Would be interesting to see which God creates the best universe.

Quote from: pr126 on August 18, 2016, 12:39:50 PM
Each with it's own god?  Would be interesting to see which God creates the best universe.

It would, but string theory is yet another thing that makes the idea of gods obsolete. If there is a universe for every possibility, then intelligent design is meaningless.

Quote from: g2perk on August 18, 2016, 09:02:33 AM
Look my point is simple people. You bash the bible but yet you still follow its rules. Why, because in your heart you know its the right thing to do. For example. The bible talks about adultery. Ok. Now why is that wrong. Its simple. It will cause some heartache down the line. Especially if both parties are married. Common sense.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

There are a lot of rules in the Bible and not even you follow them all.  Ever worked on the Sabbath?  Do you kill all witches you come across?  Would you stone your wife or disobedient if she cheated on you?  Do you eat pork?

Now, if we're talking about the Ten Commandments, most of those aren't actually laws.  The first 5, complete bullshit.  There are no laws addressing any of those things.  There are actually only TWO which are actual criminal offenses.  Don't kill, don't steal.  And contrary to what you would like to believe, even those are not unique to Christianity.  Those basic principles are simply a recipe for survival of the species and therefore show up in every culture in the world, with or without your Bible.

So, the Bible gets exactly TWO out of TEN right, IF you cherry pick JUST the ones you want to follow and this is somehow divine insight?  What about "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"?  I don't know any witch hunters.  Do you?  But I HAVE see witches, at least on TV.  Hell, I've even seen a car driving around with a bumper sticker with the Witch's Creed on it.

As for what I "know in my heart", that is just bullshit people say when their brains are too smart to "know" something, so they have to move the thinking process to an organ incapable of processing thought.

As for the adultery thing, the modern concept of marriage wasn't even a thing back then.  Adultery as defined at the time has nothing to do with adultery as defined now.  Unless you have a concubine or two laying around.

The Bible is a very big book.  Because of this you can look through and find some good things in it.  That doesn't make it inherently "good".  Here's a good quote for you: "Reading is not an end to itself, but a means to an end."  That's pretty damned wise.  The writer is essentially saying that you read to learn.  Here's another wise quote from the same writer: "Anyone can deal with victory. Only the mighty can bear defeat."  Boy, that Adolf Hitler, what a great and wise guy, huh?

Talk enough and even you will eventually say something intelligent.  That's the only way the Bible has any "wisdom" in it.  The thing is you only see the good stuff whereas we see mostly the bad stuff.  Many of us have played on both sides of the fence.  I have been where you are.  You have never been where I am.  How do I know that with any certainty?  Because there is no going back from where I am.  I didn't "choose" to be an atheist.  I simply stopped believing, then looked into it with an open mind and came to the conclusion there are no gods.  You can't un-know something, so lacking evidence or major head trauma, it would be impossible for me to be a Christian again because I know in my BRAIN there are no gods.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPl9Ofv88Yk

QuoteSecular ethics frameworks are not always mutually exclusive from theological values. For example, the Golden Rule or a commitment to non-violence, could be supported by both religious and secular frameworks.

Will you get it this time? The 10 Commandments were stolen borrowed from Babylonian law. The bible comes after that by a few centuries. Morality is based on common human understanding, not biblical principles. Religious laws happen to coincide with secular ones because they make sense. Thou shalt not kill was a moral point long before the 10 Commandments.

Quote from: widdershins on August 18, 2016, 01:28:18 PM
There are a lot of rules in the Bible and not even you follow them all.  Ever worked on the Sabbath?  Do you kill all witches you come across?  Would you stone your wife or disobedient if she cheated on you?  Do you eat pork?

Now, if we're talking about the Ten Commandments, most of those aren't actually laws.  The first 5, complete bullshit.  There are no laws addressing any of those things.  There are actually only TWO which are actual criminal offenses.  Don't kill, don't steal.  And contrary to what you would like to believe, even those are not unique to Christianity.  Those basic principles are simply a recipe for survival of the species and therefore show up in every culture in the world, with or without your Bible.

So, the Bible gets exactly TWO out of TEN right, IF you cherry pick JUST the ones you want to follow and this is somehow divine insight?  What about "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"?  I don't know any witch hunters.  Do you?  But I HAVE see witches, at least on TV.  Hell, I've even seen a car driving around with a bumper sticker with the Witch's Creed on it.

As for what I "know in my heart", that is just bullshit people say when their brains are too smart to "know" something, so they have to move the thinking process to an organ incapable of processing thought.

As for the adultery thing, the modern concept of marriage wasn't even a thing back then.  Adultery as defined at the time has nothing to do with adultery as defined now.  Unless you have a concubine or two laying around.

The Bible is a very big book.  Because of this you can look through and find some good things in it.  That doesn't make it inherently "good".  Here's a good quote for you: "Reading is not an end to itself, but a means to an end."  That's pretty damned wise.  The writer is essentially saying that you read to learn.  Here's another wise quote from the same writer: "Anyone can deal with victory. Only the mighty can bear defeat."  Boy, that Adolf Hitler, what a great and wise guy, huh?

Talk enough and even you will eventually say something intelligent.  That's the only way the Bible has any "wisdom" in it.  The thing is you only see the good stuff whereas we see mostly the bad stuff.  Many of us have played on both sides of the fence.  I have been where you are.  You have never been where I am.  How do I know that with any certainty?  Because there is no going back from where I am.  I didn't "choose" to be an atheist.  I simply stopped believing, then looked into it with an open mind and came to the conclusion there are no gods.  You can't un-know something, so lacking evidence or major head trauma, it would be impossible for me to be a Christian again because I know in my BRAIN there are no gods.

Ok. As for as witches your on your own my friend. When people read the bible most come up with their own conclusions. The bible is both for everyone only those who want something much greater than themselves. I guess haven't read any of proverbs right. There is all the wise quotes you can stand and then some. The bible was intended to help those in need. Not by giving you what you as for but by giving a person what the need. Again it may not be for you. As for as the laws go. They are principles for us believers because it shows us the error of our ways. When I say adultery is wrong its because I know what it causes on the back end. Heartache and pain. And it may have been legal then but I promise you this that man with all those wives caught hell.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: stromboli on August 18, 2016, 01:41:42 PM
Will you get it this time? The 10 Commandments were stolen borrowed from Babylonian law. The bible comes after that by a few centuries. Morality is based on common human understanding, not biblical principles. Religious laws happen to coincide with secular ones because they make sense. Thou shalt not kill was a moral point long before the 10 Commandments.

Actually some historian believe that it comes from the Book of the Dead from the Egyptians. So what's your point.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

I'm more interested in what just happens to be your point.
It keeps changing with Each reply you get? What's your message exactly?

Quote from: g2perk on August 17, 2016, 04:07:26 PM
Lets start with something simple. Thy shall not kill. If it was not for the bible would it be okay to kill. If not how would you know?

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Many cultures that do not know of or believe in god, know that killing is wrong.

I love when some one comes here did no research for them selves and then uses the same washed out arguments almost like a parot!

There are answers already to all your arguments. They are nothing we haven't encountered before. Use google do some research then come back.

Quote from: doorknob on August 18, 2016, 03:18:52 PM
I love when some one comes here did no research for them selves and then uses the same washed out arguments almost like a parot!

There are answers already to all your arguments. They are nothing we haven't encountered before. Use google do some research then come back.

Yeah...great response.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: g2perk on August 18, 2016, 04:00:00 PM
Yeah...great response.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Actually it is a good response. See, we live in the age of information now, no longer is information confined to limited resources and word of mouth, but presented cases, stories and evidence as well as historical studies and news reports today, all presented over something easily accessed.

Its from that and is the reason why many more people in the modern age are casting off religion, because with that information out there, we can research into the fact of all religions and its teaching being that of cult storytelling and folktales made up to scare people into following them. We can also look into what science has discovered of us in the origins of species and evolution.

Like say, there is a reason why so many more people, who have access to the information age, are more now likely to let go of those beliefs, because they evolved beyond needing the same stories we were told as children.

Quote from: g2perk on August 18, 2016, 02:29:25 PM
Actually some historian believe that it comes from the Book of the Dead from the Egyptians. So what's your point.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

The point is that morality does not come from god or your bible.

If you believe in Jesus you believe in a Christian deity. Religion is belief in a deity. Sorry, you can't separate one from the other.

Quote from: Munch on August 18, 2016, 04:10:05 PM
Actually it is a good response. See, we live in the age of information now, no longer is information confined to limited resources and word of mouth, but presented cases, stories and evidence as well as historical studies and news reports today, all presented over something easily accessed.

Its from that and is the reason why many more people in the modern age are casting off religion, because with that information out there, we can research into the fact of all religions and its teaching being that of cult storytelling and folktales made up to scare people into following them. We can also look into what science has discovered of us in the origins of species and evolution.

Like say, there is a reason why so many more people, who have access to the information age, are more now likely to let go of those beliefs, because they evolved beyond needing the same stories we were told as children.

What info do you have to support what you believe. NONE. Now that's all in your head.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: stromboli on August 18, 2016, 04:18:42 PM
The point is that morality does not come from god or your bible.

If you believe in Jesus you believe in a Christian deity. Religion is belief in a deity. Sorry, you can't separate one from the other.

And exactly how would you know. You don't believe in anything other than what you see in front of you.

And do you really think that Jesus was born in that time period. When He came down was he must be man.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: g2perk on August 18, 2016, 04:18:49 PM
What info do you have to support what you believe. NONE. Now that's all in your head.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

I believe it's wrong to have sex with children, something certain religions hasn't figured out yet might be damaging to someone so young.

Do you believe it's okay to have sex with children if a holy book tells you it's alright?

Quote from: Munch on August 18, 2016, 04:29:14 PM
I believe it's wrong to have sex with children, something certain religions hasn't figured out yet might be damaging to someone so young.

I agree as well. But that is not and is nowhere close to what I have been speaking on.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: g2perk on August 18, 2016, 04:21:19 PM
And exactly how would you know. You don't believe in anything other than what you see in front of you.

It's better to believe in what you can test than not being able to test what you believe in.

Quote from: Munch on August 18, 2016, 04:29:14 PM
I believe it's wrong to have sex with children, something certain religions hasn't figured out yet might be damaging to someone so young.

Do you believe it's okay to have sex with children if a holy book tells you it's alright?

What kind of book are you reading man.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on August 18, 2016, 04:32:16 PM
It's better to believe in what you can test than not being able to test what you believe in.

Says simple people. Let me ask then. If you can see a thing there is no need for believing.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: g2perk on August 18, 2016, 04:34:58 PM
Says simple people. Let me ask then. If you can see a thing there is no need for believing.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Seems your a little reluctant to test the waters, rather relying on ad hominem

Quote from: Munch on August 18, 2016, 04:40:39 PM
Seems your a little reluctant to test the waters, rather relying on ad hominem

Why leave a good thing.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: g2perk on August 18, 2016, 04:34:58 PM
Says simple people. Let me ask then. If you can see a thing there is no need for believing.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

I am a simple man. With simple wants and simple thoughts.

I don't know much. And I know there is much I don't know.

But what I do know is that when you 'ask' something, you do it by posing an actual question. Or is that last sentence supposed to be one rather than a claim?

Quote from: g2perk on August 18, 2016, 04:34:58 PM
Says simple people. Let me ask then. If you can see a thing there is no need for believing.

Here is a tip for g2 perk and other religious people who are trying to convince me God exists (I speak only for myself):

You need to accept that God is a subjective, not objective, experience. You will never present scientific evidence that will make me believe in God, because if God exists it is outside the material world and beyond science. Appeals to reason won't work, only appeals to faith. The people of faith who I find most compelling are the ones who don't feel it necessary to explain their faith-- they feel it, they believe it and they don't have to justify it to anyone because they know belief in God is a subjective, personal experience. They spread their faith through their actions, by being sincerely good people, by leading inspiring lives, not through clumsy rhetoric.

Quote from: g2perk on August 18, 2016, 04:51:12 PM
Why leave a good thing.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Are you fearful you might find something you won't like?

Quote from: Munch on August 18, 2016, 05:12:41 PM
Are you fearful you might find something you won't like?

There is nothing to offer me.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: PopeyesPappy on August 18, 2016, 10:39:01 AM
No asshole I don't follow the Bible's rules and hopefully neither do you. If we did we would be too busy selling our daughters, murdering other people's rebellious children and our adulterous neighbors to get anything else done. There are things the Bible says not to do that I don't do. As has already been pointed out many of them are in no way exclusive to the Bible. Lying, cheating, stealing, raping and murdering have been considered immoral by many cultures throughout history including some that are much older than Judaeo-Christian culture. Not only does your angry desert god not have a monopoly on morality, but he wasn't even close to the first with these concepts. Moral standards as expressed in the Bible are barbaric by my own personal standards. So you can shove your Biblical morality up your ass.

Yeah, as Ingersoll put it:
"If a man would follow, today, the teachings of the Old Testament, he would be a criminal. If he would follow strictly the teachings of the New, he would be insane."

I like how this master of "apologies" ignores all of the tough questions and acts like he's won.

Quote from: sdelsolray on August 18, 2016, 11:18:45 AM
This one thinks morality first appeared in the Bible and that his religion has a patent, trademark and copyright on moral behavior.

Yes, the farce is strong with this one.

Quote from: g2perk on August 18, 2016, 11:59:45 AM
My faith in God is my worship not religion. There is a huge difference but that comes with understanding the scripture.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Sure, religion is man reaching up to God, your faith is God reaching down to you. Just because in all this vast universe YOU are special to the infinite being that created it all. Sure...


:kiddingme:

Quote from: g2perk on August 18, 2016, 12:12:24 PM
Not sure what that is.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Don't believe all that sciency crap about string theory, it's really just the art of tying knots.

 

Quote from: doorknob on August 18, 2016, 03:18:52 PM
I love when some one comes here did no research for them selves and then uses the same washed out arguments almost like a parot!

Not true - he did do research! Just look at all the research he cites:

Quote from: g2perk on August 18, 2016, 02:29:25 PM
Actually some historian believe that it comes from the Book of the Dead from the Egyptians.

He must've done massive amounts of research to come up with all that!

QuoteMunch on Today at 01:29:14 PM

I believe it's wrong to have sex with children, something certain religions hasn't figured out yet might be damaging to someone so young.

Quote from: g2perk on August 18, 2016, 04:31:42 PM
I agree as well. But that is not and is nowhere close to what I have been speaking on.

What!? Having sex with children is nowhere near morality!? Isn't that what you were "speaking on"?

Quote from: g2perk on August 18, 2016, 04:34:58 PM
Says simple people. Let me ask then. If you can see a thing there is no need for believing.

What's so great about this "believing" thing, anyway? Is it virtuous to believe in something, no matter what it is, as long as you BELIEVE?

The OP acts almost as though it was a chat bot, designed specifically to mimic the 'average' Christian. Never know, these days... :geek:

Quote from: Unbeliever on August 18, 2016, 05:33:06 PM
Sure, religion is man reaching up to God, your faith is God reaching down to you. Just because in all this vast universe YOU are special to the infinite being that created it all. Sure...


:kiddingme:

No. Religion dominates the mind while faith frees it.

Close though.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: Unbeliever on August 18, 2016, 05:44:49 PM
Not true - he did do research! Just look at all the research he cites:
He must've done massive amounts of research to come up with all that!

You were already lost. Why add to it...

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: g2perk on August 18, 2016, 06:30:58 PM
No. Religion dominates the mind while faith frees it.

Close though.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Faith is a necessary element of religion, you moron. And faith is the very part of religion which dominates the mind, keeps it from thinking in ways that are destructive to beliefs. And you have displayed that quite nicely in your short time here, evading and ignoring difficult questions, making claims you can't back up, and generally being a brainwashed dumbass.

Quote from: Unbeliever on August 18, 2016, 05:49:04 PM

What!? Having sex with children is nowhere near morality!? Isn't that what you were "speaking on"?

Keep twisting words your going to get dizzy.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Religion is a faith. You believe in a deity you can't not believe what that deity teaches. What he teaches is a religion. Sorry, you can't separate the two.

Speaking of belief, try Plato's Cave. Probably a bit too deep for you, but it illustrates the point about believing.

https://philosophyzer.wordpress.com/2012/09/21/the-allegory-of-the-cave-by-plato-summary-and-meaning/

And to my previous post that you blew off, I demonstrated that the concept of morality preceded the bible. That is a fact. Therefore morality didn't come from your god.

Quote from: g2perk on August 18, 2016, 06:36:27 PM
Keep twisting words your going to get dizzy.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Can you at least learn proper grammar before you come here and try to act smarter than everyone else? How old are you?

Quote from: Blackleaf on August 18, 2016, 06:36:14 PM
Faith is a necessary element of religion, you moron. And faith is the very part of religion which dominates the mind, keeps it from thinking in ways that are destructive to beliefs. And you have displayed that quite nicely in your short time here, evading and ignoring difficult questions, making claims you can't back up, and generally being a brainwashed dumbass.

Really....faith and religion go together. Find that for me in any book. By the way you would not know about faith.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: Blackleaf on August 18, 2016, 06:50:16 PM
Can you at least learn proper grammar before you come here and try to act smarter than everyone else? How old are you?

You thinking smarter. Cool.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: Blackleaf on August 18, 2016, 06:50:16 PM
Can you at least learn proper grammar before you come here and try to act smarter than everyone else? How old are you?

By the way you are answering my thread. If you can't handle it stay away.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: g2perk on August 17, 2016, 01:00:30 PM
I can't understand when people talk as if they know there is no God or Higher power.  But yet can't explain the natural phenomena that happens everyday in front of them.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: g2perk on August 17, 2016, 01:00:30 PM
I can't understand when people talk as if they know there is no God or Higher power.  But yet can't explain the natural phenomena that happens everyday in front of them.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Why do you think a 4 billion year old planet that has had 5 mas extinctions revolving around a star in a galaxy full of billions of stars, in a universe full of hundreds of billions of galaxies in a 13.8 billion year old universe, would need a cosmic factory boss? You'd stupidly have me believe all that was put here for humans?

you are making the assumption that we don't know about religion. I was a Christian for 16 years. Yes, we know about faith and belief. the difference is examining the belief objectively and critically. And what I said before is still true. If you believe in a deity you believe in his teachings. If you don't believe in his teachings you don't believe in the deity.

You can be spiritual and have faith that a god exists outside of religion. but when you buy into the teachings you buy into a religion. 

Quote from: g2perk on August 18, 2016, 09:09:41 AM
Ok. Mike since you want me to do the work for you. Read Exodus and Deuteronomy.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

And you follow all of them, do you??  :))))  I don't think so. 
Doing the work for me?  I thought you were the bible expert and you love this stuff so much I thought this would be a task of pure pleasure--showing this heathen the error of my ways.  Well, go ahead and show me.

Quote from: Brian37 on August 18, 2016, 07:00:05 PM
Why do you think a 4 billion year old planet that has had 5 mas extinctions revolving around a star in a galaxy full of billions of stars, in a universe full of hundreds of billions of galaxies in a 13.8 billion year old universe, would need a cosmic factory boss? You'd stupidly have me believe all that was put here for humans?

Wow....that is what you got from that. Talk about not understanding.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: Mike Cl on August 18, 2016, 07:07:46 PM
And you follow all of them, do you??  :))))  I don't think so. 
Doing the work for me?  I thought you were the bible expert and you love this stuff so much I thought this would be a task of pure pleasure--showing this heathen the error of my ways.  Well, go ahead and show me.

Follow them. Me. No. No one can mike. Just giving you facts. Read. Mike read.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Most people are guilty of literalism, not just religious folks ;-)

Quote from: g2perk on August 18, 2016, 07:09:56 PM
Follow them. Me. No. No one can mike. Just giving you facts. Read. Mike read.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Okay, g2, I'm confused.  I thought you held the laws of the bible in high esteem.  If not, good for you.  But then, what laws do you think are moral and where do you find them????

Quote from: g2perk on August 18, 2016, 06:53:27 PM
Really....faith and religion go together. Find that for me in any book. By the way you would not know about faith.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

I already have. Twice. It's a little book called the Oxford English Dictionary. As for knowing about faith, if you didn't have the memory of a goldfish, you would remember that I already told you that I was a believer for 24 years, you dumbass.

Quote from: g2perk on August 18, 2016, 06:55:50 PM
By the way you are answering my thread. If you can't handle it stay away.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

This tells me that you are, indeed, an immature teenager.

Quote from: Blackleaf on August 18, 2016, 07:37:59 PM
I already have. Twice. It's a little book called the Oxford English Dictionary. As for knowing about faith, if you didn't have the memory of a goldfish, you would remember that I already told you that I was a believer for 24 years, you dumbass.

24 yrs in the trash. To believe in nothing. Really. And I'm the ass

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: Mike Cl on August 18, 2016, 07:19:16 PM
Okay, g2, I'm confused.  I thought you held the laws of the bible in high esteem.  If not, good for you.  But then, what laws do you think are moral and where do you find them????

Mike no one on this earth can follow all of the laws. The purpose of the laws are to act as principles in our lives. To teach us what not to do. Yes we understand them in our culture but back in the day they didn't. So that's why the laws are important, it gave us a foundation of morality.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: g2perk on August 18, 2016, 09:01:10 PM
24 yrs in the trash. To believe in nothing. Really. And I'm the ass

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Yes, you are the ass. And I have no idea what the hell you're trying to say. Half of your posts here make absolutely no sense at all.

Quote from: g2perk on August 18, 2016, 09:04:36 PM
Mike no one on this earth can follow all of the laws. The purpose of the laws are to act as principles in our lives. To teach us what not to do. Yes we understand them in our culture but back in the day they didn't. So that's why the laws are important, it gave us a foundation of morality.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

I'm glad we have the Bible to lay the ground work so that we know not to put cheese on our hamburgers. Oh wait.

I'm going to give you some tough love.

God doesn't exist. There is no meaning to life. Deal with it. In my opinion education one of the most important things, without a sufficient amount of education. Life is precious.

Quote from: g2perk on August 18, 2016, 04:51:12 PM
Why leave a good thing.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

What's good about it? The bigotry, hatred and straight out retardation of progress? It also prevents education. Yeah sounds wonderful :P

Don't bother, Doorknob. His inerrant book says you can't teach him anything.

Quote from: 1 Timothy 2:12But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Quote from: g2perk on August 18, 2016, 09:04:36 PM
Mike no one on this earth can follow all of the laws. The purpose of the laws are to act as principles in our lives. To teach us what not to do. Yes we understand them in our culture but back in the day they didn't. So that's why the laws are important, it gave us a foundation of morality.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

God gave us laws knowing we couldn't follow them?

And chimps and bonobos demonstrate ethical behaviour. It's not given from any god, it's how we learned to live together long, long, long ago.

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 19, 2016, 05:48:18 AM
God gave us laws knowing we couldn't follow them?

And chimps and bonobos demonstrate ethical behaviour. It's not given from any god, it's how we learned to live together long, long, long ago.

How do you know?

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: g2perk on August 19, 2016, 07:01:51 AM
How do you know?

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

2+2 is all nature gives us. We have to figure out the =4 for ourselves.

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on August 19, 2016, 07:12:27 AM
2+2 is all nature gives us. We have to figure out the =4 for ourselves.

I don't like that answer. That is just like me saying I believe in God because I read the bible.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: g2perk on August 19, 2016, 07:15:37 AM
I don't like that answer. That is just like me saying I believe in God because I read the bible.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

It's like the difference between math and fairy tales. One is reasoning, the other is rationalizing. But with math, and life, the answers aren't given at the outset.

Quote from: g2perk on August 19, 2016, 07:01:51 AM
How do you know?

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

I know because chimps and bonobos still exhibit ethical behaviour, learned from watching older relatives.

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 19, 2016, 07:28:25 AM
I know because chimps and bonobos still exhibit ethical behaviour, learned from watching older relatives.

Even that is a stretch. No one knows, and we need to stop acting like we do.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: g2perk on August 19, 2016, 07:30:56 AM
Even that is a stretch. No one knows, and we need to stop acting like we do.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Fuck you. Check the research.

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 19, 2016, 07:35:14 AM
Fuck you. Check the research.

Lol.....Truth is a wonderful thing. Makes people mad early in the morning...lol

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 19, 2016, 07:35:14 AM
Fuck you. Check the research.

So all humans come from apes. That's what you claim, all of you. Would that mean all black humans are the more dominate humans. Skin color, lips, huge in every area, faster, more aggressive. I can go on and on.



Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: g2perk on August 19, 2016, 07:41:25 AM
Lol.....Truth is a wonderful thing. Makes people mad early in the morning...lol

Truth as determined by someone that thinks the only thing that can be known for sure is his personal relationship with a 2000 year dead Jew.

Yea right...

Quote from: PopeyesPappy on August 19, 2016, 07:49:13 AM
Truth as determined by someone that thinks the only thing that can be known for sure is his personal relationship with a 2000 year dead Jew.

Yea right...

Explain the evidence that the people in the bible really existed. There is archeological proof people. Not just Jesus. All of them. Read.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: g2perk on August 19, 2016, 07:46:49 AM
So all humans come from apes. That's what you claim, all of you. Would that mean all black humans are the more dominate humans. Skin color, lips, huge in every area, faster, more aggressive. I can go on and on.

Genetic studies prove that Africans are the most genetically diverse humans.  All non-Africans are descended from a small sample of the available genetic pool because there were multiple populations of humans in Africa, but only representatives from a small number of the populations migrated out of Africa.

Why would that mean Africans are the dominate humans?

Quote from: PopeyesPappy on August 19, 2016, 08:04:55 AM
Genetic studies prove that Africans are the most genetically diverse humans.  All non-Africans are descended from a small sample of the available genetic pool because there were multiple populations of humans in Africa, but only representatives from a small number of the populations migrated out of Africa.

Why would that mean Africans are the dominate humans?

They were here first right. Are am I missing something

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: g2perk on August 19, 2016, 08:07:18 AM
They were here first right. Are am I missing something

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Dominate was the wrong word.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: g2perk on August 19, 2016, 07:53:32 AM
Explain the evidence that the people in the bible really existed. There is archeological proof people. Not just Jesus. All of them. Read.

One of my favorite authors is WEB Griffen. He writes historical fiction. He populates his stories with real people like FDR, Douglas MacArthur and William J. Donovan, but the main characters in his books are fictional. He places them in verifiable historical events like pre WWII China or post invasion Philippines. By your logic the character Kenneth J. "Killer" McCoy must have been real because in the book he interacted with verifiable people in real places during events that actually happened.

Quote from: g2perk on August 19, 2016, 08:08:36 AM
Dominate was the wrong word.

So what were you trying to say?

Quote from: PopeyesPappy on August 19, 2016, 08:20:50 AM
So what were you trying to say?

Were the first people on this earth black people? Its just that if we all come from apes then shouldn't the next logical thing to say is that blacks were first here. Remember 2+2=4 right.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: g2perk on August 19, 2016, 08:25:30 AM
Were the first people on this earth black people? Its just that if we all come from apes then shouldn't the next logical thing to say is that blacks were first here. Remember 2+2=4 right.

Why do you keep asking questions g2perk? I honestly can't see any display of interest for the answers.

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on August 19, 2016, 08:43:00 AM
Why do you keep asking questions g2perk? I honestly can't see any display of interest for the answers.

Yeah. Not that one right.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: g2perk on August 18, 2016, 09:04:36 PM
Mike no one on this earth can follow all of the laws. The purpose of the laws are to act as principles in our lives. To teach us what not to do. Yes we understand them in our culture but back in the day they didn't. So that's why the laws are important, it gave us a foundation of morality.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

What is moral about stoning anybody?  Killing a child for disobedience?  Seething a kid in his mother's milk?  Mixing cloth???  I think you are being a bit selective in the laws you like and those you ignore. 

You seem to think that nothing existed prior to the creation of christian thought.  ALL cultures in all times and places had a moral structure in place.  We may not consider the laws and axioms moral, but they did. 

Quote from: g2perk on August 19, 2016, 07:15:37 AM
I don't like that answer. That is just like me saying I believe in God because I read the bible.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Actually you believe in god because you WANT to.  That's it.  There is no proof god exists, so the only way you can believe is to have faith; which then blinds you to any facts that are there and manufacture facts as you please.  That's it.  I call it willful ignorance, and you are mired in it.

Quote from: Mike Cl on August 19, 2016, 08:46:57 AM
What is moral about stoning anybody?  Killing a child for disobedience?  Seething a kid in his mother's milk?  Mixing cloth???  I think you are being a bit selective in the laws you like and those you ignore. 

You seem to think that nothing existed prior to the creation of christian thought.  ALL cultures in all times and places had a moral structure in place.  We may not consider the laws and axioms moral, but they did.

People have choices and they kill people. God looks at us in disgust, because of our actions. What about wars is that God or men with guns.

Now if you are going to blame God then that says you think that he exist. A whole diff subject.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: g2perk on August 19, 2016, 07:46:49 AM
So all humans come from apes. That's what you claim, all of you. Would that mean all black humans are the more dominate humans. Skin color, lips, huge in every area, faster, more aggressive. I can go on and on.



Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

What?  None of us say humans came from apes.  Can you read--then grab any book about evolution and read it.  Ahhhh...............you can't for that stuff is of the devil and besides you have your faith which tells you to ignore facts and to then tell those who do consider facts in their thoughts as being blind.  Yep, seen it before.

Quote from: Mike Cl on August 19, 2016, 08:50:44 AM
Actually you believe in god because you WANT to.  That's it.  There is no proof god exists, so the only way you can believe is to have faith; which then blinds you to any facts that are there and manufacture facts as you please.  That's it.  I call it willful ignorance, and you are mired in it.

What about all the archaeological evidence that men in the bible really existed. Especially kind David. Which is a descendent of Jesus. The info is there. A lot of it. Proof.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: Mike Cl on August 19, 2016, 08:53:27 AM
What?  None of us say humans came from apes.  Can you read--then grab any book about evolution and read it.  Ahhhh...............you can't for that stuff is of the devil and besides you have your faith which tells you to ignore facts and to then tell those who do consider facts in their thoughts as being blind.  Yep, seen it before.

Yes. Some of you guys do say that.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: g2perk on August 19, 2016, 08:25:30 AM
Were the first people on this earth black people? Its just that if we all come from apes then shouldn't the next logical thing to say is that blacks were first here. Remember 2+2=4 right.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Africans were the first humans.  Whether they were black or not does not matter; not sure if it is even known what color they were.  That has nothing to do with apes.

Quote from: Mike Cl on August 19, 2016, 08:56:18 AM
Africans were the first humans.  Whether they were black or not does not matter; not sure if it is even known what color they were.  That has nothing to do with apes.

I thought the same thing. Has nothing to do with apes. But some of your friends may feel different.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: g2perk on August 19, 2016, 08:43:28 AM
Yeah. Not that one right.

What does that even mean? Jeesh, and my friends call me vague.

g2, I suspect that you are having your way with us.  Nobody can be as ignorant as you.  You have to be a troll, saying anything that comes to your mind (if you even possess one).  You demonstrate that you are not logical in the least and don't even know what you believe yourself.  At the very best I can say about you is that you are so willfully ignorant that you cannot keep your thoughts in proper order.  Did you skip your meds?  Are you 6 yrs old? 

Quote from: Mike Cl on August 19, 2016, 09:00:10 AM
g2, I suspect that you are having your way with us.  Nobody can be as ignorant as you.  You have to be a troll, saying anything that comes to your mind (if you even possess one).  You demonstrate that you are not logical in the least and don't even know what you believe yourself.  At the very best I can say about you is that you are so willfully ignorant that you cannot keep your thoughts in proper order.  Did you skip your meds?  Are you 6 yrs old? 

Agreed.

yeah no one can be this stupid right?

So illogical and making huge jumps from morality to war and so on.

No one blames war on god. We don't believe in god there for we don't blame war on him. You must be thinking of the problem from evil argument which isn't even close to what you've said.

You are an idiot or a troll I can't tell yet.

you show no signs of offering an intelligent conversation. You even speak like an idiot or a 2 year old. If you are truly curious about what atheists think there is plenty of info out there. You're just too lazy to do the work.

Quote from: g2perk on August 19, 2016, 08:25:30 AM
Were the first people on this earth black people? Its just that if we all come from apes then shouldn't the next logical thing to say is that blacks were first here. Remember 2+2=4 right.

Yes the first homo sapiens were probably dark skinned. Is that a problem for you?

QuoteWhat about all the archaeological evidence that men in the bible really existed. Especially kind David. Which is a descendent of Jesus. The info is there. A lot of it. Proof.

King David  1010â€"970 BCE. 

Descendant of Jesus? No kidding.

Quote from: g2perk on August 19, 2016, 07:41:25 AM
Lol.....Truth is a wonderful thing. Makes people mad early in the morning...lol

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Don't confuse contempt with anger. You don't rate my anger.

Quote from: pr126 on August 19, 2016, 10:02:21 AM

King David  1010â€"970 BCE. 

Descendant of Jesus? No kidding.

Yea, for a student of the Bible Perky doesn't seem to know that much about Biblical history. 

Quote from: g2perk on August 19, 2016, 07:30:56 AM
..
No one knows, and we need to stop acting like we do.
...

And yet you claim to know all sorts of things.

Quote from: g2perk on August 19, 2016, 07:53:32 AM
Explain the evidence that the people in the bible really existed. There is archeological proof people. Not just Jesus. All of them. Read.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Hyperbole.  You claim there is "archeological proof" for all people mentioned in the Bible.  Pure hyperbole.

The truth is there is archeological evidence for some people mentioned in the Bible, not all people mentioned in the Bible.

So what?

Apparently, your think:

Premise:  There is archeological evidence for people mentioned in the Bible.
Conclusion:  Therefore, all claims in the Bible are true.

Do you know which logical fallacy this is?

Quote from: sdelsolray on August 19, 2016, 11:57:59 AM
And yet you claim to know all sorts of things.

That's the other side of his mouth.

Quote from: g2perk on August 19, 2016, 08:25:30 AM
Were the first people on this earth black people? Its just that if we all come from apes then shouldn't the next logical thing to say is that blacks were first here. Remember 2+2=4 right.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

The actual empirical evidence strongly suggests that different human skin colors (among some other phenotypes) evolved due to locations of the populations on the Earth.  Those populations closer to the equator evolved darker skin.  Those with lighter skin lived closer to the planet's poles.

Easy peasy.

while I enjoy a good chew toy this guy doesn't even amuse me. Lets just boot him. I don't even think he deserves purgatory. Just ban him.

Quote from: PopeyesPappy on August 19, 2016, 10:09:59 AM
Yea, for a student of the Bible Perky doesn't seem to know that much about Biblical history.

Its a simple point for simple people. King David is in the bible and so are his words. Now with that said the findings from his life represent facts that are in the bible. You ask for proof that the bible was real well here you go.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: doorknob on August 19, 2016, 12:22:42 PM
while I enjoy a good chew toy this guy doesn't even amuse me. Lets just boot him. I don't even think he deserves purgatory. Just ban him.

Meh. I don't find him very engaging either; but as long as he doesn't start spamming the forum, I'm okay with letting him stay.
He seems to remain mostly contained to his own thread and though his responses seem strange and void, he seemingly only gives them as a response on a response to him. He's not doing anything really 'wrong', imo. Don't know on what grounds you'd ban him.
I mean, I don't want to stick my neck out for this guy, but I feel like bans should have legitimate reasons.

Quote from: PopeyesPappy on August 19, 2016, 09:51:03 AM
Yes the first homo sapiens were probably dark skinned. Is that a problem for you?

I was just clarifying a earlier conversation.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on August 19, 2016, 12:34:00 PM
Meh. I don't find him very engaging either; but as long as he doesn't start spamming the forum, I'm okay with letting him stay.
He seems to remain mostly contained to his own thread and though his responses seem strange and void, he seemingly only gives them as a response on a response to him. He's not doing anything really 'wrong', imo. Don't know on what grounds you'd ban him.
I mean, I don't want to stick my neck out for this guy, but I feel like bans should have legitimate reasons.

Thanks. Look I know you guys can't understand my way of thinking and that cool. I just want to say this. The bible should not be read word for word because there is a lot of allegories in it, and if you do not understand the meaning behind each verse it can and is taken out of context. The whole point of the bible is to show us what people went through and to learn from there mistakes that's it. The bible doesn't tell us to kill people that's ridiculous, instead it says to love others and give to those in need.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: g2perk on August 19, 2016, 12:31:15 PM
Its a simple point for simple people. King David is in the bible and so are his words. Now with that said the findings from his life represent facts that are in the bible. You ask for proof that the bible was real well here you go.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

There is also a talking donkey, dragons, giants and flying chariots. Well there you go.

Quote from: stromboli on August 19, 2016, 01:30:35 PM
There is also a talking donkey, dragons, giants and flying chariots. Well there you go.

To be fair, I think the dragons were metaphorical. But the rest stromboli mentions were literal. And the sunlight did go backwards up the steps of the temple. No problem believing the Earth stopped, and then backed up a little. Or maybe God just moved the sun. It must be true, because the Bible says it happened, although I bet you wish it didn't. And of course we all had a common language until the Tower of Babel fiasco, where God thwarted our cooperation, by confusing our languages. But I can't recall, was that before or after he flooded the entire Earth with 29,040 feet of water, just to kill off a relative handful of humans?

Quote from: g2perk on August 19, 2016, 12:31:15 PM
Its a simple point for simple people. King David is in the bible and so are his words. Now with that said the findings from his life represent facts that are in the bible. You ask for proof that the bible was real well here you go.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Yeah, and the proof of Babe, the Blue Ox, is in the holy scripture of Paul Bunyan. 

Fiction used to validate fictional characters--works for ya, huh g2. :)))))))))))))))

Quote from: Mike Cl on August 19, 2016, 03:05:49 PM
Yeah, and the proof of Babe, the Blue Ox, is in the holy scripture of Paul Bunyan. 

Fiction used to validate fictional characters--works for ya, huh g2. :)))))))))))))))

Have you ever read proverbs. What about those truths.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

"Sand is heavy, and stone a burden, but provocation by a fool is heavier than both." - King Solomon.

Sounds like old fashioned human wisdom to me. Nothing divine about it.

"Do not answer a fool, according to his folly, lest you become like him. Answer a fool, according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes." - King Solomon

I'll bet when you read this, you see yourself as the wise man. From my point of view, you are indeed the fool, whose every question has been answered over and over, but continues in the folly of rationalizing, and self deception. You ignore what you can't really respond to, and give non-sequiturs as responses, when you do. That's why you read people getting bored with you, and starting to talk about banning you. It's because you are not really contributing anything anymore. You don't seem to know how to rationally discuss much of anything.

Prove me wrong, and quit being a troll.

Quote from: g2perk on August 19, 2016, 12:31:15 PM
Its a simple point for simple people. King David is in the bible and so are his words. Now with that said the findings from his life represent facts that are in the bible. You ask for proof that the bible was real well here you go.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

New York exists, therefore Spiderman is real.

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 19, 2016, 05:26:38 PM
New York exists, therefore Spiderman is real.

See. You guys can not have an intelligent conversation.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Yes the bible is allegorical in places, such as the Garden of Eden and the Book of Job. But the stuff that is supposed to be real- Noah's Ark, Exodus, the existence/birth of Jesus- is demonstrably either impossible or a complete invention. We have debated Jesus on here many times and there is still no consensus that he was a complete myth or based on a real human being. The consensus of archaeologists and historians is that Exodus didn't happen.

But you'll need to explain that to all the bible literalists. You've got Ken Ham et al insisting the earth is 6,000 years old and the Garden of Eden was a real place. Likewise his 100 million dollar boondoggle sitting in Kentucky. Every church I went to as a Christian-all six- believed the bible literally.

Might want to see this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qalTJzk4kO0

The bible's buried secrets. It explains how the Old Testament came to be.

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on August 19, 2016, 03:55:27 PM
"Sand is heavy, and stone a burden, but provocation by a fool is heavier than both." - King Solomon.

Sounds like old fashioned human wisdom to me. Nothing divine about it.

"Do not answer a fool, according to his folly, lest you become like him. Answer a fool, according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes." - King Solomon

I'll bet when you read this, you see yourself as the wise man. From my point of view, you are indeed the fool, whose every question has been answered over and over, but continues in the folly of rationalizing, and self deception. You ignore what you can't really respond to, and give non-sequiturs as responses, when you do. That's why you read people getting bored with you, and starting to talk about banning you. It's because you are not really contributing anything anymore. You don't seem to know how to rationally discuss much of anything.

Prove me wrong, and quit being a troll.

Then lets talk about it. Im all about be rational but when the response from you guys gets insulting then what am I supposed to do. Its obvious we don't believe in the same thing. Who knows maybe I can learn something.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

You seem to be a very well-fed troll...

:tease:

Quote from: g2perk on August 19, 2016, 05:30:15 PM
See. You guys can not have an intelligent conversation.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

No need with you.

Quote from: g2perk on August 19, 2016, 07:15:37 AM
I don't like that answer. That is just like me saying I believe in God because I read the bible.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

The Bible is part of religion.  You reject religion, so you need to reject the Bible ... pragmatically.  Encounter G-d in the poor and injured folks about you.  Socrates said that books are the death of education ... and he was right.

Quote from: g2perk on August 19, 2016, 05:45:08 PM
Then lets talk about it. Im all about be rational but when the response from you guys gets insulting then what am I supposed to do. Its obvious we don't believe in the same thing. Who knows maybe I can learn something.

OK then...

Christianity is true if and ONLY if the god of the Old Testament is true.
The god of the Old Testament is false.
Therefore Christianity is false.

How do we know the god of the Old Testament is false? Because the evidence tells us he is false.

1. The Biblical story of Genesis is false.

A. Creation didn't happen the way it is described in the Bible. The evidence says our universe began a little less than 14 billion years ago in an event called the big bang. We don't know what precipitated the big bang, but there are a number of possibilities that don't include god. As the universe cooled following the big bang hydrogen and a small amount of helium formed. It wasn't distributed uniformly. This allowed gravity to cause it gather into dense areas. When enough hydrogen collected in a small enough area heat and pressure started the process of nuclear fusion, and the first stars were born. The nuclear in these stars created most of the helium and all the other elements elements in the universe today. The largest of the stars collapse and explode in an event called a super nova scattering these elements and seeding the area around them.

About 4.5 billion years ago our sun and its solar system formed from the debris left from the early generation stars. Within a billion years life appeared on Earth. We don't know how, but once again there are possibilities that don't include god. One thing we do know though is that there isn't anything special about life. It doesn't violate any physical laws that would require a supernatural kick start to get it going. It is just another complex chemical process.

Once life started it began to evolve in a process we call evolution. One life form led to another and another and another over billions of years until we ended up with everything alive we see today. All the available evidence points to evolution being responsible for the diversity of life on Earth today. None of the evidence contradicts evolution.

B. There was no flood. At least not the global flood described in the Bible. There is no evidence that supports this event. There is evidence that says it didn't happen including among other things DNA evidence that rules out a population bottle neck in all species including humans within the last few thousand years.

According to Ken Ham's timeline for the flood we even know that Unas was Pharaoh of Egypt at the time. We know about when he ascended to the throne, how long he ruled and who ruled after him. We know the Egyptian civilization (or any of the others that existed at the time) were not interrupted by a world wide flood.

We also know that the flood story along with the Eden and other parts of the Genesis were borrowed from earlier Mesopotamian mythology. These stories are not original to the Jewish narrative. They were borrowed from others.


Next up, Exodus...

Quote from: PopeyesPappy on August 19, 2016, 07:12:22 PM
OK then...

Christianity is true if and ONLY if the god of the Old Testament is true.
The god of the Old Testament is false.
Therefore Christianity is false.

How do we know the god of the Old Testament is false? Because the evidence tells us he is false.

1. The Biblical story of Genesis is false.

A. Creation didn't happen the way it is described in the Bible. The evidence says our universe began a little less than 14 billion years ago in an event called the big bang. We don't know what precipitated the big bang, but there are a number of possibilities that don't include god. As the universe cooled following the big bang hydrogen and a small amount of helium formed. It wasn't distributed uniformly. This allowed gravity to cause it gather into dense areas. When enough hydrogen collected in a small enough area heat and pressure started the process of nuclear fusion, and the first stars were born. The nuclear in these stars created most of the helium and all the other elements elements in the universe today. The largest of the stars collapse and explode in an event called a super nova scattering these elements and seeding the area around them.

About 4.5 billion years ago our sun and its solar system formed from the debris left from the early generation stars. Within a billion years life appeared on Earth. We don't know how, but once again there are possibilities that don't include god. One thing we do know though is that there isn't anything special about life. It doesn't violate any physical laws that would require a supernatural kick start to get it going. It is just another complex chemical process.

Once life started it began to evolve in a process we call evolution. One life form led to another and another and another over billions of years until we ended up with everything alive we see today. All the available evidence points to evolution being responsible for the diversity of life on Earth today. None of the evidence contradicts evolution.

B. There was no flood. At least not the global flood described in the Bible. There is no evidence that supports this event. There is evidence that says it didn't happen including among other things DNA evidence that rules out a population bottle neck in all species including humans within the last few thousand years.

According to Ken Ham's timeline for the flood we even know that Unas was Pharaoh of Egypt at the time. We know about when he ascended to the throne, how long he ruled and who ruled after him. We know the Egyptian civilization (or any of the others that existed at the time) were not interrupted by a world wide flood.

We also know that the flood story along with the Eden and other parts of the Genesis were borrowed from earlier Mesopotamian mythology. These stories are not original to the Jewish narrative. They were borrowed from others.


Next up, Exodus...

The simple truth of the creation story is that God is the author of creation. In Genesis 1, we are presented with the beginning of a divine drama that can only be examined and understood from the standpoint of faith. How long did it take? How did it happen, exactly? No one can answer these questions definitively. In fact, these mysteries are not the focus of the creation story. The purpose, rather, is for moral and spiritual revelation.

As for as plants go the interesting part of the account is that God did not create the plants in the manner we might assume He did. Instead of creating a world filled with full-grown plants, God actually created seeds and planted those. We understand this from the word "sprout,"which refers to God allowing the earth to produce plants through germination (sprouting). The Hebrew word dasha tells us that God used processes identical to what we see on the earth today. Plants spouted, grew to maturity, and produced seeds

As for as the earth being over 14 billion years old that is just a theory according to multiple scholars. The big bang is a theory as well. Since most of the measurement merely involve the counting of annual layers, they are unlikely to be grossly inaccurate. Therefore, the young earth paradigm that the earth is merely 6,000 years old is falsified by both the Bible and science. The vast ages of the earth does not diminish the power and glory of God, but establishes that God thought that preparing the earth for human habitation was worth the billion of years of preparation Since God is not subject to the temporal dimension of this universe,it all happened "instantly" for Him.

Now lets ask a scientist about the great flood.

According  Robert Ballard : " a controversial theory proposed by two Columbia University scientists, there really was one in the Black Sea region. They believe that the now-salty Black Sea was once an isolated freshwater lake surrounded by farmland, until it was flooded by an enormous wall of water from the rising Mediterranean Sea. The force of the water was two hundred times that of Niagara Falls, sweeping away everything in its path".

He also stated " Four hundred feet below the surface, they unearthed an ancient shoreline, proof to Ballard that a catastrophic event did happen in the Black Sea. By carbon dating shells found along the shoreline, Ballard said he believes they have established a timeline for that catastrophic event, which he estimates happened around 5,000 BC. Some experts believe this was around the time when Noah's flood could have occurred".

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Catastrophic event happened in the Black Sea, which was a possible cause for the Gilgamesh legend to be created, which was stolen and converted into Noah's flood.

The earth is 4.5 billion years old, not 14. As for scientific theory:

QuoteA scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.

You apparently don't have much understanding of science.

And about Ballard's claim:

http://www.skepticink.com/lateraltruth/2012/12/19/robert-ballard-goes-out-of-his-depth/

QuoteThe Flood connection began with the publication in the late 1990s of the “Black Sea Deluge Hypothesis”, by geophysicist Walter Pitman and marine geologist William Ryan: the hypothesis that the Black Sea catastrophically flooded in about 5600 BC when the Aegean burst through a sill at the Bosporus, sending two hundred Niagaras-worth of water per day crashing through the gap for up to three hundred days.  Ryan and Pitman went on to speculate that (a) the land thus flooded had previously been heavily populated, (b) the displaced survivors spread out across Europe, the Near East and even further afield, taking the Neolithic with them, and (c) folk memories of this catastrophe eventually morphed into the myth of the Great Noachian Flood.

Ballard, setting out to prospect for shipwrecks in the Black Sea, picked up on this idea with great gusto, and added the search for drowned Neolithic habitation sites â€" jokingly referred to as “Noah’s house” â€" to his research program.  He found wrecks, all right, the earliest dating to 500 BC, spectacularly preserved in the anoxic waters and with cargoes of pottery jars still intact.  More to the point, Ballard also announced in 2000 that he had found the remains of human-built structures 300 feet below the surface, on a paleo-shoreline claimed to be the pre-Deluge edge of the sea.  Slam-dunk for the Deluge Hypothesis â€" that was Ballard’s position in 2000, and it appears to be his position in 2012.

But there are problems.  The Ryan/Pitman hypothesis was controversial from the start, and there is now enough counter-evidence to â€" ahem â€" pretty much blow it out of the water.  Any post-glacial rise in the level of the Black Sea appears to have been considerably earlier, gentler, and less extensive than in Ryan and Pitman’s (and by extension, Ballard’s) model.  No sudden sill collapse, no terrifying multi-Niagara of water, no shocked survivors heading for the hills bearing their culture on their backs.

Another problem is the linkage of flooding in the Black Sea with Noah’s Deluge, i.e., the idea that the folk memory of this specific disastrous flood gave rise to the Sumerian and later legends.  This was pure speculation on Ryan and Pitman’s part, untestable, simplistic, archaeologically implausible, and smelling of pseudohistory.  Furthermore, it would make little sense to look for the roots of Sumerian myths so far away, in the region of the Black Sea.  Better to look at the post-glacial flooding of what is now the Persian Gulf, which is right there.  And even in that case, linking the event to the myth could still never be more than speculation.  The same goes for the attractive but untestable idea that post-glacial flooding and marine transgression gave rise to flood myths all around the globe.

It is fair to say that a catastrophic event happened that triggered the Gilgamesh legend that eventually was converted into Noah's flood. But at best Ballard's claim is a hypothesis and far from proven.

Just a theory. If I had a nickle for every time I've heard a that... I'd be very surprised if you can even define the word theory as it is used in science.

I didn't say the Earth was 14 billion years old. I said the universe is. The big bang is the cosmological model that best explains the observations. It isn't fact, but it is the best explanation we have for what we can see based on the evidence available to us. That evidence contradicts Genesis. What that means is that your divinely inspired book is wrong.

The Earth on the other hand is about 4.5 billion years old. That evidence isn't based on layers. It is based on physics. If you would like an idea of how that works then read this paper (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html) by your fellow Christian Roger Wiens.

There is no evidence your god created the seeds in the Earth. The evidence says they evolved just like every other living thing on the planet. Waving the Bible around isn't evidence god did it because the information in the Bible is not reliable. It contradicts the available evidence.

Noah's flood didn't happen period. There was no global flood. There was no arc with 2 of each kind. Everyone but Noah's family didn't die. The story was plagiarized from earlier Mesopotamian mythology. The information contained in the Bible is NOT reliable. As far as the Black Sea goes I prefer the flooding of the Persian Gulf area about 10,000 years ago at the end of the last glacial maximum for historical origins of the flood story, but Persian Gulf or Black Sea doesn't make the Flood story in Bible true.

Quote from: stromboli on August 19, 2016, 08:31:47 PM
You apparently don't have much understanding of science.

Duh...

Quote from: stromboli on August 19, 2016, 08:31:47 PM
Catastrophic event happened in the Black Sea, which was a possible cause for the Gilgamesh legend to be created, which was stolen and converted into Noah's flood.

The earth is 4.5 billion years old, not 14. As for scientific theory:

You apparently don't have much understanding of science.

Yeah enough to know that a theory has to be proven to be a fact. And the big bang is a theory.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: PopeyesPappy on August 19, 2016, 09:08:14 PM
Just a theory. If I had a nickle for every time I've heard a that... I'd be very surprised if you can even define the word theory as it is used in science.

I didn't say the Earth was 14 billion years old. I said the universe is. The big bang is the cosmological model that best explains the observations. It isn't fact, but it is the best explanation we have for what we can see based on the evidence available to us. That evidence contradicts Genesis. What that means is that your divinely inspired book is wrong.

The Earth on the other hand is about 4.5 billion years old. That evidence isn't based on layers. It is based on physics. If you would like an idea of how that works then read this paper (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html) by your fellow Christian Roger Wiens.

There is no evidence your god created the seeds in the Earth. The evidence says they evolved just like every other living thing on the planet. Waving the Bible around isn't evidence god did it because the information in the Bible is not reliable. It contradicts the available evidence.

Noah's flood didn't happen period. There was no global flood. There was no arc with 2 of each kind. Everyone but Noah's family didn't die. The story was plagiarized from earlier Mesopotamian mythology. The information contained in the Bible is NOT reliable. As far as the Black Sea goes I prefer the flooding of the Persian Gulf area about 10,000 years ago at the end of the last glacial maximum for historical origins of the flood story, but Persian Gulf or Black Sea doesn't make the Flood story in Bible true.

This discussion is not about what you think. What do you know any way. What the hell does any scientist and or theologian know what happen billions of years ago. Are you a scientist. Do you even have a job.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

See. You aren't interested in a discussion. You just want to wave your Bible around and claim therefore God.

Quote from: stromboli on August 19, 2016, 08:40:07 PM
And about Ballard's claim:

http://www.skepticink.com/lateraltruth/2012/12/19/robert-ballard-goes-out-of-his-depth/

It is fair to say that a catastrophic event happened that triggered the Gilgamesh legend that eventually was converted into Noah's flood. But at best Ballard's claim is a hypothesis and far from proven.

Such as the bang bang

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

So since you decided not to address a single question I asked, let's create a map of our conversation to see where this has taken us. The red signals changes in the topic.

You: Religion dominates the mind, but faith frees it.

Are religion and faith are different? Religion = good, faith = bad?

Me: Faith is a part of religion. It is the very part that blinds the mind to religious beliefs.

You: Religion and faith don't go together. Name one book that says so. And you don't know anything about faith.

Are religion and faith are different? Also, Blackleaf doesn't know what faith is like.

Me: The Oxford English Dictionary. And I was a Christian for 24 years.

You: 24 years in the trash. And I'm the ass.

Blackleaf wasted his years of belief by converting. g2perk is an ass.

Me: Yes. You're an ass.

Noticing a pattern here? I prove you wrong, and instead of admitting you're wrong like a mature person, you change the topic. You make baseless claims, I provide evidence in my counterclaims. This is just one string of our conversations, but the same patterns have been in all of our conversations (if you can even call them that). You are pathetic, g2perk. You come to atheist forums, make baseless claims, and expect us to just take your word for it. And when people call you out on it, you act like a child. I have a personal code to give new comers the benefit of the doubt, but I knew your kind right away.

Quote from: g2perk on August 19, 2016, 09:14:31 PM

Yeah enough to know that a theory has to be proven to be a fact. And the big bang is a theory.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

You don't even read before you spew your bullshit everywhere, do you?

Lol Pappy you can dump this guy any time you want. He's used up any goodwill he had coming, if any.

Quote from: g2perk on August 19, 2016, 09:14:31 PM

Yeah enough to know that a theory has to be proven to be a fact. And the big bang is a theory.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Oh my god!!! That is one of the most stupid comments I've ever read!  Okay, g2, a theory IS a fact.  A hypothesis is a guess, but a testable guess.  You are correct, the big bang theory is a theory; therefore proven to be true. 

I have a theory--you are a troll. 

Quote from: g2perk on August 19, 2016, 08:00:43 PM

The simple truth of the creation story is that God is the author of creation. In Genesis 1, we are presented with the beginning of a divine drama that can only be examined and understood from the standpoint of faith. How long did it take? How did it happen, exactly? No one can answer these questions definitively. In fact, these mysteries are not the focus of the creation story. The purpose, rather, is for moral and spiritual revelation.

As for as plants go the interesting part of the account is that God did not create the plants in the manner we might assume He did. Instead of creating a world filled with full-grown plants, God actually created seeds and planted those. We understand this from the word "sprout,"which refers to God allowing the earth to produce plants through germination (sprouting). The Hebrew word dasha tells us that God used processes identical to what we see on the earth today. Plants spouted, grew to maturity, and produced seeds

As for as the earth being over 14 billion years old that is just a theory according to multiple scholars. The big bang is a theory as well. Since most of the measurement merely involve the counting of annual layers, they are unlikely to be grossly inaccurate. Therefore, the young earth paradigm that the earth is merely 6,000 years old is falsified by both the Bible and science. The vast ages of the earth does not diminish the power and glory of God, but establishes that God thought that preparing the earth for human habitation was worth the billion of years of preparation Since God is not subject to the temporal dimension of this universe,it all happened "instantly" for Him.

Now lets ask a scientist about the great flood.

According  Robert Ballard : " a controversial theory proposed by two Columbia University scientists, there really was one in the Black Sea region. They believe that the now-salty Black Sea was once an isolated freshwater lake surrounded by farmland, until it was flooded by an enormous wall of water from the rising Mediterranean Sea. The force of the water was two hundred times that of Niagara Falls, sweeping away everything in its path".

He also stated " Four hundred feet below the surface, they unearthed an ancient shoreline, proof to Ballard that a catastrophic event did happen in the Black Sea. By carbon dating shells found along the shoreline, Ballard said he believes they have established a timeline for that catastrophic event, which he estimates happened around 5,000 BC. Some experts believe this was around the time when Noah's flood could have occurred".

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

As to your first paragraph, it is a copy and paste from this creationist whore webpage:  http://christianity.about.com/od/biblestorysummaries/p/creationstory.htm (http://christianity.about.com/od/biblestorysummaries/p/creationstory.htm)

As to your second paragraph, it is a copy and paste from this creationist whore webpage: http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html (http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html)

I needn't go further.  You are a plagiarizer.  Instead of thinking for yourself, and writing your own thoughts, you cheat, copy and paste, pretend it is your own writing and hope no one will find out.

Quote from: sdelsolray on August 20, 2016, 01:50:07 AM
As to your first paragraph, it is a copy and paste from this creationist whore webpage:  http://christianity.about.com/od/biblestorysummaries/p/creationstory.htm

As to your second paragraph, it is a copy and paste from this creationist whore webpage: http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html

I needn't go further.  You are a plagiarizer.  Instead of thinking for yourself, and writing your own thoughts, you cheat, copy and paste, pretend it is your own writing and hope no one will find out.

I suggest you read the terms of service for this website.

Does that mean God exist. Was the articles true. I never claim any words but those words did represent my thoughts. Very well I might add. By the way this was a conversation between two people that decided to give facts instead of opinions.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: g2perk on August 19, 2016, 09:18:34 PM
This discussion is not about what you think. What do you know any way. What the hell does any scientist and or theologian know what happen billions of years ago. Are you a scientist. Do you even have a job.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

It's not about what PoppeyesPappa thinks? I see. It's all about what you think. Are you an expert on the formation of life? Yes? Your ancient book of "metaphorical" stories is proof? Of what? That an ancient storyteller had a revelation from God?

Oh I know! It's not something a non-believer can know. It's all about a personal relationship with God. And is that through Christ? I cant find the God through any other means? Or is that part  just metaphorical too?

Your subjective experience, and your interpretation of that experience, is no more proof of God, than my schizophrenic experience, and my interpretation of it, are proof of alternate dimensions. It's just another delusion.

You asked us to explain life. When it comes to explaining life, maybe it's better to seek the truth, than to seek God.

There are a lot of forums you could join, in the infinite internet. But you chose to come play with the atheists. It's a rough crowd. I commend you for that much. But I think that you should examine your heart about this. Are you really trying to save us from Hell, after we die, or are you here for us to save you from a life of illusion, here and now?

You want to discuss the Proverbs of King Solomon, and I gave you a couple of my favorites. But here's a proverb of Solomon Zorn:
http://www.solomonzorn.com/strength-of-doubt.html

Quote from: g2perk on August 20, 2016, 01:54:29 AM
Does that mean God exist. Was the articles true. I never claim any words but those words did represent my thoughts. Very well I might add. By the way this was a conversation between two people that decided to give facts instead of opinions.

Your conversation has been with all of us.

QuoteThe simple truth of the creation story is that God is the author of creation. In Genesis 1, we are presented with the beginning of a divine drama that can only be examined and understood from the standpoint of faith. How long did it take? How did it happen, exactly? No one can answer these questions definitively. In fact, these mysteries are not the focus of the creation story. The purpose, rather, is for moral and spiritual revelation.

Here you claim the story is a metaphor, so that you don't have to hold the Bible accountable for any actual, measurable, historical accuracy.

QuoteAs for as plants go the interesting part of the account is that God did not create the plants in the manner we might assume He did. Instead of creating a world filled with full-grown plants, God actually created seeds and planted those. We understand this from the word "sprout,"which refers to God allowing the earth to produce plants through germination (sprouting). The Hebrew word dasha tells us that God used processes identical to what we see on the earth today. Plants spouted, grew to maturity, and produced seeds

Here you claim the story is literal again, and try to use the simple fact that the writer knew that plants grow from seeds, to show that he had divine knowledge.

QuoteAs for as the earth being over 14 billion years old that is just a theory according to multiple scholars. The big bang is a theory as well.

It's not the age of the Earth that is 14 billion, give or take. It's the universe.

QuoteSince most of the measurement merely involve the counting of annual layers, they are unlikely to be grossly inaccurate. Therefore, the young earth paradigm that the earth is merely 6,000 years old is falsified by both the Bible and science.

Agree that it is falsified by science. But it is most definitely NOT falsified by the Bible. Just because you have chosen to believe that Genesis is a metaphor, in every place that it can't possibly be true, that doesn't mean that your new interpretation of it, falsifies the literal interpretation of it.

QuoteThe vast ages of the earth does not diminish the power and glory of God, but establishes that God thought that preparing the earth for human habitation was worth the billion of years of preparation Since God is not subject to the temporal dimension of this universe,it all happened "instantly" for Him.

If the Bible doesn't explain it, then feel free to make-up whatever works.

QuoteNow lets ask a scientist about the great flood.

According  Robert Ballard : " a controversial theory proposed by two Columbia University scientists, there really was one in the Black Sea region. They believe that the now-salty Black Sea was once an isolated freshwater lake surrounded by farmland, until it was flooded by an enormous wall of water from the rising Mediterranean Sea. The force of the water was two hundred times that of Niagara Falls, sweeping away everything in its path".

He also stated " Four hundred feet below the surface, they unearthed an ancient shoreline, proof to Ballard that a catastrophic event did happen in the Black Sea. By carbon dating shells found along the shoreline, Ballard said he believes they have established a timeline for that catastrophic event, which he estimates happened around 5,000 BC. Some experts believe this was around the time when Noah's flood could have occurred".

That flood didn't cover every mountain under heaven to a depth of 20 feet. Are you suggesting that this small flood killed all the life on Earth, and it was neccesary for Noah to build...what?  A small boat to save all the neighborhood animals? Then Moses wrote another metaphor about it? Think it through. How could someone so prone to exaggeration be directed by God to write his Holy Word?

As has been said in these forums many times, the difference between theists and atheists is that atheists aren't afraid to say "I don't know." From the very beginning, theists have always been looking to things they don't understand and saying, "We don't know, therefor gods." Lightning? Zeus. Love and attraction? Cupid and his bow. Rainbows? God's promise not to flood the entire earth again. As science treks on, the need to use gods to explain things disappears. Now, Christians say, "We don't know how life began. Therefor God must have done it." But soon, science will explain the origins of life too, and the Christian explanation will be exposed for the foolishness that it is, as it already has many times before.

Quote from: stromboli on August 19, 2016, 08:31:47 PM

You apparently don't have much understanding of science.

(http://i247.photobucket.com/albums/gg160/crescent_dawn/Gifs%20Jpgs%20Smilies/anicheshirecat.gif)

He's usually up early, but he posted late last night, so I'm guessing he's still asleep.

Q : If God created the universe, who created God?
A:  Humans.

Quote from: pr126 on August 20, 2016, 09:45:48 AM
Q : If God created the universe, who created God?
A:  Humans.

And Ouroboros eats his tail and disappears ;-)

The original story ...

Ziusudra and his wife retired after the flood, to what is now Bahrain.  Gilgamesh went there to learn the secret of eternal life.  There was a prehistoric flood of the Persian gulf, at the end of the last Ice Age.  It is more natural for them to end up in the Persian Gulf rather than on any Turkish mountain.

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on August 20, 2016, 09:30:01 AM
He's usually up early, but he posted late last night, so I'm guessing he's still asleep.

Solomon and everyone here I want to apologize.

The man The Reverend Monsignor George Lemaitre, was a Genius. He was the best if both worlds a Scientist and Theologian.  Mr. Lemaitre did not dispute the existence if God he embraced it along with his passion for research. I admire that, and now appreciate his theory. These are Quotes from him:

Should a priest reject relativity because it contains no authoritative exposition on the doctrine of the Trinity? Once you realize that the Bible does not purport to be a textbook of science, the old controversy between religion and science vanishes . . . The doctrine of the Trinity is much more abstruse than anything in relativity or quantum mechanics; but, being necessary for salvation, the doctrine is stated in the Bible. If the theory of relativity had also been necessary for salvation, it would have been revealed to Saint Paul or to Moses . . . As a matter of fact neither Saint Paul nor Moses had the slightest idea of relativity

The following quote demonstrates a position held by Lemaître that theologians are more responsible for the church-science divide than the scientists:

Perhaps the theologians themselves have a responsibility in the misunderstanding which places science against faith. An appearance of conflict originates between a traditional point of religious teaching and a new hypothesis which begins to establish itself on the basis of facts, they show a too easy tendency to wait till the last moment when the hypothesis would be definitely proved. They would have done much more useful work to have carefully investigated these points of the doctrine which seem to lead to conflicts . . . Anyway, their intelligent courtesy would be very appreciated in scientific circles, and it would constitute an apologetic of the best type.34



Monsignor Georges Lemaître has made numerous, lasting contributions to the modern world; to quote Dirac, "The measure of greatness in a scientific idea is the extent to which it stimulates thought and opens up new lines of research. In these respects we must rate Lemaître's cosmology of the highest caliber."40Perhaps his greatest gift was the witness he gave as a Catholic priest, living every day the life of the mind and spirit, doing cutting edge science alongside his priestly duties. In every regard, he was unique. His life gives testament to the fact that when one trusts in God, giving one's life as a total gift, the Lord does wonderful things.41


The Christian researcher has to master and apply with sagacity the technique appropriate to his problem. His investigative means are the same as those of his non-believer colleague . . . In a sense, the researcher makes an abstraction of his faith in his researches. He does this not because his faith could involve him in difficulties, but because it has directly nothing in common with his scientific activity. After all, a Christian does not act differently from any non-believer as far as walking, or running, or swimming is concerned.

Comments anyone....[emoji6]

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

LeMaittre is an interesting thinker ;-)

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on August 20, 2016, 09:30:01 AM
He's usually up early, but he posted late last night, so I'm guessing he's still asleep.

The link

https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8847

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: g2perk on August 17, 2016, 04:47:03 PM
Does anybody here believe in the devil. Or is that made up as well.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

There is one G-d, not two gods.  This world is clearly going to Hell, so the Devil must be real .... but then that means G-d is the Devil.  Ever see Time Bandits?  The character playing G-d is quite pleased with his sock-puppet ... the Devil.

Quote from: Baruch on August 20, 2016, 10:54:38 AM
There is one G-d, not two gods.  This world is clearly going to Hell, so the Devil must be real .... tut then that means G-d is the Devil.  Ever see Time Bandits?  The character playing G-d is quite pleased with his sock-puppet ... of the Devil.

Didn't you just read what I wrote? I'm confused.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: g2perk on August 20, 2016, 10:55:56 AM
Didn't you just read what I wrote? I'm confused.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Postings are non-linear.  I am responding to something I missed, several days ago.

Cool

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: g2perk on August 17, 2016, 01:00:30 PM
I can't understand when people talk as if they know there is no God or Higher power.  But yet can't explain the natural phenomena that happens everyday in front of them.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

'
Going back to the first post ...

There is one power.  No higher, no lower.  And no need for explanations.  You eat, your body digests.  Explanations will not help you in your daily life.  You only need to pay attention to your body and feed it when it is hungry, with food you can digest.  Even a cave man can do it!

Quote from: g2perk on August 20, 2016, 10:49:02 AM
The link

https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8847

Excellent unbiased source.

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 20, 2016, 11:01:34 AM
Excellent unbiased source.

I really enjoyed that. I learned a lot.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: g2perk on August 20, 2016, 10:42:42 AM
Solomon and everyone here I want to apologize.

The man The Reverend Monsignor George Lemaitre, was a Genius. He was the best if both worlds a Scientist and Theologian.  Mr. Lemaitre did not dispute the existence if God he embraced it along with his passion for research. I admire that, and now appreciate his theory. These are Quotes from him:

Should a priest reject relativity because it contains no authoritative exposition on the doctrine of the Trinity? Once you realize that the Bible does not purport to be a textbook of science, the old controversy between religion and science vanishes . . . The doctrine of the Trinity is much more abstruse than anything in relativity or quantum mechanics; but, being necessary for salvation, the doctrine is stated in the Bible. If the theory of relativity had also been necessary for salvation, it would have been revealed to Saint Paul or to Moses . . . As a matter of fact neither Saint Paul nor Moses had the slightest idea of relativity

The following quote demonstrates a position held by Lemaître that theologians are more responsible for the church-science divide than the scientists:

Perhaps the theologians themselves have a responsibility in the misunderstanding which places science against faith. An appearance of conflict originates between a traditional point of religious teaching and a new hypothesis which begins to establish itself on the basis of facts, they show a too easy tendency to wait till the last moment when the hypothesis would be definitely proved. They would have done much more useful work to have carefully investigated these points of the doctrine which seem to lead to conflicts . . . Anyway, their intelligent courtesy would be very appreciated in scientific circles, and it would constitute an apologetic of the best type.34



Monsignor Georges Lemaître has made numerous, lasting contributions to the modern world; to quote Dirac, "The measure of greatness in a scientific idea is the extent to which it stimulates thought and opens up new lines of research. In these respects we must rate Lemaître's cosmology of the highest caliber."40Perhaps his greatest gift was the witness he gave as a Catholic priest, living every day the life of the mind and spirit, doing cutting edge science alongside his priestly duties. In every regard, he was unique. His life gives testament to the fact that when one trusts in God, giving one's life as a total gift, the Lord does wonderful things.41


The Christian researcher has to master and apply with sagacity the technique appropriate to his problem. His investigative means are the same as those of his non-believer colleague . . . In a sense, the researcher makes an abstraction of his faith in his researches. He does this not because his faith could involve him in difficulties, but because it has directly nothing in common with his scientific activity. After all, a Christian does not act differently from any non-believer as far as walking, or running, or swimming is concerned.

Comments anyone....[emoji6]

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

That is a good cut and paste, g2.  But I bet you understand little of what the man said.

Here is a quote from your quote:
'Should a priest reject relativity because it contains no authoritative exposition on the doctrine of the Trinity? Once you realize that the Bible does not purport to be a textbook of science, the old controversy between religion and science vanishes . . . The doctrine of the Trinity is much more abstruse than anything in relativity or quantum mechanics; but, being necessary for salvation, the doctrine is stated in the Bible. If the theory of relativity had also been necessary for salvation, it would have been revealed to Saint Paul or to Moses . . . As a matter of fact neither Saint Paul nor Moses had the slightest idea of relativity.'

What do the words 'authoritative', 'salvation' or 'doctrine' mean?  Do you know?

This is not sound reasoning:

QuoteThe doctrine of the Trinity is much more abstruse than anything in relativity or quantum mechanics; but, being necessary for salvation, the doctrine is stated in the Bible. If the theory of relativity had also been necessary for salvation, it would have been revealed to Saint Paul or to Moses

This statement makes assumptions about the Bible - namely, that it is the final authority on Salvation. It's not just science, but history that disagrees with the Bible. So what justification is there for believing it?

He his speaking of the Doctrine of God's word. He says Relativity has not authority over the Trinity ( Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit)

Salvation is how we are saved to go to heaven. This man is a Priest with all his heart with the highest passion in Science.


Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: g2perk on August 20, 2016, 11:31:29 AM
He his speaking of the Doctrine of God's word. He says Relativity has not authority over the Trinity ( Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit)

Salvation is how we are saved to go to heaven. This man is a Priest with all his heart with the highest passion in Science.


Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

I don't like so called authorities, so I ignore both.

Quote from: g2perk on August 20, 2016, 11:31:29 AM
He his speaking of the Doctrine of God's word. He says Relativity has not authority over the Trinity ( Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit)

That is NOT what he is saying. He is saying that if it's neccesary for salvation, then it's in the Bible.

QuoteThis man is a Priest with all his heart with the highest passion in Science.

Nothing new. A lot of believers in every field. It doesn't make them right about faith, or the Bible.

Quote from: Baruch on August 20, 2016, 11:37:30 AM
I don't like so called authorities, so I ignore both.

Its a figure of speech

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: g2perk on August 20, 2016, 11:43:52 AM
Its a figure of speech

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

And I just coined one ;-)

Quote from: g2perk on August 20, 2016, 11:31:29 AM
He his speaking of the Doctrine of God's word. He says Relativity has not authority over the Trinity ( Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit)

Salvation is how we are saved to go to heaven. This man is a Priest with all his heart with the highest passion in Science.

Nucleocosmochronology has not authority over the Psijic Endeavor (the Tri-angled truth).

CHIM is how we break free from the laws and anti-laws of Anu and Padomay.  The Red King has in his eye the Heart of Lorkhan, which he viewed sideways.

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on August 19, 2016, 12:34:00 PM
Meh. I don't find him very engaging either; but as long as he doesn't start spamming the forum, I'm okay with letting him stay.
He seems to remain mostly contained to his own thread and though his responses seem strange and void, he seemingly only gives them as a response on a response to him. He's not doing anything really 'wrong', imo. Don't know on what grounds you'd ban him.
I mean, I don't want to stick my neck out for this guy, but I feel like bans should have legitimate reasons.

point well made. Guess I'll just be bored.

Quote from: Hydra009 on August 20, 2016, 11:52:13 AM
Nucleocosmochronology has not authority over the Psijic Endeavor (the Tri-angled truth).

CHIM is how we break free from the laws and anti-laws of Anu and Padomay.  The Red King has in his eye the Heart of Lorkhan, which he viewed sideways.

No, no, no.  I followed along quite easily until you said 'sideways'.  That makes no sense.  It have been proven to have been viewed backwards! 

Quote from: g2perk on August 20, 2016, 11:05:10 AM
I really enjoyed that. I learned a lot.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

I remember the first time a teacher put a word on the board I could read. I learned a lot in the first grade, and that taught me to never stop. Along the way I learned there's a lot of bullshit in the world and a few things worth knowing.

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 20, 2016, 12:59:26 PM
I remember the first time a teacher put a word on the board I could read. I learned a lot in the first grade, and that taught me to never stop. Along the way I learned there's a lot of bullshit in the world and a few things worth knowing.

I guess the gift is knowing the difference.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: g2perk on August 20, 2016, 01:01:35 PM
I guess the gift is knowing the difference.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Then why is it, g2, that you believe in the bullshit?????  Is it just easier to believe something rather than having to look for reasons and think about it????

Quote from: Mike Cl on August 20, 2016, 01:11:53 PM
Then why is it, g2, that you believe in the bullshit?????  Is it just easier to believe something rather than having to look for reasons and think about it????

And wants BS.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: g2perk on August 20, 2016, 01:01:35 PM
I guess the gift is knowing the difference.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Or pretending to know the difference.

Quote from: g2perk on August 20, 2016, 01:01:35 PM
I guess the gift is knowing the difference.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

That's why they call me "gifted".

Quote from: g2perk on August 20, 2016, 01:13:32 PM
And wants BS.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Seems you got your want--you believe in the deepest BS there is.

Quote from: Mike Cl on August 20, 2016, 06:09:24 PM
Seems you got your want--you believe in the deepest BS there is.

Come on mike. Can't admit you was wrong. This is the man that started the big bang theory. He was a priest and a scientist. Best of both worlds.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

14 billion light year universe, suns large enough for most of our solar system to fit into and dweezle here promotes a god that demands a woman's hand be cut off if she should happen to grab a mans testicles while fighting for her life. Yeah….boo-yah. Thats an almighty god for ya.

In the middle of the Pacific, on a clear moonless night, I sat on the fantail of a cruiser and read a book. The light came from stars thousands or millions of light years away. I was impressed. I looked up and didn't see any god up there.

Same here. Bridge of a ship in the North Atlantic.

Quote from: g2perk on August 20, 2016, 06:36:24 PM
Come on mike. Can't admit you was wrong. This is the man that started the big bang theory. He was a priest and a scientist. Best of both worlds.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

When I'm wrong I will admit it.  Even to you.  But what was I wrong about?  This man was clearly divided.  Just because a man is a scientist does not make him an expert in all areas of science or life.  I do find it interesting that he used the scientific method in one area but ignored in it in another.  His hypothesis of the big bang has been used and tested by not only himself, but many, many others.  That is the point of science to build knowledge by using the scientific method which allows anybody to test any hypothesis.  If they can show the hypothesis to be false or not provable, then it is considered not true.  If it is true, then it is formed into a theory--which can still be tested. 

His priest side did not use that with his description of god--he, nor anybody else could prove that god is.  Can you?

Quote from: Mike Cl on August 20, 2016, 11:26:41 PM
When I'm wrong I will admit it.  Even to you.  But what was I wrong about?  This man was clearly divided.  Just because a man is a scientist does not make him an expert in all areas of science or life.  I do find it interesting that he used the scientific method in one area but ignored in it in another.  His hypothesis of the big bang has been used and tested by not only himself, but many, many others.  That is the point of science to build knowledge by using the scientific method which allows anybody to test any hypothesis.  If they can show the hypothesis to be false or not provable, then it is considered not true.  If it is true, then it is formed into a theory--which can still be tested. 

His priest side did not use that with his description of god--he, nor anybody else could prove that god is.  Can you?

Well, like Charles Spurgeon once said

He that is convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

To the OP, (ORIGINAL POST (ER)).. Let's assume that in fact a god createe Adam and Eve just as described in the book of genesis..One fine day god (Let's just call him Big Spooky), was lonely and  2 fully grown human beings  just magically appeared from out of nowhere and got to skip the entire painful process of adolescents and the whole part of being kids. Nope! They JUST showed up not knowing one fucking thing  except how to walk,  talk, eat, shit, ..in short they just appeared fully informed about every human function except the one about that fucking tree ..Big Spooky just conveniently left that out of their pre-programed brains so Big Spooky spoketh and said, "Oh yeah..I forgot..DON'T EAT DEM APPLES OR ELSE!", but you know...that BITCH did it anyway which if true we really should be killing any woman who even so much as looks at an apple much less makes apple pie..
Suppose all this happened EXACTLY as described.. Now tell me that any of that makes one fucking bit of sence..and say it with a straight face..Because if you can believe that you can also believe that all of the evil in the world happens all because some woman got conned into taking one bite from one apple by a talking AND EXTREMELY talented snake but ever since then it's been ok, but wasn't that one day..
Call me naive, but if biting one apple was SO BAD, SOOOOO UTTERLY HORRIBLE apples must also be atomic weapons to this very day..They're not just atomic weapons, but lies, cheating, murder and every other mean, nasty, horrible, ugly thing all wrapped up in one tiny, little, delicious wrapper and Big Spooky is one really fucked up creator..

By the way..I'll sell you your very own seeds so you can grow your very own tree of good, evil and knowledge in the privacy of your own backyard for the low introductory price of only $99.99 absolutely guaranteed to sprout and grow within the very first 2000 years of the date of purchase.  To the untrained eye they look just like pea gravel, but don't let that fool you and don't accept cheap imitations that look like apple seeds.. ...C'mon.. Make the purchase and be the envy of your neighborhood. They're going to be sooo jealous of you they might even be willing to commit all 7 deadly sins just because you have your own tree of good, evil and knowledge growing right in your own backyard! 

Get with the program, APA. It wasn't an apple. Obviously, no one knows what the fruit of knowledge looked like. I'm thinking "banana," because women are suckers for phallic fruit.

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 20, 2016, 08:22:20 PM
In the middle of the Pacific, on a clear moonless night, I sat on the fantail of a cruiser and read a book. The light came from stars thousands or millions of light years away. I was impressed. I looked up and didn't see any god up there.

Quote from: stromboli on August 20, 2016, 10:14:02 PM
Same here. Bridge of a ship in the North Atlantic.

As from my sailboat halfway between Mexico and Hawaii.  Gosh, there were a lot of visible stars, the most I can ever remember.  So many that I could no longer identify my favorite constellations, which were lost in the complexity.  While I didn't try, I probably could have read a book, even without the moon being present.  I had good visibility of the waves and ocean around me with absolutely no source of light other than the stars.  I even turned off all lights on the boat to get a better feel for the experience.  Yep, I could still see things well enough to change course if I had to.

Another part of the experience was my reaction to isolation.  I heard a lot of bullshit about greater understanding sailors develop about life from the experience, but really, I was too preoccupied with necessary tasks, even if the tasks involved little more than watching the horizon for ships that might be coming my way.  I felt no experience of anything greater than me, other than the immensity of the sea itself.  There were no great insights, although there was some learning about technical dos and don'ts involved in sailing the ocean, like when I almost got whacked in the head by the boom of my forward staysail, when I was securing something that was loose on the bow during a blow.  That may have been the single most important learning experience of the trip.  Yes, I believe it was.

Now imagine that you're alone or with a few other people in a life raft with no hope that anyone will find you. Things get really interesting at that point. (Taken from a chat with a WWII veteran who had to ditch his Wildcat "somewhere close to the 'Canal.")

Quote from: g2perk on August 21, 2016, 12:30:29 AM
Well, like Charles Spurgeon once said

He that is convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

I have been striving for a conversation.  That means I make a point, you agree or disagree, and tell me why.  Then I either agree or disagree with your point(s).................and so on.  You have yet to get any 'why' to any of my comments or your comments.  You claim to want to converse, yet your words say you are lying.  Do you want to converse or not??????

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 20, 2016, 08:22:20 PM
In the middle of the Pacific, on a clear moonless night, I sat on the fantail of a cruiser and read a book. The light came from stars thousands or millions of light years away. I was impressed. I looked up and didn't see any god up there.

Under similar circumstances, I emotionally felt theophany.  But no, I didn't see some big guy in the sky waving at me.  Reality is impressive, particularly when it is trying to kill you.

Quote from: SGOS on August 21, 2016, 09:48:37 AM
As from my sailboat halfway between Mexico and Hawaii.  Gosh, there were a lot of visible stars, the most I can ever remember.  So many that I could no longer identify my favorite constellations, which were lost in the complexity.  While I didn't try, I probably could have read a book, even without the moon being present.  I had good visibility of the waves and ocean around me with absolutely no source of light other than the stars.  I even turned off all lights on the boat to get a better feel for the experience.  Yep, I could still see things well enough to change course if I had to.

Another part of the experience was my reaction to isolation.  I heard a lot of bullshit about greater understanding sailors develop about life from the experience, but really, I was too preoccupied with necessary tasks, even if the tasks involved little more than watching the horizon for ships that might be coming my way.  I felt no experience of anything greater than me, other than the immensity of the sea itself.  There were no great insights, although there was some learning about technical dos and don'ts involved in sailing the ocean, like when I almost got whacked in the head by the boom of my forward staysail, when I was securing something that was loose on the bow during a blow.  That may have been the single most important learning experience of the trip.  Yes, I believe it was.

So choose your pagan god, Poseidon or Neptune.  Some sailors crossing the Equator for the first time encounter King Neptune ;-)

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 21, 2016, 09:55:32 AM
Now imagine that you're alone or with a few other people in a life raft with no hope that anyone will find you. Things get really interesting at that point. (Taken from a chat with a WWII veteran who had to ditch his Wildcat "somewhere close to the 'Canal.")

Whaleship Essex, the original Moby Dick story.  The Law of the Sea and all that ;-(

Quote from: Baruch on August 21, 2016, 11:39:19 AM
So choose your pagan god, Poseidon or Neptune.  Some sailors crossing the Equator for the first time encounter King Neptune ;-)

Neptune and Poseidon don't do it for me.  Maybe my god could be the experience of life itself, but even that makes too big of a deal out of the ordinary.

Quote from: SGOS on August 21, 2016, 11:44:49 AM
Neptune and Poseidon don't do it for me.  Maybe my god could be the experience of life itself, but even that makes too big of a deal out of the ordinary.

Gaia/Mother Nature will send you to be without desert!

Quote from: Baruch on August 21, 2016, 11:40:40 AM
Whaleship Essex, the original Moby Dick story.  The Law of the Sea and all that ;-(

Not a genre that interests me.

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 21, 2016, 11:59:02 AM
Not a genre that interests me.

The first time I read a short version of the original story, was the first time I experienced terror.  Yeah, I don't like that sort of thing.  Particularly if I spent any time in boats or on ships.

Quote from: Baruch on August 21, 2016, 12:06:52 PM
The first time I read a short version of the original story, was the first time I experienced terror.  Yeah, I don't like that sort of thing.  Particularly if I spent any time in boats or on ships.

I never read "Men Against The Sea" or others like that. Twenty years in the Navy and I never abandoned ship. I had a "ship" give up on me once, but that was in a muddy brown river, not at sea.

So the professor finally figured out how to hook up internet service on Gilligans Island,  huh? Amazing what you can do with a couple of coconut shells, eh?

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on August 21, 2016, 08:22:47 AM
Get with the program, APA. It wasn't an apple. Obviously, no one knows what the fruit of knowledge looked like. I'm thinking "banana," because women are suckers for phallic fruit.

It's not my fault that Christianity sucks at metaphors.. I have no choice than to take them quite literally.

Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on August 21, 2016, 01:05:14 PM
So the professor finally figured out how to hook up internet service on Gilligans Island,  huh? Amazing what you can do with a couple of coconut shells, eh?

Eh?

Quote from: g2perk on August 17, 2016, 02:28:03 PM
Everyone evolves but from what is the question.

An earlier life form.  It's really pretty straightforward.  You can follow the chain all the way back to a chance chemical accident about 3.5 to 4 billion years ago, when something self-replicating with sufficient accuracy for meaningful evolution arose, by accident, from something self-replicating but without sufficient accuracy to allow for meaningful evolution.  When you consider the uncounted quintillions of random chemical experiments going on driven by tides and heat and ultraviolet radiation, life starts looking pretty probable.

I fail to see the problem.

Quote from: trdsf on August 21, 2016, 08:31:08 PM
An earlier life form.  It's really pretty straightforward.  You can follow the chain all the way back to a chance chemical accident about 3.5 to 4 billion years ago, when something self-replicating with sufficient accuracy for meaningful evolution arose, by accident, from something self-replicating but without sufficient accuracy to allow for meaningful evolution.  When you consider the uncounted quintillions of random chemical experiments going on driven by tides and heat and ultraviolet radiation, life starts looking pretty probable.

I fail to see the problem.

Your way over my head thereðŸ'€

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: g2perk on August 19, 2016, 08:00:43 PMAs for as the earth being over 14 billion years old that is just a theory according to multiple scholars. The big bang is a theory as well. Since most of the measurement merely involve the counting of annual layers, they are unlikely to be grossly inaccurate. Therefore, the young earth paradigm that the earth is merely 6,000 years old is falsified by both the Bible and science. The vast ages of the earth does not diminish the power and glory of God, but establishes that God thought that preparing the earth for human habitation was worth the billion of years of preparation Since God is not subject to the temporal dimension of this universe,it all happened "instantly" for Him.

Bologna. The Gospel hinges on the literal interpretation of the Old Testament. It begins with Adam and Eve, the ancestors of every human alive, screwing up and God punishing them and all of their offspring for it. Without that, there is no need for a savior. Jesus was even referred to as the "Second Adam" because his role was to reverse the curse of original sin. The problem, though, is that the Old Testament also gives a pretty clear timeline. God created the world in seven days. Adam and Even had children who begat their own children, who begat others. We go from there to Noah, to Moses, to Isaiah, and finally to the New Testament. From the information provided by the Bible, we can draw a direct line from Jesus to Adam in their family trees. This is where the 6000 year timeline came from. They calculated how many generations the Bible claimed there to be and estimated the number of years since creation. So if the 6000 year timeline is wrong, then the entire foundation for Christianity is also wrong.

Quote from: g2perk on August 21, 2016, 08:48:36 PM
Your way over my head there

This does not surprise me.

Quote from: g2perk on August 19, 2016, 08:00:43 PMAs for as the earth being over 14 billion years old that is just a theory according to multiple scholars. The big bang is a theory as well. Since most of the measurement merely involve the counting of annual layers, they are unlikely to be grossly inaccurate. Therefore, the young earth paradigm that the earth is merely 6,000 years old is falsified by both the Bible and science. The vast ages of the earth does not diminish the power and glory of God, but establishes that God thought that preparing the earth for human habitation was worth the billion of years of preparation Since God is not subject to the temporal dimension of this universe,it all happened "instantly" for Him.

Wow, what a profound misunderstanding of current theory.  The Earth is estimated to be approximately 4.5 billion years old, not 'over 14 billion'.  The universe itself is estimated to be 13.7 billion years old, not 14 billion.  Please attack actual current theory, not numbers you've made up, with your unsupported nonsense.

Using the phrase "just a theory" means you haven't got the faintest idea what a theory actually is.  Hint: it isn't a guess.

Quote from: Blackleaf on August 21, 2016, 08:57:34 PM
Bologna. The Gospel hinges on the literal interpretation of the Old Testament. It begins with Adam and Eve, the ancestors of every human alive, screwing up and God punishing them and all of their offspring for it. Without that, there is no need for a savior. Jesus was even referred to as the "Second Adam" because his role was to reverse the curse of original sin. The problem, though, is that the Old Testament also gives a pretty clear timeline. God created the world in seven days. Adam and Even had children who begat their own children, who begat others. We go from there to Noah, to Moses, to Isaiah, and finally to the New Testament. From the information provided by the Bible, we can draw a direct line from Jesus to Adam in their family trees. This is where the 6000 year timeline came from. They calculated how many generations the Bible claimed there to be and estimated the number of years since creation. So if the 6000 year timeline is wrong, then the entire foundation for Christianity is also wrong.

Okay so what is not true. I do believe the bible says it took 6000 yrs.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: trdsf on August 21, 2016, 09:30:39 PM
Wow, what a profound misunderstanding of current theory.  The Earth is estimated to be approximately 4.5 billion years old, not 'over 14 billion'.  The universe itself is estimated to be 13.7 billion years old, not 14 billion.  Please attack actual current theory, not numbers you've made up, with your unsupported nonsense.

Using the phrase "just a theory" means you haven't got the faintest idea what a theory actually is.  Hint: it isn't a guess.

I believe you need to read previous post. I do understand better now.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: g2perk on August 21, 2016, 09:34:57 PM
Okay so what is not true. I do believe the bible says it took 6000 yrs.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

In the post I was quoting, you were arguing that the 6000 years timeline was fabricated. Are you now saying that the earth really is 6000? If so, do you also believe that the earth is flat, or that the moon is made of cheese?

Quote from: Blackleaf on August 21, 2016, 09:59:55 PM
In the post I was quoting, you were arguing that the 6000 years timeline was fabricated. Are you now saying that the earth really is 6000? If so, do you also believe that the earth is flat, or that the moon is made of cheese?

Well you know people are not perfect right. And what he wrote in his story was wrong yes.

It took God six days to create the earth and the seventh day he rested. All this according to the bible. Because as YOU said its literal. Put this together:

To prove it God said one day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day.  Took 6 days, 6000 years later.

2 Peter 3:8King James Version (KJV)

8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.



Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: g2perk on August 21, 2016, 10:09:48 PM
Well you know people are not perfect right. And what he wrote in his story was wrong yes.

It took God six days to create the earth and the seventh day he rested. All this according to the bible. Because as YOU said its literal. Put this together:

To prove it God said one day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day.  Took 6 days, 6000 years later.

2 Peter 3:8King James Version (KJV)

8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Either six days, or six thousand years, either way it's demonstrably wrong.  You're welcome to believe it, as long as you understand that it's not in the slightest supported by every single shred of evidence.  You cannot say it's true, you can only say you believe it.

Quote from: trdsf on August 21, 2016, 09:26:08 PM
This does not surprise me.

I bet not much does...ðŸ˜,

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: g2perk on August 21, 2016, 09:37:18 PM
I believe you need to read previous post. I do understand better now.

If you're still clinging to claiming any age for the Earth under four billion years, no, you don't.

Quote from: g2perk on August 21, 2016, 10:09:48 PM
Well you know people are not perfect right. And what he wrote in his story was wrong yes.

It took God six days to create the earth and the seventh day he rested. All this according to the bible. Because as YOU said its literal. Put this together:

To prove it God said one day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day.  Took 6 days, 6000 years later.

2 Peter 3:8King James Version (KJV)

8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.



Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

1. If God chose one line in a completely different book to explain that 6 days = 6000 years, then why the hell did he tell the writers of his perfect word to write that he did it all in six days in the first place? Does he just like to confuse us?

2. Why does this quote from 2 Peter only apply to the first chapter of Genesis? Matthew 4:2 says, "After fasting forty days and forty nights, he [Jesus] was hungry." Did Jesus fast for 40,000 years?

3. This still wouldn't fix the problem because the universe would be 12,000 years old, the earth itself would be 10,000 years old, and human history would still be a mere 6000 years because Adam and Eve were created on the sixth day. All of these numbers are still much too low to fit with what science has proven to be reality.

4. Does that mean that God also took a 1000 year break after creating Adam? No wonder Adam rebelled. Adam should be commended for his patience in waiting for so long.

5. Who is the "he" you're talking about? What story?

Quote from: g2perk on August 21, 2016, 10:32:14 PM
I bet not much does...

Lots of things surprise me.  That's why I love reality.  It doesn't have to conform to my opinions.

Quote from: trdsf on August 21, 2016, 10:31:36 PM
Either six days, or six thousand years, either way it's demonstrably wrong.  You're welcome to believe it, as long as you understand that it's not in the slightest supported by every single shred of evidence.  You cannot say it's true, you can only say you believe it.

Yes I can say its true for me.  What do you believe in. Don't say anything because if that was true you Would not be wasting your time here. There is only two choices on this earth that matters. Believe or Don't Believe. And I promise you , you are one are the other.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: Blackleaf on August 21, 2016, 10:33:17 PM
1. If God chose one line in a completely different book to explain that 6 days = 6000 years, then why the hell did he tell the writers of his perfect word to write that he did it all in six days in the first place? Does he just like to confuse us?

2. Why does this quote from 2 Peter only apply to the first chapter of Genesis? Matthew 4:2 says, "After fasting forty days and forty nights, he [Jesus] was hungry." Did Jesus fast for 40,000 years?

3. This still wouldn't fix the problem because the universe would be 12,000 years old, the earth itself would be 10,000 years old, and human history would still be a mere 6000 years because Adam and Eve were created on the sixth day. All of these numbers are still much too low to fit with what science has proven to be reality.

4. Does that mean that God also took a 1000 year break after creating Adam? No wonder Adam rebelled. Adam should be commended for his patience in waiting for so long.

5. Who is the "he" you're talking about? What story?

The entire bible is like that, old testament and the New testament go hand in hand with each other. Because everything ties to Jesus Christ. No matter where you are in that book.

The he you asked about was the guy who wrote the article that I initially got the information from.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

(http://img06.deviantart.net/4740/i/2015/119/4/0/edgar_allan_poe_by_crisvector-d3jswe4.png)

Quote from: g2perk on August 22, 2016, 07:40:31 AM
The entire bible is like that, old testament and the New testament go hand in hand with each other. Because everything ties to Jesus Christ. No matter where you are in that book.

The he you asked about was the guy who wrote the article that I initially got the information from.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Well, thank you addressing one of my five points.

Quote from: g2perk on August 22, 2016, 07:36:29 AM
Yes I can say its true for me.  What do you believe in. Don't say anything because if that was true you Would not be wasting your time here. There is only two choices on this earth that matters. Believe or Don't Believe. And I promise you , you are one are the other.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

True for you? Unfortunately, reality doesn't care what you believe. It's not going to conform to your preferences. So these two choices of yours are not to believe or to not believe, it's to accept reality for what it is or to live in denial.

Quote from: Blackleaf on August 22, 2016, 09:22:16 AM
Well, thank you addressing one of my five points.

Okay blackleaf

1. No god doesn't want us to be confused he does wants us to read the Bible and then put these truths  together.

2. It doesn't just apply to Genesis, that particular chapter is about the coming back of Jesus Christ and the time that he gives you is an illustration of time in heaven.

3. Read Genesis 1 God said the Earth was already in existence it was for me and it was empty.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: g2perk on August 22, 2016, 09:40:20 AM
Okay blackleaf

1. No god doesn't want us to be confused he does wants us to read the Bible and then put these truths  together.

2. It doesn't just apply to Genesis, that particular chapter is about the coming back of Jesus Christ and the time that he gives you is an illustration of time in heaven.

3. Read Genesis 1 God said the Earth was already in existence it was for me and it was empty.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

I meant to say the earth was formless and empty.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: Blackleaf on August 22, 2016, 09:27:58 AM
True for you? Unfortunately, reality doesn't care what you believe. It's not going to conform to your preferences. So these two choices of yours are not to believe or to not believe, it's to accept reality for what it is or to live in denial.

Reality is that we are all going to die. What happens next is the soul purpose of me having faith in Jesus Christ.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: Blackleaf on August 22, 2016, 09:27:58 AM
True for you? Unfortunately, reality doesn't care what you believe. It's not going to conform to your preferences. So these two choices of yours are not to believe or to not believe, it's to accept reality for what it is or to live in denial.

What man besides Jesus walk this earth and explained to us what happen after death. You understood the Big bang theory and believed that it was or is the beginning of creation and it might be. But God explains the beginning of time and end of time.

You say reality is the only thing that you believe in well explain this. When you feel the wind on your face do you know from where exactly it just came from or exactly where it is going, No the only way you know its around you is if you feel it. God says the same thing about the Holy Spirit. God says we know not from which He comes or where He is going.

Men of God feel the presence of God around us. Can we explain it, No. But we feel Him.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: g2perk on August 22, 2016, 09:53:51 AM
Reality is that we are all going to die. What happens next is the soul purpose of me having faith in Jesus Christ.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

And please give me a better response to the location of the wind like north,south,east,and west.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: g2perk on August 22, 2016, 09:40:20 AMOkay blackleaf

1. No god doesn't want us to be confused he does wants us to read the Bible and then put these truths  together.

So instead of writing it in a way that everyone can easily understand, he constructs it like a jigsaw puzzle. Incidentally, the New Testament says that God does want his message to be confusing so that he can weed out the people he doesn't want.

John 12:40 - "He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turnâ€"and I would heal them."

2 Corinthians 4:4 - "The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God."

John 6:65 - "He [Jesus] went on to say, 'This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.'" (This is just after Jesus told people that they would have to eat flesh and drink blood to enter Heaven, which the disciples themselves called a "hard teaching.")

Quote from: g2perk on August 22, 2016, 09:40:20 AM2. It doesn't just apply to Genesis, that particular chapter is about the coming back of Jesus Christ and the time that he gives you is an illustration of time in heaven.

The point of the passage is that time is meaningless to God. Whether it's a day or a thousand years that pass, it's all the same to God. But what's lacking here is any sort of clue that this applies to the timeline given in the first chapter of Genesis, and how you can then justify not applying it to every verse speaking of the passage of days.

Quote from: g2perk on August 22, 2016, 09:40:20 AM3. Read Genesis 1 God said the Earth was already in existence it was for me and it was empty.

In other words, it didn't exist. The chapter begins with God hovering over the waters, which he didn't create. He then creates light, which I guess means that the big bang came after the water. Then he takes some of the water and moves it up to make a sky. Then he puts dry ground in the bottom water on the third day, and finally we have a proper planet on the third day. It's also important to note that, according to Genesis 1, the earth didn't even have a star until the end of day four, when he also created the moon and every single star in the universe. So for 1000 years, this one lonely lifeless planet was floating around in an otherwise empty galaxy.

Quote from: g2perk on August 22, 2016, 09:41:21 AM
I meant to say the earth was formless and empty.

In the upper right corner of your posts, there's a link that says "Modify." Use it to correct your posts rather than make a separate post to correct yourself.

Quote from: g2perk on August 22, 2016, 09:53:51 AM
Reality is that we are all going to die. What happens next is the soul purpose of me having faith in Jesus Christ.

Yes. We are all going to die. What happens next is all speculation at best. Your belief in the afterlife, specifically the Christian afterlife (ignoring every other possibility), is your way of being in denial about the finality of death.

And another thing. If Jesus died for our sins, why do believers still have to die? Wasn't death Adam's punishment for sin? If you're forgiven, then why are you still being punished?

Quote from: g2perk on August 22, 2016, 10:18:26 AM
What man besides Jesus walk this earth and explained to us what happen after death. You understood the Big bang theory and believed that it was or is the beginning of creation and it might be. But God explains the beginning of time and end of time.

You say reality is the only thing that you believe in well explain this. When you feel the wind on your face do you know from where exactly it just came from or exactly where it is going, No the only way you know its around you is if you feel it. God says the same thing about the Holy Spirit. God says we know not from which He comes or where He is going.

Men of God feel the presence of God around us. Can we explain it, No. But we feel Him.

(http://www.lakeffects.net/images/_products/farmandcabin/horse%20weathervane%20bv.jpg)

Mystery solved. Instruments can be used to study the wind. No such instrument exists for gods. Only imaginations.

Quote from: Blackleaf on August 22, 2016, 10:24:31 AM
So instead of writing it in a way that everyone can easily understand, he constructs it like a jigsaw puzzle. Incidentally, the New Testament says that God does want his message to be confusing so that he can weed out the people he doesn't want.

John 12:40 - "He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turnâ€"and I would heal them."

2 Corinthians 4:4 - "The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God."

John 6:65 - "He [Jesus] went on to say, 'This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.'" (This is just after Jesus told people that they would have to eat flesh and drink blood to enter Heaven, which the disciples themselves called a "hard teaching.")

The point of the passage is that time is meaningless to God. Whether it's a day or a thousand years that pass, it's all the same to God. But what's lacking here is any sort of clue that this applies to the timeline given in the first chapter of Genesis, and how you can then justify not applying it to every verse speaking of the passage of days.

In other words, it didn't exist. The chapter begins with God hovering over the waters, which he didn't create. He then creates light, which I guess means that the big bang came after the water. Then he takes some of the water and moves it up to make a sky. Then he puts dry ground in the bottom water on the third day, and finally we have a proper planet on the third day. It's also important to note that, according to Genesis 1, the earth didn't even have a star until the end of day four, when he also created the moon and every single star in the universe. So for 1000 years, this one lonely lifeless planet was floating around in an otherwise empty galaxy.

In the upper right corner of your posts, there's a link that says "Modify." Use it to correct your posts rather than make a separate post to correct yourself.

On I will use that next time thanks. Its hard on the cell phone.

God blinds the eyes of the unbeliever simply because they choose not to believe. You will be able to read it but not understand it. For example: if a piece of equipment is not tried and tested should it be put into production, no because it will mess up everything else. The bible should be taught by those that understand it because if not those preachers will confuse everyone he speaks too.

And no where in the entire bible does God say He wants to confuse his people.  Actually He says He is not the author of confusion. No verse can be taken out of context or even read without reading before and after the intended verse. That is where the confusion comes in.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: Blackleaf on August 22, 2016, 10:34:39 AM
Yes. We are all going to die. What happens next is all speculation at best. Your belief in the afterlife, specifically the Christian afterlife (ignoring every other possibility), is your way of being in denial about the finality of death.

And another thing. If Jesus died for our sins, why do believers still have to die? Wasn't death Adam's punishment for sin? If you're forgiven, then why are you still being punished?

(http://www.lakeffects.net/images/_products/farmandcabin/horse%20weathervane%20bv.jpg)

Mystery solved. Instruments can be used to study the wind. No such instrument exists for gods. Only imaginations.

Okay then enlighten me. Is there any other possibility of the afterlife. And actually God says because of Jesus's death we are saved. So death has no dominion over us, its simply a way to transition from this world to the next.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: g2perk on August 22, 2016, 10:39:22 AMOn I will use that next time thanks. Its hard on the cell phone.

God blinds the eyes of the unbeliever simply because they choose not to believe. You will be able to read it but not understand it. For example: if a piece of equipment is not tried and tested should it be put into production, no because it will mess up everything else. The bible should be taught by those that understand it because if not those preachers will confuse everyone he speaks too.

And no where in the entire bible does God say He wants to confuse his people.  Actually He says He is not the author of confusion. No verse can be taken out of context or even read without reading before and after the intended verse. That is where the confusion comes in.

You have it backwards. People didn't believe BECAUSE God hardened their hearts.

John 12:40 - "He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turnâ€"and I would heal them."

The intent of God is made clear here. He hardens the hearts of unbelievers because he doesn't those he didn't predestine for Heaven to turn to him and be healed.

John 6:65 - "He [Jesus] went on to say, 'This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.'"

You talk about context, but I gave you the context for this one. Jesus said that those who followed him would have to eat his flesh and drink his blood to get into Heaven. He gave no explanation to this message, but he said it knowing that many of his followers would be disgusted and leave at the thought of participating in cannibalism. "No one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them" means exactly what it sounds like. The only ones who can come to Jesus, according to the Bible, are those God enables to come to him. All others are predestined for Hell.

Quote from: Blackleaf on August 22, 2016, 11:17:32 AM
You have it backwards. People didn't believe BECAUSE God hardened their hearts.

John 12:40 - "He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turnâ€"and I would heal them."

The intent of God is made clear here. He hardens the hearts of unbelievers because he doesn't those he didn't predestine for Heaven to turn to him and be healed.

John 6:65 - "He [Jesus] went on to say, 'This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.'"

You talk about context, but I gave you the context for this one. Jesus said that those who followed him would have to eat his flesh and drink his blood to get into Heaven. He gave no explanation to this message, but he said it knowing that many of his followers would be disgusted and leave at the thought of participating in cannibalism. "No one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them" means exactly what it sounds like. The only ones who can come to Jesus, according to the Bible, are those God enables to come to him. All others are predestined for Hell.

I can understand why you are confused but not every word in the new testament to to be taken literal. Some things are an analogy to God's word. He did this so that readers can get a worldly explanation of a biblical meaning. This is by Mr. Piper and it explains the versus that we are speaking of:

The day before, Jesus had fed 5,000 people with a few loaves and fish. Then that night he walked miles across the Sea of Galilee before catching up with his disciples in their boat. The crowd had seen him send his disciples away in the only boat available. So the next day, when they found him in Capernaum, they knew he could have only got there miraculously. They wanted him to be their king.

Then he went and ruined everything. To his adoring fans Jesus said,

Truly, truly, I say to you, you are seeking me not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. Do not labor for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal (John 6:26-27).

Confused, they asked him how they could work to please God. He replied, “This is the work of God, that youbelieve in him whom he has sent” (John 6:29). (God isn’t looking for workers. He’s looking for believers.)

Jesus was a hero to the crowd because he had fed them. But Jesus discerned something very wrong about their enthusiasm. They wanted more “bread from heaven.”

But wanting the blessings Jesus provides is not the same thing as believing in him. Indeed, Jesus had come to give them bread from heaven. But not that kind of bread.

So to test them he began to make statements that sounded very strange. He told them that he was the true bread from heaven that gives life to the world and whoever eats this bread would live forever.

Then he said, “And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh” (v. 51).  This sounded like cannibalism. His listeners balked. He pressed it even further:

Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink (John 6:53-55).

The “Jesus for King” campaign evaporated. The people walked away shaking their heads. The crazy man wants us to eat his flesh! They completely misunderstood what Jesus was saying.

So what did he mean? Here are the clues:

How do you labor for the food that endures to eternal life? Believe in me! (v. 27, 29)“I am the bread of life; whoevercomes to me [in faith] shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.” (v. 35)“For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” (v. 40)“Truly, truly, I say to you, whoeverbelieves has eternal life.” (v. 47)

For Jesus eating is believing; drinking isbelieving. He promises eternal life to those who believe in him. Believe what?

Believe that his deathâ€"the breaking of his body and spilling of his bloodâ€"pays in full the penalty for our sin and that his perfect righteousness is freely given to us in exchange for our unrighteousness.

Believing this is how we “eat” Jesus’ flesh and “drink” his blood. This is why he instituted the Lord’s Supper: he did not want us to forget the very core of what we believe.

When the crowd took offense at his gruesome talk, Jesus exposed their unbelief: “The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe” (vv. 63-64).

Let’s you and I be like Peter. He didn’t walk away, but instead said to Jesus, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, and we havebelieved, and have come to know that you are the Holy One of God” (vv. 68-69).




Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: Blackleaf on August 22, 2016, 11:17:32 AM
You have it backwards. People didn't believe BECAUSE God hardened their hearts.

John 12:40 - "He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turnâ€"and I would heal them."

The intent of God is made clear here. He hardens the hearts of unbelievers because he doesn't those he didn't predestine for Heaven to turn to him and be healed.

John 6:65 - "He [Jesus] went on to say, 'This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.'"

You talk about context, but I gave you the context for this one. Jesus said that those who followed him would have to eat his flesh and drink his blood to get into Heaven. He gave no explanation to this message, but he said it knowing that many of his followers would be disgusted and leave at the thought of participating in cannibalism. "No one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them" means exactly what it sounds like. The only ones who can come to Jesus, according to the Bible, are those God enables to come to him. All others are predestined for Hell.

This another excerpt from the same pastor on your second question. Why no one can come to the father except through Him.

What Is Controversial

The controversial part is: “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.” One reason it’s controversial is that, if you simply take the verse as it stands, it could mean two different things.

On the one hand, it could mean that no one can come to Jesus without God’s drawing, and God draws everyone, but only some come. So God’s drawing doesn’t cause the coming; it only makes the coming possible. And then the one who comes provides the decisive impulse, or cause.

Or, on the other hand, it could mean that no one can come to Jesus without God’s drawing, and everyone whom he draws does come because God’s drawing infallibly produces the coming. This would mean that the Father only draws some since all don’t come, and that the decisive cause of the coming is God, not man.

To try to understand what Jesus really meant, let’s get the context before us.

The Context

Jesus is teaching in the synagogue at Capernaum (verse 59), and the resistance to his teaching is increasing. Here at the beginning of our text (verses 41â€"42), Jesus’ audience is grumbling about what he has said: “So the Jews grumbled about him, because he said, ‘I am the bread that came down from heaven.’ They said, ‘Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, “I have come down from heaven”?’”

Jesus has said in essence in verses 33 and 35 and 38 that he is the Bread of God sent into the world to give life to the world, and if we will come to him and believe on him, and feast on all that God is for us in him, and find our soul’s satisfaction in him, we will live forever and he will raise us on the last day.

Growing Resistance

But instead of getting more and more clarity and more and more agreement, Jesus is getting more and more resistance. This resistance in verse 41 is called grumbling. And the content of their grumbling is that what he says doesn’t fit with what they think they know about him. “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?” In other words, he can’t be from heaven, because he’s from earth. We know his parents.

So the words of Jesus about himself collide with human perceptions and human reasonings about what is possible. “You can’t be from heaven, because our eyes and ears and minds tell us you are from earth.” And so they resist what Jesus says. That’s the nub of their grumbling.



Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: g2perk on August 18, 2016, 01:57:40 PM
Ok. As for as witches your on your own my friend. When people read the bible most come up with their own conclusions. The bible is both for everyone only those who want something much greater than themselves. I guess haven't read any of proverbs right. There is all the wise quotes you can stand and then some. The bible was intended to help those in need. Not by giving you what you as for but by giving a person what the need. Again it may not be for you. As for as the laws go. They are principles for us believers because it shows us the error of our ways. When I say adultery is wrong its because I know what it causes on the back end. Heartache and pain. And it may have been legal then but I promise you this that man with all those wives caught hell.

Okay, that's quite a backtrack there.  You went from "YOU follow its rules" to "CHRISTIANS follow its rules".

As for people "wanting" something much greater than themselves, that you want it bad enough to believe in it doesn't make it exist.

I don't deny that you can find some "wise quotes" from the Bible.  You can find some from Hitler too.  Every idiot on the planet eventually says something intelligent, and the Bible says a lot.  There are some pretty shitty parts of the Bible too mixed in with those "wise quotes".  For instance, the Bible talks about the difference between your reward on Earth and your reward in Heaven, saying if you get your reward on Earth you won't get one in Heaven.  But when it comes to punishment, THEN it's okay to get both.  It's almost as if the people writing it themselves did not believe in eternal punishment, so they felt the need to deal out punishment in this life.

You said yourself, people get what they want out of the Bible.  If you're looking for salvation, you'll find it there.  If you're looking for justification to kill someone, you'll find it there.  If you're looking for a good reason to hate someone, you'll find it there.  There was no real "purpose" for the Bible originally.  It is a group of unrelated religious texts thrown together by the Catholic church, then trimmed down by the protestant church.  Hell, if you're not Catholic then your Bible breaks one very important rule about not adding one word or taking one away.  Seven books were removed.  But people today read the Bible for a purpose.  If that purpose is to find salvation, you'll likely find it.  If it is justification for some heinous act or attitude, you'll likely find it.  Purpose is assigned by the reader, not some higher power.  It's easy to find what you want in it.  Want a reason to hate someone?  Read the Old Testament.  Want to tell someone why they have to forgive you?  That's in the New Testament.  Want to kill someone?  Old Testament.  Want to feel superior to others?  New Testament.  Want to stop giving tax dollars to the poor?  Just pretend it's in there.  The Bible is so bloated and rambling nobody will ever know.

Quote from: widdershins on August 22, 2016, 12:40:12 PM

Okay, that's quite a backtrack there.  You went from "YOU follow its rules" to "CHRISTIANS follow its rules".

As for people "wanting" something much greater than themselves, that you want it bad enough to believe in it doesn't make it exist.

I don't deny that you can find some "wise quotes" from the Bible.  You can find some from Hitler too.  Every idiot on the planet eventually says something intelligent, and the Bible says a lot.  There are some pretty shitty parts of the Bible too mixed in with those "wise quotes".  For instance, the Bible talks about the difference between your reward on Earth and your reward in Heaven, saying if you get your reward on Earth you won't get one in Heaven.  But when it comes to punishment, THEN it's okay to get both.  It's almost as if the people writing it themselves did not believe in eternal punishment, so they felt the need to deal out punishment in this life.

You said yourself, people get what they want out of the Bible.  If you're looking for salvation, you'll find it there.  If you're looking for justification to kill someone, you'll find it there.  If you're looking for a good reason to hate someone, you'll find it there.  There was no real "purpose" for the Bible originally.  It is a group of unrelated religious texts thrown together by the Catholic church, then trimmed down by the protestant church.  Hell, if you're not Catholic then your Bible breaks one very important rule about not adding one word or taking one away.  Seven books were removed.  But people today read the Bible for a purpose.  If that purpose is to find salvation, you'll likely find it.  If it is justification for some heinous act or attitude, you'll likely find it.  Purpose is assigned by the reader, not some higher power.  It's easy to find what you want in it.  Want a reason to hate someone?  Read the Old Testament.  Want to tell someone why they have to forgive you?  That's in the New Testament.  Want to kill someone?  Old Testament.  Want to feel superior to others?  New Testament.  Want to stop giving tax dollars to the poor?  Just pretend it's in there.  The Bible is so bloated and rambling nobody will ever know.

Ok first let me ask you are wanting to know what the bible means about the things you are taking from It are you trying to discredit it. Let me know so I can help you to understand it.

I'll just say this. The bible is no ordinary book, you cant just pick it up and read the words then think you understand enough to have a debate about it. It doesn't work like that. Every letter in the bible was written to people in certain areas who had different cultures which in turn had different meanings of words. Like I said true understanding of this book comes with knowing Gods will for his people. If the soul reason you read this book is to go back a debate another person and to try and find untruths then you will never understand.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

 :pullhair:

Quote from: g2perk on August 22, 2016, 02:00:55 PM
Ok first let me ask you are wanting to know what the bible means about the things you are taking from It are you trying to discredit it. Let me know so I can help you to understand it.

I'll just say this. The bible is no ordinary book, you cant just pick it up and read the words then think you understand enough to have a debate about it. It doesn't work like that. Every letter in the bible was written to people in certain areas who had different cultures which in turn had different meanings of words. Like I said true understanding of this book comes with knowing Gods will for his people. If the soul reason you read this book is to go back a debate another person and to try and find untruths then you will never understand.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

This might sail right past you... In fact, given your trackrecord here, it most likely will. But you are pretty much, if I understand your english, saying that you need to know the Bible is a holy book and that you have to know God's will before you can understand the Bible correctly and see it as evidence. So you must know your conclusion before the bible can attest to it.
So how do you know what God's will is? Let me guess. It's what the Bible teaches?

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on August 22, 2016, 03:16:38 PM
This might sail right past you... In fact, given your trackrecord here, it most likely will. But you are pretty much, if I understand your english, saying that you need to know the Bible is a holy book and that you have to know God's will before you can understand the Bible correctly and see it as evidence. So you must know your conclusion before the bible can attest to it.
So how do you know what God's will is? Let me guess. It's what the Bible teaches?

How else would I know, if I was not taught.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: g2perk on August 18, 2016, 06:55:50 PM
By the way you are answering my thread. If you can't handle it stay away.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

This thread is open to members of the forum. By posting a thread... that is asking a question, nonetheless, you are by default inviting all members to take part in discussion. If you do not feel comfortable with that, maybe a forum is not the place for you.

Quote from: g2perk on August 22, 2016, 03:34:46 PM
How else would I know, if I was not taught.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

And it does not bother you that that piece of circular logic holds no more sway than that of any other religion and their sacred texts? Which is none, to an outsider at least.

I'll just leave this here...

(http://rationalwiki.org/w/images/thumb/7/78/Bible_cycle.jpg/400px-Bible_cycle.jpg)

Quote from: g2perk on August 22, 2016, 02:00:55 PM
Ok first let me ask you are wanting to know what the bible means about the things you are taking from It are you trying to discredit it. Let me know so I can help you to understand it.

What an arrogant thing to say.  YOU are capable of understanding the Bible while I am not without YOUR help?  Please!

I am simply stating that, as you, yourself said, the reader gets what he wants out of it.  Your exact quote was, "When people read the bible most come up with their own conclusions."  Christians like to act like there's some mysterious meaning that can be easily understood if you only believe it means exactly what they think it means.  But I can guarantee you that if you passed out questionnaires among your congregation with, say, 25 tough questions, but questions which you believe have a definite answer, you won't get 2 back with all the same answers.  The actual "meaning" has been lost with time.  Meaning is now assigned by the reader.  There are a thousand rules in the Bible and you follow a small fraction of them.  Don't eat pork?  That was for the Jews.  Kill all witches?  Different time.  Concubines?  Let's pretend God didn't set that up.

You, like all Christians, pick and choose which rules to follow.  Hell, you don't even register among the smarter Christians I've talked to because you thought that our laws were based on the Ten Commandments when you first got here, never realizing that of the Ten there were two criminal complaints, one which could be criminal or civil under very specific circumstances (bearing false witness is only a crime when you're lying under oath or filing a false report or it could be defamation) and one civil (adultery is a civil matter, not criminal).  That leaves six, more than half, that have no laws based on them under any circumstance, seven if you accept that the "false witness" thing is really just an artifact of breaking OTHER laws.

Quote from: g2perk on August 22, 2016, 02:00:55 PM
I'll just say this. The bible is no ordinary book, you cant just pick it up and read the words then think you understand enough to have a debate about it. It doesn't work like that. Every letter in the bible was written to people in certain areas who had different cultures which in turn had different meanings of words. Like I said true understanding of this book comes with knowing Gods will for his people. If the soul reason you read this book is to go back a debate another person and to try and find untruths then you will never understand.

I find it really sad that you don't see the problem with that.  You have to believe it AND THEN it makes sense?  Do you even realize where else that logic applies?  The Heaven's Gate, the Branch Davidians, the followers of Charles Manson...  In ALL those cases what they believed was crazy to an outsider, but if you already believed it, THEN it made perfect sense.  Your beliefs follow the same rules as EVERY CULT EVER.

The reality is that this belief is just a defense mechanism for your beliefs.  There is nothing so mysterious about the words in the Bible that you need magical powers granted by God to understand them.  And if that were true, why isn't there only one Christian church?  Do you think Catholics don't want to go to Heaven?  Jehovah's Witnesses don't really believe they're going to Paradise Earth?  Pentecostals?  Lutherans?  Mormons? Baptists?  They ALL think they've found God.  They ALL try to do what they believe he wants.  And there are people in ALL of those religions who would change religions in a heartbeat if they believed that God wanted them to.  It's not their religion which is important to them, it's their God and if they knew what he wanted they WOULD do it.  Without even reading one word of the Bible this shows that your belief is just bullshit.  All these people worship God the best they know how, yet they haven't been granted any great, singular "understanding" which lead them all to the one true religion.

So what is this belief of yours?  It's a way for you to dismiss anything I say without having to consider or examine it.  When I say something you disagree with, you KNOW I'm wrong.  You probably don't know HOW I'm wrong, but you know I am.  This is very fundamental psychology, a self-defense mechanism to hold onto beliefs which are important to you even when presented with evidence that they are false.  I could take you back in time and show you the entire history of the universe and it wouldn't change your mind.  I could show you that the Jews were never enslaved by the Egyptians.  I could show you that Jesus, if he existed, either did not rise from the grave or faked the whole thing.  I could show you that every miracle in the Bible either didn't happen or was faked.  Assuming ALL of those things were true and I PROVED it, it would not change a thing in your head.  You would simply assume I was an emissary of Satan sent to trick you with my tricky trickiness because you KNOW none of those things are true and no amount of evidence is ever going to change that.

I used to be like you.  I am so glad I grew a brain and stopped letting others tell me what was real.  At the end of the day you really have only ONE reason to believe what you believe; because someone says it's true.  Be it your pastor, your parents or the Bible, every word is hearsay.  You didn't get a single reason to believe until AFTER you already believed...just like the followers of David Koresh, Charles Manson and Marshall Applewhite.

I really hope some day you gain the ability to think for yourself, but it's not likely.  It's simply easier to believe you have all the answers already than to go looking for them.

Quote from: g2perk on August 22, 2016, 07:36:29 AM
Yes I can say its true for me.  What do you believe in. Don't say anything because if that was true you Would not be wasting your time here. There is only two choices on this earth that matters. Believe or Don't Believe. And I promise you , you are one are the other.

"True for me" is not the same as "objectively true".  You could assert that 2+2=5 was 'true for you', but good luck building a house on mathematics like that, because reality will have a few surprises for you and your 'truth'.

Of course I believe in some things that have not yet been either demonstrated or disproved.  I believe there are other sentient species in this galaxy, perhaps as many as six to eight.  I believe it on the basis of what we know about abiogenesis and evolution and the frequency of planetary systems.

I do not assert that they really are there.  That has not been demonstrated.  It's only possible, not even necessarily probable.

This is the fundamental difference between 'belief' and 'truth'.  However much I think I'm right, however eloquently I might argue my position, however I want it to be true, I cannot say that it is true.  It would be dishonest to say "It is" rather than "I believe it is, and it might not be anyway", and while I have my faults, being a liar or hypocrite is not among them.

Quote from: widdershins on August 22, 2016, 04:30:16 PM
What an arrogant thing to say.  YOU are capable of understanding the Bible while I am not without YOUR help?  Please!

I am simply stating that, as you, yourself said, the reader gets what he wants out of it.  Your exact quote was, "When people read the bible most come up with their own conclusions."  Christians like to act like there's some mysterious meaning that can be easily understood if you only believe it means exactly what they think it means.  But I can guarantee you that if you passed out questionnaires among your congregation with, say, 25 tough questions, but questions which you believe have a definite answer, you won't get 2 back with all the same answers.  The actual "meaning" has been lost with time.  Meaning is now assigned by the reader.  There are a thousand rules in the Bible and you follow a small fraction of them.  Don't eat pork?  That was for the Jews.  Kill all witches?  Different time.  Concubines?  Let's pretend God didn't set that up.

You, like all Christians, pick and choose which rules to follow.  Hell, you don't even register among the smarter Christians I've talked to because you thought that our laws were based on the Ten Commandments when you first got here, never realizing that of the Ten there were two criminal complaints, one which could be criminal or civil under very specific circumstances (bearing false witness is only a crime when you're lying under oath or filing a false report or it could be defamation) and one civil (adultery is a civil matter, not criminal).  That leaves six, more than half, that have no laws based on them under any circumstance, seven if you accept that the "false witness" thing is really just an artifact of breaking OTHER laws.
I find it really sad that you don't see the problem with that.  You have to believe it AND THEN it makes sense?  Do you even realize where else that logic applies?  The Heaven's Gate, the Branch Davidians, the followers of Charles Manson...  In ALL those cases what they believed was crazy to an outsider, but if you already believed it, THEN it made perfect sense.  Your beliefs follow the same rules as EVERY CULT EVER.

The reality is that this belief is just a defense mechanism for your beliefs.  There is nothing so mysterious about the words in the Bible that you need magical powers granted by God to understand them.  And if that were true, why isn't there only one Christian church?  Do you think Catholics don't want to go to Heaven?  Jehovah's Witnesses don't really believe they're going to Paradise Earth?  Pentecostals?  Lutherans?  Mormons? Baptists?  They ALL think they've found God.  They ALL try to do what they believe he wants.  And there are people in ALL of those religions who would change religions in a heartbeat if they believed that God wanted them to.  It's not their religion which is important to them, it's their God and if they knew what he wanted they WOULD do it.  Without even reading one word of the Bible this shows that your belief is just bullshit.  All these people worship God the best they know how, yet they haven't been granted any great, singular "understanding" which lead them all to the one true religion.

So what is this belief of yours?  It's a way for you to dismiss anything I say without having to consider or examine it.  When I say something you disagree with, you KNOW I'm wrong.  You probably don't know HOW I'm wrong, but you know I am.  This is very fundamental psychology, a self-defense mechanism to hold onto beliefs which are important to you even when presented with evidence that they are false.  I could take you back in time and show you the entire history of the universe and it wouldn't change your mind.  I could show you that the Jews were never enslaved by the Egyptians.  I could show you that Jesus, if he existed, either did not rise from the grave or faked the whole thing.  I could show you that every miracle in the Bible either didn't happen or was faked.  Assuming ALL of those things were true and I PROVED it, it would not change a thing in your head.  You would simply assume I was an emissary of Satan sent to trick you with my tricky trickiness because you KNOW none of those things are true and no amount of evidence is ever going to change that.

I used to be like you.  I am so glad I grew a brain and stopped letting others tell me what was real.  At the end of the day you really have only ONE reason to believe what you believe; because someone says it's true.  Be it your pastor, your parents or the Bible, every word is hearsay.  You didn't get a single reason to believe until AFTER you already believed...just like the followers of David Koresh, Charles Manson and Marshall Applewhite.

I really hope some day you gain the ability to think for yourself, but it's not likely.  It's simply easier to believe you have all the answers already than to go looking for them.

I will start with the first statement. No I don't think you understand the bible. Not one bit. How can you understand it? Everything you have said about it is wrong.You read it at face value not ever knowing its worth.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: g2perk on August 22, 2016, 09:40:20 AM

3. Read Genesis 1 God said the Earth was already in existence it was for me and it was empty.

It also says the sky is water…yeah….yer god is a not really smarter than a 5th grader...

Quote from: aitm on August 22, 2016, 05:07:14 PM
It also says the sky is water…yeah….yer god is a not really smarter than a 5th grader...

You seek proof another one that doesn't understand

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: g2perk on August 22, 2016, 05:09:13 PM
You seek proof another one that doesn't understand

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Can you order a few issues of Hooked On Phonics? Please?

Quote from: g2perk on August 22, 2016, 05:09:13 PM
You seek proof another one that doesn't understand

The proof is the babble says the sky is water. But you're just another one too brain damaged to understand what the truth really means.

Quote from: g2perk on August 22, 2016, 10:39:22 AM
...
God blinds the eyes of the unbeliever simply because they choose not to believe. You will be able to read it but not understand it.
...

How convenient.  Believers just claim special knowledge or a special frame of reference because they are......special.  Smarmy and cowardly is more accurate.

Quote from: g2perk on August 22, 2016, 10:39:22 AM
...
And no where in the entire bible does God say He wants to confuse his people.  Actually He says He is not the author of confusion.
...

Except where he does, like in the Tower of Babel myth (confuses the languages).

Quote from: g2perk on August 22, 2016, 09:41:21 AM
I meant to say the earth was formless and empty.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Tohu wa bohu .... is the original Hebrew.  It is hapax legomena ... there are no other ancient texts to tell us what these words mean ... not even the rabbis know what they mean, and it is right there at the start of Genesis ... or Bereshit as it is called in Hebrew.

So the rabbis and priests have made a guess.  Your guess or mine, is as good as theirs.  Maybe it meant that the Earth at that time was made of lox and cream cheese ;-)

The Bible was written by Jewish men (most likely).  The old testament was written by guys under the influence of vino, the new testament was written by guys under the influence of ouzo.  It is special because it is Jewish and old ... not because it is Christian.  Christianity had nothing to do with it.  Gentiles had nothing to do with it either.

None of you know what time it is.  You think that you are alive, but you are wrong.

Here where I am it is about 5pm, but in London it is about 11pm.  What time is it?

Relative to people of the past, we are impossible dreams of the future.

Relative to people of the future, we are ancient legends ... if not legends in our own time.

You are only alive here and now, you are not alive in the distant past or the distant future.

Are you alive?  Are you dead?  Are you a dream?  Choose one, objectivists!

This is Earth, Heaven and Hell ... at the same time ;-)  No need to question what the pre-life or after-life are like, you are living it.  You just lack the perspective to realize it.

Quote from: g2perk on August 22, 2016, 02:00:55 PM
Ok first let me ask you are wanting to know what the bible means about the things you are taking from It are you trying to discredit it. Let me know so I can help you to understand it.

I'll just say this. The bible is no ordinary book, you cant just pick it up and read the words then think you understand enough to have a debate about it. It doesn't work like that. Every letter in the bible was written to people in certain areas who had different cultures which in turn had different meanings of words. Like I said true understanding of this book comes with knowing Gods will for his people. If the soul reason you read this book is to go back a debate another person and to try and find untruths then you will never understand.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Don't try that, “Only believers understand,” bullshit with me, little Christian. I was a believer for many years. I was as completely convinced, that it was the word of God, as you are. I thought I saw the hand of God in everything. I devoted my life to Christ, and read the Bible voraciously. I used to preach the Word to all my friends and family, and even attended Bible-College, with the intention of becoming a minister.

Only at Bible-College, they made the mistake of including a class in logic, as part of the curriculum. I took the class in the hopes of proving that the Bible was true, through logic. That didn't happen. What did happen is that I started down a path of improving my reasoning skills(something you are completely lacking), and years later, started to allow myself to question the infallibility of it. Little by little, I began to realize that it was not only fallible, and full of self-contradictions, but steeped in ignorance and superstition, as well.

You are correct in that some of the Bible is allegory. But you are not free to say that everything that contradicts common sense, is not to be taken literally. The books of Psalms, Proverbs and Revelation, can be taken, in parts, as non-literal, but Genesis is meant to be read as history. It has always been understood by believers to be literal. It is only because we can now discredit it's claims, that believers are twisting their brains into pretzels, in order to redefine the nature of so many Bible stories, especially those in Genesis.

Believing in the Bible, for an adult, is an act of self-deception. There are many questions about life and nature, that have yet to be answered. But you will NOT find the answers in the Bible, or any other ancient text. There is no owners-manual for life.

Come out of the Cave, and look around. Accepting the unknown, as unknown, is not as scary as it seems.

Quote from: aaron2016 on August 23, 2016, 03:40:25 AM
Yeah, some people believe that everything was created with the hand of God, some think that it's the matter of evolution. And people have tried to find the answer for thousands years. I think the answer depends on your faith.

New members are expected to post an introductory thread, in the "Introductions" forum, before they start spewing bullshit.

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on August 23, 2016, 04:27:54 AM
New members are expected to post an introductory thread, in the "Introductions" forum, before they start spewing bullshit.

savage as fuck

Quote from: mauricio on August 23, 2016, 04:35:59 AM
savage as fuck

Oh, come on. You were thinking the same thing. I woke-up ready to rumble...

(https://dqrt72khb0whk.cloudfront.net/uploads/image/file/7691/cropped_500px-Savage_Roar_full.jpg?ts=1455058491)

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on August 23, 2016, 04:40:50 AM
Oh, come on. You were thinking the same thing. I woke-up ready to rumble...

(https://dqrt72khb0whk.cloudfront.net/uploads/image/file/7691/cropped_500px-Savage_Roar_full.jpg?ts=1455058491)

i gotta admit i did and your post made me laugh. Now i gotta go to sleep it is 3 AM here, enjoy a peaceful morning.

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on August 23, 2016, 02:15:04 AM
Don't try that, “Only believers understand,” bullshit with me, little Christian. I was a believer for many years. I was as completely convinced, that it was the word of God, as you are. I thought I saw the hand of God in everything. I devoted my life to Christ, and read the Bible voraciously. I used to preach the Word to all my friends and family, and even attended Bible-College, with the intention of becoming a minister.

Only at Bible-College, they made the mistake of including a class in logic, as part of the curriculum. I took the class in the hopes of proving that the Bible was true, through logic. That didn't happen. What did happen is that I started down a path of improving my reasoning skills(something you are completely lacking), and years later, started to allow myself to question the infallibility of it. Little by little, I began to realize that it was not only fallible, and full of self-contradictions, but steeped in ignorance and superstition, as well.

You are correct in that some of the Bible is allegory. But you are not free to say that everything that contradicts common sense, is not to be taken literally. The books of Psalms, Proverbs and Revelation, can be taken, in parts, as non-literal, but Genesis is meant to be read as history. It has always been understood by believers to be literal. It is only because we can now discredit it's claims, that believers are twisting their brains into pretzels, in order to redefine the nature of so many Bible stories, especially those in Genesis.

Believing in the Bible, for an adult, is an act of self-deception. There are many questions about life and nature, that have yet to be answered. But you will NOT find the answers in the Bible, or any other ancient text. There is no owners-manual for life.

Come out of the Cave, and look around. Accepting the unknown, as unknown, is not as scary as it seems.

So you have been where I am. In that logics class what exactly made you change.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: PickelledEggs on August 22, 2016, 05:16:17 PM
Can you order a few issues of Hooked On Phonics? Please?

"Hooked on Phonies", I think.

Quote from: g2perk on August 23, 2016, 07:56:05 AM
So you have been where I am. In that logics class what exactly made you change.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

That class didn't change my opinion of the Bible. It set me on a path of reasoning. When you start to see that most of your beliefs about the Bible, and God, are based on circular reasoning, and rationalizing, it gets harder to justify your faith. You have to question those"truths" in such a way, that allows for the possibility you have been wrong, all along. It takes some serious self examination.

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on August 23, 2016, 08:38:06 AM
That class didn't change my opinion of the Bible. It set me on a path of reasoning. When you start to see that most of your beliefs about the Bible, and God, are based on circular reasoning, and rationalizing, it gets harder to justify your faith. You have to question those"truths" in such a way, that allows for the possibility you have been wrong, all along. It takes some serious self examination.

Sounds like "The Outsider's Test of Faith". "If you were not a believer in your current faith, would the evidence believers present make you accept the truth of their position?"

Quote from: aaron2016 on August 23, 2016, 03:40:25 AM
Yeah, some people believe that everything was created with the hand of God, some think that it's the matter of evolution. And people have tried to find the answer for thousands years. I think the answer depends on your faith.

Wrong.  The answer depends on replicatable data and observations.

Quote from: trdsf on August 23, 2016, 10:17:39 AM
Wrong.  The answer depends on replicatable data and observations.

I think aaron2016 meant "acceptable answer". So folks need an answer that's "true to my beliefs" rather than just "true".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcITeGy-U6w

Quote from: g2perk on August 22, 2016, 05:01:41 PM
I will start with the first statement. No I don't think you understand the bible. Not one bit. How can you understand it? Everything you have said about it is wrong.You read it at face value not ever knowing its worth.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Again, what an arrogant thing to say.  And it's not even true.  EVERYTHING I say about the Bible is wrong?  So it does NOT say, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."?  And "Thou shalt have no other god before me" IS a law in the US?

Besides, you actually just proved me right.  You KNOW I'm wrong because I disagree with you, but you have no idea how I'm wrong, just that I must be.  That's why you're response was just, "You're wrong and stupid!

I used to be Pentecostal.  I used to believe the same bullshit you do right now.  I used to have faith for days.  I KNOW where you are coming from.  I know what you believe.  I know how super-special you think your view of the Bible is and I know why you think that.  And I know it's all in your head.  I know you've simply accepted the shit that's been sold to you because it sounds fucking good.  After I die I'm going to live forever!  I'll get to thank Grams for that fat inheritance she left me and see her again when she's young and strong and she's going to bake cookies and we're going to sit on God's porch and drink lemon aide forever!  You have the mind of a child and you do so by choice.

If there is no God. Then why is my grammar so poor.

Quote from: trdsf on August 23, 2016, 10:17:39 AM
Wrong.  The answer depends on replicatable data and observations.

Replicatable data observation is for  science.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: g2perk on August 23, 2016, 12:07:58 PM

Replicatable data observation is for  science.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

And science is the process of observing and testing the world around us. AKA: if it contradicts what the process of observing and testing the world around us finds, it's not real.

Quote from: widdershins on August 23, 2016, 11:32:44 AM
Again, what an arrogant thing to say.  And it's not even true.  EVERYTHING I say about the Bible is wrong?  So it does NOT say, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."?  And "Thou shalt have no other god before me" IS a law in the US?

Besides, you actually just proved me right.  You KNOW I'm wrong because I disagree with you, but you have no idea how I'm wrong, just that I must be.  That's why you're response was just, "You're wrong and stupid!

I used to be Pentecostal.  I used to believe the same bullshit you do right now.  I used to have faith for days.  I KNOW where you are coming from.  I know what you believe.  I know how super-special you think your view of the Bible is and I know why you think that.  And I know it's all in your head.  I know you've simply accepted the shit that's been sold to you because it sounds fucking good.  After I die I'm going to live forever!  I'll get to thank Grams for that fat inheritance she left me and see her again when she's young and strong and she's going to bake cookies and we're going to sit on God's porch and drink lemon aide forever!  You have the mind of a child and you do so by choice.

I don't care if you said that you were a bible thumping christian, Pentecostal, Baptist or any other religion. Not everyone that reads the book understands. Don't take offense , its not personal. You read it and all you see is horrible things that God has done. I read it and I hear nothing but love from God. The killings that you speak of that comes from the old testament is true. God is not a punk, if they did not obey they were killed, and of story. Now the reasons that these things happened in history is all for a reason. 



Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: PickelledEggs on August 23, 2016, 12:15:20 PM
And science is the process of observing and testing the world around us. AKA: if it contradicts what the process of observing and testing the world around us finds, it's not real.

So are you into scientology.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 23, 2016, 11:42:08 AM
If there is no God. Then why is my grammar so poor.

You have no conversation I see. You must be young and single....lol

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on August 23, 2016, 08:38:06 AM
That class didn't change my opinion of the Bible. It set me on a path of reasoning. When you start to see that most of your beliefs about the Bible, and God, are based on circular reasoning, and rationalizing, it gets harder to justify your faith. You have to question those"truths" in such a way, that allows for the possibility you have been wrong, all along. It takes some serious self examination.

Let me ask you, were you always into science and wanting proof for everything around you.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: aaron2016 on August 23, 2016, 03:40:25 AM
Yeah, some people believe that everything was created with the hand of God, some think that it's the matter of evolution. And people have tried to find the answer for thousands years. I think the answer depends on your faith.

I agree with you on that one. But some here base there life on science. Science only gets you have way there. They need to take notes from Mr. George L.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: g2perk on August 23, 2016, 12:38:09 PM
You have no conversation I see. You must be young and single....lol

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

[spoiler](http://rationalia.com/z/farting.gif)[/spoiler]

Quote from: g2perk on August 23, 2016, 07:56:05 AM
So you have been where I am. In that logics class what exactly made you change.

If you only understood what you sound like to someone capable of logical, reasoned thought you wouldn't have to ask that.  Let's look at the argument that you have to believe in God to understand the Bible and understanding the Bible proves that God is real.  Ask yourself, what must come FIRST in this argument?  What is the GOAL?  Look at this argument honestly and logically and you will find that those questions are actually not easily answered.  Let's try.

What comes first?  Believing!  I have to believe so that I can understand the Bible.  I have to understand the Bible so that I can see evidence of God.  Seeing evidence of God leads to belief in God...which I need to understand the Bible...which I need to do to see the evidence....which I need to believe in God...which I need to do to understand the Bible...  What comes first?  ALL OF IT!  Every single part MUST come before every other part.

What is the goal?  Believing!  So, what comes first and the goal are EXACTLY THE SAME?  In order to get to the goal I have to START by reaching the goal.  The ENTIRE ARGUMENT is pointless because the beginning and end are the same place.

An argument is made up of one or more premises and one conclusion.  This argument has two premises, that you have to believe in order to understand the Bible and that once you understand the Bible you can see evidence for God.  The conclusion is that God is real.  But the first premise and the conclusion are essentially exactly the same thing.  This argument is essentially stating "Accepting that God is real, the Bible proves that God is real."  You can't "prove" a conclusion by starting with a premise that the conclusion is correct.  That's not an argument, it's a statement, and a dumb one backed by nothing.

This is just a tiny sample of how logic can easily tear to shreds the things you believe, not because they're necessarily wrong, but because the way in which you think to maintain those beliefs is ignorant.  You say stupid things and think them wise and logic would make you see through your own BS that you currently believe to be wisdom.  Of course that does nothing to prove your actual beliefs are wrong.  What it does is shine a light on the stupid reasons you have for believing, which, let's face it, all boil down to one; because someone says it's true.

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 23, 2016, 12:47:30 PM
[spoiler](http://rationalia.com/z/farting.gif)[/spoiler]

[emoji15] [emoji38]

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: g2perk on August 23, 2016, 12:37:08 PM
So are you into scientology.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Not sure if troll or actually that ignorant on what scientology is... and the rest of what you're saying.

Quote from: g2perk on August 23, 2016, 12:44:19 PM
I agree with you on that one. But some here base there life on science. Science only gets you have way there. They need to take notes from Mr. George L.

Science is not a journey or a vehicle for transportation to "get you" anywhere.  It's a proven method of intelligent discovery.  Science does exactly what it is intended to do, help us understand the physical universe and ONLY the physical universe.  You do not need to take it with food or water, it is not half a tool, it is not one step in a staircase, it is the whole package for its intended purpose, study of the physical universe.  Religion is completely and utterly unrelated, not comparable in any way and completely unnecessary for science to achieve its intended purpose of study of the physical universe.

Quote from: widdershins on August 23, 2016, 12:54:00 PM
Science is not a journey or a vehicle for transportation to "get you" anywhere.  It's a proven method of intelligent discovery.  Science does exactly what it is intended to do, help us understand the physical universe and ONLY the physical universe.  You do not need to take it with food or water, it is not half a tool, it is not one step in a staircase, it is the whole package for its intended purpose, study of the physical universe.  Religion is completely and utterly unrelated, not comparable in any way and completely unnecessary for science to achieve its intended purpose of study of the physical universe.

I agree with that. I never said it was not important. I just can't use it to better myself and become a better person. My faith is needed for that.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Can anyone of you show me how the bible teaches Hate towards others instead of love. What are those versus? You say you all know what it means so this should be easy.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: PickelledEggs on August 23, 2016, 12:51:28 PM
Not sure if troll or actually that ignorant on what scientology is... and the rest of what you're saying.

Your slow today...

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: g2perk on August 23, 2016, 01:05:24 PM
Can anyone of you show me how the bible teaches Hate towards others instead of love. What are those versus? You say you all know what it means so this should be easy.

Letsee...

2 Chronicles 15:13 That whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.

2 Chronicles 19:2 And Jehu the son of Hanani the seer went out to meet him, and said to king Jehoshaphat, Shouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate the LORD? therefore is wrath upon thee from before the LORD.

Pretty much all of Romans 1

1 Corinthians 5:11-13 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.  For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?  But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

Titus 1:10-12 For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision:
Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.
One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.

James 4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.

And there's a lot more where that came from (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/int/long.html).

Quote from: g2perk on August 23, 2016, 12:40:46 PM
Let me ask you, were you always into science and wanting proof for everything around you.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Only when it comes to life-changing questions.

Now, have you ever even considered, with any seriousness, or honesty, that it is possible that you are wrong?

Quote from: aaron2016 on August 23, 2016, 03:40:25 AM
Yeah, some people believe that everything was created with the hand of God, some think that it's the matter of evolution. And people have tried to find the answer for thousands years. I think the answer depends on your faith.

Aaron, you are wrong.  The answer depends upon what one thinks.  Faith is just blinding believing something--no thinking going on.  I don't 'believe' anything and think 'faith' is just a cop out for 'I'm too lazy to think.'  For example, I don't believe the sun will rise tomorrow.  I think it will.  Why?  I has from the beginning of this planet.  And it will do so tomorrow.  If not, then I'll rethink my position.  So, the theist does not think.  The atheist (among others), reasons and thinks about why they think as they do. 

And if you are not a troll, go introduce yourself.

Quote from: g2perk on August 23, 2016, 01:21:01 PM
Your slow today...

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

It would be nice if you knew grammar and how to form a sentence.  You do type like you are six (and a slow witted one at that).

Quote from: g2perk on August 23, 2016, 01:21:01 PM
Your slow today...

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

you're* It's a contraction of "you" and "are"
As in: "You're going to be dumped in the troll bin after you get a few replies of how the bible teaches hate"

your is a "possessive" and used like this:
"I am going to dump your troll ass in to where we dump the rest of the trolls after a few of the members give a few examples of how hateful the bible is"

Do you see the difference?

Quote from: g2perk on August 23, 2016, 12:34:57 PMNot everyone that reads the book understands.

When you get right down to it, any document written or inspired by a supreme being would contain knowledge and wisdom so profound that no rational human being could deny the value of its contents. This text would not be subject to different interpretations, as any interpretation could only detract from the document's profundity. It would also be 100% consistent with all scientific observation, requiring no faith to believe its contents. There would therefore be no religion based on this document since its validity would be so painfully obvious that no cult following would be necessary to promote it.

We do not observe this phenomenon anywhere on planet Earth. If any document on Earth was indeed authored or inspired by a supreme being, then based on what we observe we can only conclude that this being intentionally lies to us on a regular basis. Since this creates a situation where we either have flawed evidence or no evidence, the only reasonable conclusion one can reach for the moment is that no supreme being is in communication with humanity.

Quote from: Hydra009 on August 23, 2016, 01:22:08 PM
Letsee...

2 Chronicles 15:13 That whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.

2 Chronicles 19:2 And Jehu the son of Hanani the seer went out to meet him, and said to king Jehoshaphat, Shouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate the LORD? therefore is wrath upon thee from before the LORD.

Pretty much all of Romans 1

1 Corinthians 5:11-13 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.  For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?  But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

Titus 1:10-12 For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision:
Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.
One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.

James 4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.

And there's a lot more where that came from (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/int/long.html).

The first two are of the old testament and war was among them, and God allowed killings to take place to those who were trying to exterminate God's children. Understand this God had a plan and it was to send his son to this earth. God used the hebrews as the ultimate bloodline to accomplish this. So why wouldn't he protect his investment. But God still didn't teach hate.

Next all the ones you have written down are of the new testament. God teaches us not to associate, marry and a few other things with unbelievers. The reason is simple and logical. Unbelievers would try and manipulate believers minds and try to get them to believe in there own Gods. Example is The story of Sampson.

He teaches to love your neighbor. That doesn't mean you have to eat with them.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on August 23, 2016, 01:34:50 PM
When you get right down to it, any document written or inspired by a supreme being would contain knowledge and wisdom so profound that no rational human being could deny the value of its contents. This text would not be subject to different interpretations, as any interpretation could only detract from the document's profundity. It would also be 100% consistent with all scientific observation, requiring no faith to believe its contents. There would therefore be no religion based on this document since its validity would be so painfully obvious that no cult following would be necessary to promote it.

We do not observe this phenomenon anywhere on planet Earth. If any document on Earth was indeed authored or inspired by a supreme being, then based on what we observe we can only conclude that this being intentionally lies to us on a regular basis. Since this creates a situation where we either have flawed evidence or no evidence, the only reasonable conclusion one can reach for the moment is that no supreme being is in communication with humanity.

You seem to be a very intelligent man. Explain this to me. If we are created beings from whom were we created. No one knows those answers but swears that there is no higher creation. If we are a creation than something has to be the creator. Is that not logical enough.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

I think we may be picking on a person with a mental handicap. :surprise:

The supreme irony of all this is that in the 10th century, g2 would have been burnt at the stake for his "metaphorical interpretation of the bible" heresy. In the absence of science to tell them otherwise, the church interpreted the bible exactly as it appeared: to be 100% literal truth. That is, 6000 year old earth/universe, seven day creation, flood and all had to be swallowed at face value or you would be put to the torch. Although a metaphorical meaning could be extracted from the text to apply to your own life, what is described in the bible was taken as literally 100% cross-my-heart-and-hope-to-die true. Not "true for you" weaksauce â€" capital-T True, enforced with punishments and death.

Then the Enlightenment came around and ruined the party for the church. God, once the master of everything, saw huge retreats in his domain as science explained large chunks of the world properly. Much of what was once attributed to the actions of God is now explained by scientific theory which has no room for God. And the church fought tooth and nail at every step against this tide of discovery. Now God hides in the small holes in our knowledge, dreading the time that science comes along to mop up.

The bible, once held to be the absolute true and literal word of God, is now regarded as "metaphorical." Where the hell was this interpretation in the 10th century? Oh, right, it was heresy. Now that science has shown that the literal interpretation is not tenable, the faithful are forced to fall back on this weaksauce "metaphorical" defense, and I say 'defense' because that's exactly what it is: a defensive maneuver trying to weather the onslaught of a much stronger foe.

In any other endeavor, what happened to believers would be fairly called a "rout." In any other endeavor, it would lead you to question the basic foundations of your position. But no, the believers stubbornly cling to the faint hope of rescuing the veracity of the bible by this pathetic "metaphorical" defense. You, g2, insist up and down that you are right, and assuming you're not a poe, you have only one question from me: if your fellow faithful could be so confused about what is literal about the bible and what is "metaphorical" for centuries on end, and to make errors equivalent to saying that the Earth could comfortably fit in a tennis court, what gives you any credibility in saying that any of the bible is true? What rational basis do you provide for us to believe your claims when you and your camp have been shown to be so very, very wrong in the past?

Quote from: g2perk on August 23, 2016, 01:55:20 PMIf we are created beings from whom were we created.

This assumes an intelligent creator applies.

Quote from: g2perk on August 23, 2016, 01:55:20 PMNo one knows those answers but swears that there is no higher creation.

You're assuming that simpler systems filter down from more complex ones. However, everything we know about how the world works suggests that the opposite is true. It's not that I insist there is no "higher" creation: there is merely no reason to think we should look for one.

Quote from: g2perk on August 23, 2016, 01:55:20 PMIf we are a creation than something has to be the creator.

If.

Quote from: g2perk on August 23, 2016, 01:55:20 PMIs that not logical enough.

Logic, like most things, isn't worth much in a vacuum.

Quote from: g2perk on August 23, 2016, 01:43:13 PM
The first two are of the old testament and war was among them, and God allowed killings to take place to those who were trying to exterminate God's children. Understand this God had a plan and it was to send his son to this earth. God used the hebrews as the ultimate bloodline to accomplish this. So why wouldn't he protect his investment.

Okay, so that whole genocide stuff isn't that bad, then.  When war is among you (a very euphemistic way of putting it), you gotta do stuff like killing women and children in self defense.  Makes complete sense.

QuoteBut God still didn't teach hate.

Clearly, a conclusion reached without much familiarity with the Bible.

QuoteGod teaches us not to associate, marry and a few other things with unbelievers. The reason is simple and logical. Unbelievers would try and manipulate believers minds and try to get them to believe in there own Gods. Example is The story of Sampson.

He teaches to love your neighbor. That doesn't mean you have to eat with them.

I notice you skipped over the parts where it says unbelievers are wicked, evil people whose mouths must be stopped up.  Gee, I wonder how.  Maybe they got time-outs?

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on August 23, 2016, 02:27:40 PM
The supreme irony of all this is that in the 10th century, g2 would have been burnt at the stake for his "metaphorical interpretation of the bible" heresy. In the absence of science to tell them otherwise, the church interpreted the bible exactly as it appeared: to be 100% literal truth. That is, 6000 year old earth/universe, seven day creation, flood and all had to be swallowed at face value or you would be put to the torch. Although a metaphorical meaning could be extracted from the text to apply to your own life, what is described in the bible was taken as literally 100% cross-my-heart-and-hope-to-die true. Not "true for you" weaksauce â€" capital-T True, enforced with punishments and death.

Then the Enlightenment came around and ruined the party for the church. God, once the master of everything, saw huge retreats in his domain as science explained large chunks of the world properly. Much of what was once attributed to the actions of God is now explained by scientific theory which has no room for God. And the church fought tooth and nail at every step against this tide of discovery. Now God hides in the small holes in our knowledge, dreading the time that science comes along to mop up.

The bible, once held to be the absolute true and literal word of God, is now regarded as "metaphorical." Where the hell was this interpretation in the 10th century? Oh, right, it was heresy. Now that science has shown that the literal interpretation is not tenable, the faithful are forced to fall back on this weaksauce "metaphorical" defense, and I say 'defense' because that's exactly what it is: a defensive maneuver trying to weather the onslaught of a much stronger foe.

In any other endeavor, what happened to believers would be fairly called a "rout." In any other endeavor, it would lead you to question the basic foundations of your position. But no, the believers stubbornly cling to the faint hope of rescuing the veracity of the bible by this pathetic "metaphorical" defense. You, g2, insist up and down that you are right, and assuming you're not a poe, you have only one question from me: if your fellow faithful could be so confused about what is literal about the bible and what is "metaphorical" for centuries on end, and to make errors equivalent to saying that the Earth could comfortably fit in a tennis court, what gives you any credibility in saying that any of the bible is true? What rational basis do you provide for us to believe your claims when you and your camp have been shown to be so very, very wrong in the past?

The teaching of the bible always be a battle of metaphorical interpretation and literal interpretations, that is the exact reason Jesus was crucified on the cross. The Jews thought Jesus was committing hersey buy saying he was the son of man, and he would tear down the temple and rebuild it in 3 days. Jesus was talking about his own body being hung on a cross, buried, and rising again.

The same exact thing is happening now as we speak. Misunderstandings of Gods word has been going on since the first sermon was preached.
You talk about having all the facts in place to prove something exist and I can with that. But lets say one day history is revealed and The Holy Book Is True. I would venture to say that it would not Chang one thing about Gods word that brings a man to salvation. It may help others to believe easier but that's it.

What if the evidence is in you. In me, in us. The heart and soul of the bible is to teach us about LOVE. At least that is the intent. The horrible stories that you read in the bible , be it true or false are meant for us to learn from not judge.

One other thing I would like to point out is that if the interpretation of the bible is suppose to be literal, then why does Jesus rebuke the Jewish leaders for not understanding the bible. They were high priest and students of Gods word.

So no Its not suppose to be taken all literal.



Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on August 23, 2016, 01:28:22 PM
Only when it comes to life-changing questions.

Now, have you ever even considered, with any seriousness, or honesty, that it is possible that you are wrong?

You know It never crossed my mind that I could be the slightest bit wrong. I'm very serious. Never.

I look at it this way. First,  I don't gamble but if I would I want a shore bet. If I am wrong about God I have nothing to lose..all is lost anyway. But if I'm right I have everything to gain.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on August 23, 2016, 02:41:08 PM
This assumes an intelligent creator applies.
You're assuming that simpler systems filter down from more complex ones. However, everything we know about how the world works suggests that the opposite is true. It's not that I insist there is no "higher" creation: there is merely no reason to think we should look for one.
If.
Logic, like most things, isn't worth much in a vacuum.

Didn't I say what if...[emoji19]

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: g2perk on August 23, 2016, 03:16:29 PM

So no Its not suppose to be taken all literal.

Where in the bible does it say that?

Quote from: g2perk on August 23, 2016, 03:32:20 PM
You know It never crossed my mind that I could be the slightest bit wrong. I'm very serious. Never.

This is exactly what I thought, and why this argument is futile. Your mind is closed to even the possibility that you are wrong, so no amount of reasoning is going to convince you.

Quote from: g2perk on August 23, 2016, 03:32:20 PMI look at it this way. First,  I don't gamble but if I would I want a shore bet. If I am wrong about God I have nothing to lose..all is lost anyway. But if I'm right I have everything to gain.

Pascal's Wager? It's not true at all. For most people, true worship of God involves countless sacrifices in their lives. Not out of brotherly love, but out of devotion to God. You have plenty to lose, in this life, because of your faith, and much to gain by disposing of it.

Quote from: g2perk on August 19, 2016, 08:00:43 PM
The simple truth of the creation story is that God is the author of creation. In Genesis 1, we are presented with the beginning of a divine drama that can only be examined and understood from the standpoint of faith. How long did it take? How did it happen, exactly? No one can answer these questions definitively. In fact, these mysteries are not the focus of the creation story. The purpose, rather, is for moral and spiritual revelation.

Quote from: The Creation Story - Bible Story Summary•In summary, the simple truth of the creation story is that God is the author of creation. In Genesis 1, we are presented with the beginning of a divine drama that can only be examined and understood from the standpoint of faith. How long did it take? How did it happen, exactly? No one can answer these questions definitively. In fact, these mysteries are not the focus of the creation story. The purpose, rather, is for moral and spiritual revelation.

Quote from: g2perk on August 19, 2016, 08:00:43 PM
As for as plants go the interesting part of the account is that God did not create the plants in the manner we might assume He did. Instead of creating a world filled with full-grown plants, God actually created seeds and planted those. We understand this from the word "sprout,"which refers to God allowing the earth to produce plants through germination (sprouting). The Hebrew word dasha tells us that God used processes identical to what we see on the earth today. Plants spouted, grew to maturity, and produced seeds.

Quote from: How Old is the Earth According to the Bible and Science?The interesting part of the account is that God did not create the plants in the manner we might assume He did. Instead of creating a world filled with full-grown plants, God actually created seeds and planted those. We understand this from the word "sprout,"8 which refers to God allowing the earth to produce plants through germination (sprouting). The Hebrew word dasha tells us that God used processes identical to what we see on the earth today. Plants spouted, grew to maturity, and produced seeds.

Quote from: g2perk on August 19, 2016, 08:00:43 PMAs for as the earth being over 14 billion years old that is just a theory according to multiple scholars. The big bang is a theory as well. Since most of the measurement merely involve the counting of annual layers, they are unlikely to be grossly inaccurate. Therefore, the young earth paradigm that the earth is merely 6,000 years old is falsified by both the Bible and science. The vast ages of the earth does not diminish the power and glory of God, but establishes that God thought that preparing the earth for human habitation was worth the billion of years of preparation Since God is not subject to the temporal dimension of this universe, it all happened "instantly" for Him.

Quote from: How Old is the Earth According to the Bible and Science?Since most of the measurement merely involve the counting of annual layers, they are unlikely to be grossly inaccurate. Therefore, the young earth paradigm that the earth is merely 6,000 years old is falsified by both the Bible and science. The vast ages of the earth does not diminish the power and glory of God, but establishes that God thought that preparing the earth for human habitation was worth the billions of years of preparation. Since God is not subject to the temporal dimension of this universe, 48 it all happened "instantly" for Him.

Cut'n paste much? I knew this didn't sound like g2perk!

Sources must be mentioned.
Quotes must be quoted.
That's just ethics.

Quote from: sdelsolray on August 20, 2016, 01:50:07 AM
As to your first paragraph, it is a copy and paste from this creationist whore webpage:  http://christianity.about.com/od/biblestorysummaries/p/creationstory.htm (http://christianity.about.com/od/biblestorysummaries/p/creationstory.htm)

As to your second paragraph, it is a copy and paste from this creationist whore webpage: http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html (http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html)

I needn't go further.  You are a plagiarizer.  Instead of thinking for yourself, and writing your own thoughts, you cheat, copy and paste, pretend it is your own writing and hope no one will find out.

Ha! I see you beat me to it!  :high5:

Quote from: PickelledEggs on August 23, 2016, 04:48:48 PM
Where in the bible does it say that?

John 2:19

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: g2perk on August 23, 2016, 05:31:36 PM
John 2:19

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

John 2:19 is
"Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”

And don't worry, I'll send you to Purgatory soon when I get around to it. By the end of the night. You can join Randy and PhattMatt

Quote from: Baruch on August 20, 2016, 10:31:40 AM
And Ouroboros eats his tail and disappears ;-)

I heard Ouroborus referred to as "autophagous." I though it an interesting word.

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on August 23, 2016, 05:29:13 PM
Sources must be mentioned.
Quotes must be quoted.
That's just ethics.

Yes we covered this already...its a older post.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: PickelledEggs on August 23, 2016, 05:35:54 PM
John 2:19 is
"Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”

And don't worry, I'll send you to Purgatory soon when I get around to it. By the end of the night. You can join Randy and PhattMatt

What...do you even understand it

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: g2perk on August 23, 2016, 05:39:18 PM
What...do you even understand it

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

[mod]Have fun in Purgatory.[/mod]
(http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/starpolar/images/6/6b/Notime.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20150225125846)

Quote from: g2perk on August 23, 2016, 03:32:20 PM
You know It never crossed my mind that I could be the slightest bit wrong. I'm very serious. Never.

I look at it this way. First,  I don't gamble but if I would I want a shore bet. If I am wrong about God I have nothing to lose..all is lost anyway. But if I'm right I have everything to gain.

This is what is known as "Pascal's Wager". It was flawed when Pascal came up with it in the 17th century, it is no less flawed in the 21st.

You are ignoring all the other gods, and their punishments for disbelief. You and every atheist may end up in front of the a god that neither of us believe in, trying to explain why we didn't see the evidence of his existence.

Not only that, it assumes that your god would fall for, "well, I better believe to save my ass" ploy.

I haven't responded to any of your posts, but from what I've read, ev ery one of your posts is fallacious. You may want to read a book on basic logic some time. It would make your own arguments stronger.

Cthulhu's Corollary to Pascal's Wager: What if you guess wrong?

He can't respond here anymore. He's stuck in the troll bin. AKA: Purgatory. If you do not have Purgatory access, send me a message to ask... or you can quote-reply to ask lol

And oh yeah. Wolf added the nifty @ thing. So you can do @ and then Pickelledeggs and it will get my attention

Quote from: Unbeliever on August 23, 2016, 05:36:37 PM
I heard Ouroborus referred to as "autophagous." I though it an interesting word.

That requires a young man to be as flexible as a Mongolian contortionist.  But I have heard it can be done.

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 23, 2016, 06:06:46 PM
Cthulhu's Corollary to Pascal's Wager: What if you guess wrong?

I am not a follower of Cthulhu ... I want to be eaten first, not last, because I am tasty and nutritious ;-)

Quote from: Baruch on August 23, 2016, 06:29:03 PM
That requires a young man to be as flexible as a Mongolian contortionist.  But I have heard it can be done.

You haven't seen the videos?

Quote from: Baruch on August 23, 2016, 06:40:05 PM
I am not a follower of Cthulhu ... I want to be eaten first, not last, because I am tasty and nutritious ;-)

And he's very conscious of his health?

Quote from: g2perk on August 23, 2016, 01:43:13 PM
The first two are of the old testament and war was among them, and God allowed killings to take place to those who were trying to exterminate God's children. Understand this God had a plan and it was to send his son to this earth. God used the hebrews as the ultimate bloodline to accomplish this. So why wouldn't he protect his investment. But God still didn't teach hate.

Next all the ones you have written down are of the new testament. God teaches us not to associate, marry and a few other things with unbelievers. The reason is simple and logical. Unbelievers would try and manipulate believers minds and try to get them to believe in there own Gods. Example is The story of Sampson.

He teaches to love your neighbor. That doesn't mean you have to eat with them.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Your god seems like a little shit.  Gods are the projections of their believers.  What does that make you?

Quote from: g2perk on August 23, 2016, 12:58:59 PM
I agree with that. I never said it was not important. I just can't use it to better myself and become a better person. My faith is needed for that.

Bettering yourself and becoming a better person is a personal goal.  You don't "need" faith for that, you only need to set the personal goal and work toward achieving that goal.  You think your faith is needed because when you look through the Bible your brain picks out the parts you agree with and you believe that to be the source.  But chances are you knew it was bad to hurt (not just kill, but hurt) other people long before you ever picked up a Bible.

Anyone can be a better person.  It doesn't take any faith.  What you really mean is that it takes faith to believe yourself to be a worthless piece of crap without God and that you need to beg him to help you be better.  It amazes me that any psychologist anywhere is Christian.  A relationship with God is a classic abusive relationship.  YOU are imperfect, HE is perfect.  YOU are worthless withing HIM.

And God said unto his followers, "Come on, baby.  You know I love you.  But if you ever leave me I WILL LIGHT YOU ON FIRE!!!"

Quote from: PickelledEggs on August 23, 2016, 05:35:54 PMYou can join Randy and PhattMatt

Is Randy still kicking around down there? Been awhile since I stopped being a troll keeper.

Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on August 24, 2016, 11:55:44 AM
Is Randy still kicking around down there? Been awhile since I stopped being a troll keeper.

He comes and goes. He was here a week or so ago after someone asked "Where did randy go"

He stopped posting on purpose claiming that his leaving would kill the forum...

(http://imagesmtv-a.akamaihd.net/uri/mgid:file:http:shared:mtv.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/tumblr_mvk4jv9XXu1rnf5opo1_500-1426173166.gif?quality=.8&height=281&width=500)

I got a PM from g2perk saying he couldn't post.

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 24, 2016, 02:33:35 PM
I got a PM from g2perk saying he couldn't post.

He can post in purgatory. He's probably actually too dumb to figure that out.

@g2perk

Since you have viewing privileges, I know you can see this. You are now restricted to the section 'Purgatory'. Start a new thread there if you really want to post your bullshit.

Where is this Purgatory?  Do members have access?

Doesn't have anything to do with the op, but most of the rest of the thread doesn't either. Might be good for bustin' ol' Perky's chops though.



Courtesy of our old buddy Min.

Quote from: PickelledEggs on August 24, 2016, 03:06:14 PM
He can post in purgatory. He's probably actually too dumb to figure that out.

(faint sounds of laughter fade into the distance)

(http://rationalia.com/z/090811evil.gif)

who didn't see that coming?

Quote from: g2perk on August 23, 2016, 12:07:58 PM
Replicatable data observation is for  science.

And science is how we understand how everything works.  For the bits we don't understand, we keep doing more science until we do.

I notice you ran like hell from my points about truth and belief.

Quote from: doorknob on August 25, 2016, 10:17:54 AM
who didn't see that coming?

(http://rs230.pbsrc.com/albums/ee221/outercyberia/Smileys/crickets.gif~c200)(http://rs230.pbsrc.com/albums/ee221/outercyberia/Smileys/crickets.gif~c200)

Every time I read the thread title in "Recent Topics", I think, "Oh no!  Not again!"  It's such a common challenge from the mentally lame, that the fallacy keeps jumping out at me like the little puppet clown in a jack-in-a-box.  It's like little kids that keep turning the crank to watch the clown, except that even little kids eventually tire of it.  And the adults endure it, because after all, it's just little kids who are delighted by the activity.

Quote from: SGOS on August 25, 2016, 10:32:29 AMEvery time I read the thread title in "Recent Topics", I think, "Oh no!  Not again!"  It's such a common challenge from the mentally lame, that the fallacy keeps jumping out at me like the little puppet clown in a jack-in-a-box.  It's like little kids that keep turning the crank to watch the clown, except that even little kids eventually tire of it.  And the adults endure it, because after all, it's just little kids who are delighted by the activity.

I don't even get the logic behind the challenge.  Theists posit a God and some of them say that God explains everything.  Atheists don't.  That doesn't mean that atheists can explain everything, because obviously, we can't.  Theists don't have all the answers either, but some of them have fooled themselves into thinking all the answers are in their holy book.  But that's not better.  Believing that you know things you obviously don't is much worse than being honest about your ignorance.

Besides, it's not like the unknown is immediately a point for Jesus.  "Tide goes in, tide goes out.  Can't explain that."  By golly he's right, I guess it's time to get on my hands and knees and convert.  No, it doesn't work like that.  If anything, pointing out humanity's ignorance on a subject just motivates intelligent people to figure it out, not to give up and resort to a magical explanation.

This whole thing is like arguing with someone about ghosts and them saying "If ghosts aren't real, then what happens to people when they die?  And how do you explain every ghost sighting?"  So, I have to definitively prove that consciousness doesn't exist after death and debunk every reported ghost sighting or ghosts are real?  That's a impossibly high standard to meet to maintain skepticism.  And I've noticed that these impossible standards only apply to whatever supernatural being the author believes in, rather than supernatural beings in general.  One can conclude that the divinity of Julius Caesar is bullshit at the drop of a hat, but to make a similar judgement on the divinity of Jesus, you apparently have to be an omniscient god yourself.  It's ludicrous.

I'm going to invite all my MoBap cousins to join here.

You can thank me later.

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 25, 2016, 12:44:30 PM
I'm going to invite all my MoBap cousins to join here.

You can thank me later.

In that case I'm going to propose a five (5) "good" tooth minimum requirement for membership.

Quote from: Hydra009 on August 25, 2016, 12:32:46 PM
It's ludicrous.

Logical fallacies are seductive, especially if one is predisposed to an idea.  Why they are so much easier to spot when you aren't so predisposed, is harder to explain, but this assumes that the offender thinks methodically part of the time.  In fact, I believe that many theists never make it a point to be methodical about any thinking.  As for the divinity of Julius Caesar, on the surface, it might appear they are skeptical about it because they thought it through, but really they just reject his divinity and that's the end of it.  Of course many theists do test ideas with logic, but many of them are selective.  Either any logical ability they have disappears when it comes to Jesus, or they treat God related things as a special case.  But many of their claims and questions like the thread title, betray an complete incomprehension of logical fallacies.

Oddly, I think man's intelligence evolved along with some useless baggage.  Logical fallacies probably could never exist without intelligence.  It's an unintended consequence of something useful.

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 25, 2016, 12:44:30 PM
I'm going to invite all my MoBap cousins to join here.

You can thank me later.

Maybe Wolf can create another sub-forum like purgatory.  We could call it "Day Care."

Quote from: sdelsolray on August 24, 2016, 07:28:13 PM
Where is this Purgatory?  Do members have access?

If you want access, you can have it. It's where we throw trolls to when we don't feel like giving them a full ban. They become restricted to posting in only that section.

Let one of us mods/admins know if you want Purgatory access and we'll make it happen

Quote from: SGOS on August 25, 2016, 01:08:34 PMAs for the divinity of Julius Caesar, on the surface, it might appear they are skeptical about it because they thought it through, but really they just reject his divinity and that's the end of it.

Because they weren't raised to believe it and didn't grow up in a society where that's the norm.  I guarantee you that if you got a time machine, babysnatched these people and dropped them off in Rome a decade after the assassination, they'd be sacrificing cows to the gods just like everyone else.

QuoteOf course many theists do test ideas with logic, but many of them are selective.  Either any logical ability they have disappears when it comes to Jesus, or they treat God related things as a special case.

Mostly, I think it's a special case.  Most people have little trouble exercising skepticism in their daily life (though given the popularity of denialism and conspiracy theories, this seems to not be the case and I might have to eventually retract that claim), but when you put 'em in religious mode, they all of a sudden can't apply skepticism to their own beliefs.

Quote from: Hydra009 on August 25, 2016, 01:44:14 PM

Mostly, I think it's a special case.  Most people have little trouble exercising skepticism in their daily life (though given the popularity of denialism and conspiracy theories, this seems to not be the case and I might have to eventually retract that claim), but when you put 'em in religious mode, they all of a sudden can't apply skepticism to their own beliefs.

It is a special case with many, although I don't think it's the norm with most of them who show up here.  Those who do realize they are using the special case fallacy, if only intuitively, often fall back on the "believing through faith" argument to support their belief.  They realize they have nothing to actually impart, but faith seems like something valid or concrete to them.  Sometimes I get the feeling that some of that group have at least a vague understanding of what evidence should be.  They understand that they can't demonstrate anything through faith, but it does justify their belief to themselves.  Others, when they talk about their faith, just sound like they are parroting something they heard someone in church say.

Quote from: sdelsolray on August 24, 2016, 07:28:13 PM
Where is this Purgatory?  Do members have access?

Masochism much? :banghead:

Just in case g2perk is still reading this thread, and having no more interest in his replies, I'll try two more appeals.

First an appeal to reason:

Since you like to simplify things, maybe you can get something out of this, if you measure your arguments by it.
(http://i.imgur.com/xWCIuMR.jpg)

If I could add one more commandment, it would be, "Thou shalt not argue using a threat(such as the threat of Hell)," -  Ad Baculum Fallacy


Second an appeal to emotion, taken from events in the news:

“The Anti-Miracle”
Solomon Zorn


One anti-miracle
Came to a two-year-old
Safe in his front yard at play
Killed by a stray bullet
Shot by an idiot
Coming from three blocks away
Coming from three blocks away

Odds against hitting him
Made the chance very slim
He was in danger from guns
Waved around randomly
Perfect trajectory
Must be a million-to-one
Must be a million-to-one

Flight path was so narrow
Twitching the gun barrel
Just to the left or the right
Would make it deviate
Changing a tragic fate
Far from the guns and the fight
Far from the guns and the fight

One anti-miracle
Came to an eight-year-old
Safe in her bedroom asleep
Who kneeling on the floor
Just a short time before
Prayed that her soul she could keep
Prayed that her soul she could keep

Leaning across the creek
Tree became very weak
Sound of a “CRACK” split the night
Crushed by the ancient fir
Falling on top of her
No chance to run or to fight
No chance to run or to fight


Searching the rubble
Their hope is a bubble
Where children are safe in their beds
But the reality
Comes with finality
Finding the little one dead
Finding the little one dead

One anti-miracle
Came to to a young couple
This one was really bizarre
None could anticipate
Such an unlikely fate
Driving in separate cars
Driving in separate cars

One headed into town
One of them homeward bound
Taking a casual ride
As the two crest a hill
Both of the lovers killed
When their two autos collide
When their two autos collide

Every miracle
Has a reciprocal
Nothing divine intervenes
Blessings and incidents
Are but coincidence
Crediting God is obscene
Crediting God is obscene



“Fingers”
Solomon Zorn

Fingers chopped off,
In the shredder,
Little girl
Asks her father,

“Will the Lord,
With his great power,
Make them grow back
In an hour?”

“Will he hear me
When I pray,
Make them grow back
In a day?”

“Tell me father,
Be sincere,
Will they grow back
In a year?”

Father doesn't
Dare reply,
With some
Condescending lie.

As his daughter
Bows to pray,
Father has
No words to say.

God should give
An explanation,
For this
Senseless amputation.

God should tell her
His intention,
When withholding
Intervention.

Leaving fingers
To be severed,
Tell her why
They're gone forever.

Father swallows
Past a lump
Seeing tragic
Little stump

Hand and nub
Are posed in prayer
To a God
That isn't there

Quote from: SGOS on August 25, 2016, 01:10:56 PM
Maybe Wolf can create another sub-forum like purgatory.  We could call it "Day Care."

Call it "Shig-Pit Holler".

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on August 25, 2016, 03:57:24 PM
Masochism much? :banghead:

He could be like me and just enjoy the torture of others...


...on occasion, of course.

Quote from: sdelsolray on August 24, 2016, 07:28:13 PM
Where is this Purgatory?  Do members have access?

I hope Gerard doesn't get too lonely in there... :sob:

g2perks, just want you to know that we miss you out here in the world we can post anywhere. Really,



not.

On the divinity of Julius Caesar or Caesar Augustus ... their culture was quite different from ours ... we worship sports stars and movie stars, and music stars ... not generals.  But people being people, we are no different.  We wear a different toga is all.

Claiming divinity for living men was a recent idea in Greco-Roman culture ... originally only dead legendary or mythical persons could be claimed.  Alexander the Great started the megalomania, that led to the deification of Augustus, which is what led to the New Testament and the rebellion of the Jewish people.  That and Persian sabotage ;-)

Who do I worship, I wonder.

Quote from: Hydra009 on August 25, 2016, 12:32:46 PM
I don't even get the logic behind the challenge.  Theists posit a God and some of them say that God explains everything.  Atheists don't.  That doesn't mean that atheists can explain everything, because obviously, we can't.  Theists don't have all the answers either, but some of them have fooled themselves into thinking all the answers are in their holy book.  But that's not better.  Believing that you know things you obviously don't is much worse than being honest about your ignorance.

Besides, it's not like the unknown is immediately a point for Jesus.  "Tide goes in, tide goes out.  Can't explain that."  By golly he's right, I guess it's time to get on my hands and knees and convert.  No, it doesn't work like that.  If anything, pointing out humanity's ignorance on a subject just motivates intelligent people to figure it out, not to give up and resort to a magical explanation.

This whole thing is like arguing with someone about ghosts and them saying "If ghosts aren't real, then what happens to people when they die?  And how do you explain every ghost sighting?"  So, I have to definitively prove that consciousness doesn't exist after death and debunk every reported ghost sighting or ghosts are real?  That's a impossibly high standard to meet to maintain skepticism.  And I've noticed that these impossible standards only apply to whatever supernatural being the author believes in, rather than supernatural beings in general.  One can conclude that the divinity of Julius Caesar is bullshit at the drop of a hat, but to make a similar judgement on the divinity of Jesus, you apparently have to be an omniscient god yourself.  It's ludicrous.

Pretty much.  They're not offering a question, or even a point for debate.  They've made up their minds ahead of time and are presenting you with a conclusion, and have already decided that nothing you say will make the slightest dent in their wall of ignorance.

Quote from: PickelledEggs on August 25, 2016, 01:20:51 PM
If you want access, you can have it. It's where we throw trolls to when we don't feel like giving them a full ban. They become restricted to posting in only that section.

Let one of us mods/admins know if you want Purgatory access and we'll make it happen

This is why I wouldn't make a good mod or admin.  I have a low threshhold for these types and then would spend unnecessary time wandering in there to toss them the occasional snarky comment and leave until the thrashing dies down again, just to repeat the process.

I may be an adolescent inside sometimes, but at least I know where he lurks and how to keep him entertained.  :D

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 25, 2016, 06:27:27 PM
g2perks, just want you to know that we miss you out here in the world we can post anywhere. Really,



not.

Well, according to the activity list on the bottom of the main page, he's been up to something in the last hour.  I don't know -- and even less do I care.  If I had to hazard a guess, I should think that someone with access to Purgatory is playing the game 'poke the rabid badger with a stick'.  :)

Well, hell, isn't that what badgers are for?










Badgers? we don't need no stinkin' badgers!  :weed:

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 25, 2016, 08:53:04 PM
Who do I worship, I wonder.

If you are sufficient cynical, nothing and nobody.  But many worship themselves.

Quote from: Unbeliever on August 26, 2016, 05:12:44 PM
Well, hell, isn't that what badgers are for?

Badgers? we don't need no stinkin' badgers!  :weed:

No, wolverines ;-)  Cute and cuddly.

Quote from: Baruch on August 26, 2016, 06:26:47 PM
If you are sufficient cynical, nothing and nobody.  But many worship themselves.

Often wondered.  What does 'worship' entail?

Quote from: Baruch on August 26, 2016, 06:26:47 PM
If you are sufficient cynical, nothing and nobody.  But many worship themselves.

I know for a fact that I'm mortal, and nobody would worship me. Much to my relief, I might add.

Quote from: Mike Cl on August 26, 2016, 08:02:59 PM
Often wondered.  What does 'worship' entail?

You give me all your money.

Quote from: Baruch on August 26, 2016, 06:28:47 PM
No, wolverines ;-)  Cute and cuddly.

Can say that again!
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/66/9c/d0/669cd015d8df1cdc34ab4afafec5f8e5.jpg)

Quote from: Munch on August 26, 2016, 08:15:46 PM
Can say that again!
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/66/9c/d0/669cd015d8df1cdc34ab4afafec5f8e5.jpg)

No, wolverines ;-)  Cute and cuddly.

Quote from: Baruch on August 26, 2016, 06:28:47 PM
No, wolverines ;-)  Cute and cuddly.

And victimized by buckeyes.  :D

I want to posit a theory, to wit: religion aside, the reason some find the concept of abiogenesis difficult to grasp is because they find the titanic numbers involved difficult to grasp.  I mean, when you consider the unspeakably vast number of simple organic molecules available in the pre-biotic oceans of the early Earth being mixed and combined and broken apart by heat and UV radiation and interactions with other molecules every second, and then give it a couple hundred million years to percolate, it seems almost inevitable that something self-replicating would turn up in there somewhere, just by accident/probability.  And once you have something self-replicating -- even if it's a perfect self-replicator, mutations happen by random encounters with radiation and mutagenic molecules -- evolution immediately takes over.

And the same, of course, applies to evolution: give an advanced monkey a week and you still have an advanced monkey.  Give it a million years to putter around, it should be no surprise that you end up with a primitive human, and probably a couple different versions of them.  But we find a million years just as hard to grasp as a thousand, or a hundred, so many think that if we can't see it happening, it's not happening.

Funny how those same ones often think that that means that something else you can't see happening must exist.

Quote from: trdsf on August 27, 2016, 09:10:52 AM
I want to posit a theory, to wit: religion aside, the reason some find the concept of abiogenesis difficult to grasp is because they find the titanic numbers involved difficult to grasp.  I mean, when you consider the unspeakably vast number of simple organic molecules available in the pre-biotic oceans of the early Earth being mixed and combined and broken apart by heat and UV radiation and interactions with other molecules every second, and then give it a couple hundred million years to percolate, it seems almost inevitable that something self-replicating would turn up in there somewhere, just by accident/probability.  And once you have something self-replicating -- even if it's a perfect self-replicator, mutations happen by random encounters with radiation and mutagenic molecules -- evolution immediately takes over.

And the same, of course, applies to evolution: give an advanced monkey a week and you still have an advanced monkey.  Give it a million years to putter around, it should be no surprise that you end up with a primitive human, and probably a couple different versions of them.  But we find a million years just as hard to grasp as a thousand, or a hundred, so many think that if we can't see it happening, it's not happening.

Funny how those same ones often think that that means that something else you can't see happening must exist.

Would that not be called a hypothesis?  In any case, I've often thought the exact same thing.  The huge number of opportunities makes it impossible not to happen.  The average human life (in years) is so very, very tiny compared to the life of the universe, that it is difficult for most to see beyond those tiny number of years.  Evolution is so slow that it just does not compute for the average person. 

Quote from: Mike Cl on August 27, 2016, 09:31:47 AM
Evolution is so slow that it just does not compute for the average person. 

It seems that way, but the concept of long time frames and huge numbers should not be that hard to grasp, even for Christians who are constantly going on about eternity, anyway.  I do realize that thinking long term doesn't seem to be an evolved trait in many.

Quote from: Mike Cl on August 27, 2016, 09:31:47 AM
The average human life (in years) is so very, very tiny compared to the life of the universe, that it is difficult for most to see beyond those tiny number of years. 

I'm pretty sure this carries some weight in arguments against evolution, at least in the minds of those who are making the arguments, but a good part of it is just good old fashion human stubbornness.  For some, abiogenesis and  evolution are the creation of demons to weaken our faith in God.  This must be resisted at all costs because saving your soul is more important than understanding.  Think about it.  If you have only two choices, to burn forever in Hell Fire, or turn your back on the demon world at any cost, which would be the better choice?  Don't even entertain an evil idea, or doubt will creep into your mind, and you will burn forever in the fires of Hell.  Your ignorance must be guarded with great care.  A moment's loss of vigilance can lead to a disaster of proportions beyond comprehension.  Any attempt to gain understanding outside the Bible itself will cost you dearly.

Quote from: SGOS on August 27, 2016, 10:02:46 AM
It seems that way, but the concept of long time frames and huge numbers should not be that hard to grasp, even for Christians who are constantly going on about eternity, anyway.  I do realize that thinking long term doesn't seem to be an evolved trait in many.

Considering nowadays 'long term planning' means thinking about what you'll have for lunch when it's 11:30 in the morning, and most businesses would rather make a nickel today than a dollar tomorrow.

This is why I'm fascinated by projects like The Long Now (http://longnow.org/).

Quote from: SGOS on August 27, 2016, 10:02:46 AM
It seems that way, but the concept of long time frames and huge numbers should not be that hard to grasp, even for Christians who are constantly going on about eternity, anyway.  I do realize that thinking long term doesn't seem to be an evolved trait in many.


I'm pretty sure this carries some weight in arguments against evolution, at least in the minds of those who are making the arguments, but a good part of it is just good old fashion human stubbornness.  For some, abiogenesis and  evolution are the creation of demons to weaken our faith in God.  This must be resisted at all costs because saving your soul is more important than understanding.  Think about it.  If you have only two choices, to burn forever in Hell Fire, or turn your back on the demon world at any cost, which would be the better choice?  Don't even entertain an evil idea, or doubt will creep into your mind, and you will burn forever in the fires of Hell.  Your ignorance must be guarded with great care.  A moment's loss of vigilance can lead to a disaster of proportions beyond comprehension.  Any attempt to gain understanding outside the Bible itself will cost you dearly.

Yeah, I pretty much agree.  In this statement--I do realize that thinking long term doesn't seem to be an evolved trait in many.--change 'thinking' to believing and that is the problem.  Christians and thinking just don't go together.

You nailed it--doubt; don't ever have it.  And it can only come when one stops 'believing' and start thinking.

Quote from: Mike Cl on August 26, 2016, 08:02:59 PM
Often wondered.  What does 'worship' entail?

You were religious once?  Have you forgotten already?

There are few people if any, who can grasp a number higher than 10.  The human mind can only hold 7+ or - 3 things at a time.  We are not computers or even calculators.  My 4 function calculator from 1973 is far superior to me ... if I had a fetish for technology I would have worshipped it instead.

Big numbers vs low probability?  Really?  Same argument as omnipotent god moving an immovable object.  That is fallacy territory.  If big numbers (of chances at dice) work for you, then you can beat the casino eventually.  But in fact, that isn't the case.  If the rate of increase in dice throws is smaller than the rate of increase in low odds ... then you will never catch up.  Usually that is the case, unless you fix the game.

Quote from: Baruch on August 27, 2016, 08:01:28 PM
You were religious once?  Have you forgotten already?

There are few people if any, who can grasp a number higher than 10.  The human mind can only hold 7+ or - 3 things at a time.  We are not computers or even calculators.  My 4 function calculator from 1973 is far superior to me ... if I had a fetish for technology I would have worshipped it instead.

Big numbers vs low probability?  Really?  Same argument as omnipotent god moving an immovable object.  That is fallacy territory.  If big numbers (of chances at dice) work for you, then you can beat the casino eventually.  But in fact, that isn't the case.  If the rate of increase in dice throws is smaller than the rate of increase in low odds ... then you will never catch up.  Usually that is the case, unless you fix the game.

Never been religious.  I hate th ritual and find it not only empty but meaningless (for me), as well.  I guess at one time I referred to myself as spiritual--but never religious.  You did not answer the question for me--what does it mean to worship?  I don't think I ever worshiped anything; not even baseball, ice cream, or computer games.  But I love the hell out of all three.  (Among others, of course)  So, if I worshiped ice cream, what would I do?  Put ice cream pictures everywhere?  Beg it for stuff?  Preach the values of ice cream?  What???

Quote from: Mike Cl on August 27, 2016, 08:19:02 PM
Never been religious.  I hate th ritual and find it not only empty but meaningless (for me), as well.  I guess at one time I referred to myself as spiritual--but never religious.  You did not answer the question for me--what does it mean to worship?  I don't think I ever worshiped anything; not even baseball, ice cream, or computer games.  But I love the hell out of all three.  (Among others, of course)  So, if I worshiped ice cream, what would I do?  Put ice cream pictures everywhere?  Beg it for stuff?  Preach the values of ice cream?  What???

You answered your own question.  Yes, you love the hell out of X ... so that makes you a Satan worshipper ;-)

Quote from: Mike Cl on August 27, 2016, 08:19:02 PM
what does it mean to worship? 

For me, it involved acting pious, trying to concentrate on the sermon, a good deal of fidgeting, and self reprisal for constantly letting my mind wander.  I would pull my mind back to the activity and feel like I was doing it right again, but all of a sudden I would be thinking about playing touch football or something with my friends, but I was never aware of drifting from my duty into my independent reverie.  I would suddenly just find myself off topic and wonder how long I had been off topic.  I never managed to make contact with the unseen spirit world that everyone told me was out there.  I  wondered a lot about if it might be fake during the worshipping process.  I never actually felt a feeling of worshipping, and what such a feeling would be like, I couldn't say.  It was more like I was following along and doing the alternate readings in the service, and singing these songs.  People around me would be singing, but unless it was a Christmas carol, I was never familiar with the melody, so I would read the words in the hymnal and make my voice go higher and lower, but not too loud so that no one would know I didn't know the tune.

Feeling numinous in congregation setting doesn't happen for everyone.  It only happens for me in recent times, if I am free to worship, not constrained by the rules or social pressure ... but then I am charismatic.  Nature lovers feel numinous, but they don't label it as religious (but I disagree with their self identity).

I do know someone who would experience paranormal things during congregational worship, but they were probably crazy ;-)

Quote from: SGOS on August 27, 2016, 08:54:32 PM
For me, it involved acting pious, trying to concentrate on the sermon, a good deal of fidgeting, and self reprisal for constantly letting my mind wander.  I would pull my mind back to the activity and feel like I was doing it right again, but all of a sudden I would be thinking about playing touch football or something with my friends, but I was never aware of drifting from my duty into my independent reverie.  I would suddenly just find myself off topic and wonder how long I had been off topic.  I never managed to make contact with the unseen spirit world that everyone told me was out there.  I  wondered a lot about if it might be fake during the worshipping process.  I never actually felt a feeling of worshipping, and what such a feeling would be like, I couldn't say.  It was more like I was following along and doing the alternate readings in the service, and singing these songs.  People around me would be singing, but unless it was a Christmas carol, I was never familiar with the melody, so I would read the words in the hymnal and make my voice go higher and lower, but not too loud so that no one would know I didn't know the tune.

That sounds like me in regular church from as far back as I can remember.  When in my spiritual mode, I would try to apply whatever lesson to myself and to not be judgmental or to be more giving--that sort of stuff.  I have just never gotten in touch with the 'worship' concept.   

I have the same reaction to 'numinous' as I do to 'spiritual', and it's not a positive one.

I prefer just plain old non-spiritualized awe.  I am awestruck when I look through a telescope, and empowered because I know why that star is blue while that one is red.  I am awestruck contemplating the layers of infinity of the integers and reals, and empowered when I stumble on my own on a proof of a particular number theorem -- even if it's not original, I know I found it on my own.

'Numinous' smacks a bit too much of religiosity for me.  The concept finds its origins in a theologian and its popularization in C.S. Lewis, who may as well have been one; despite its later use by Sagan and Hitchens, it goes too far for me.  I already know the universe and physical reality is greater than myself -- that doesn't mean it has a spiritual nature besides.  That strikes a little too close to the Gaia "hypothesis" for comfort -- Galaxia, or even Universalia.

No, reality is quite enough for me.  Reality, and the utterly improbable fact that I happen to be a product of it that can -- within limits -- understand it.

Theists think about things all the time.  They wonder why Jesus loves them so much.  They think about how great it is that God is perfect.  They think about how god sends flooding to punish all of us for gay marriage, but it's just coastal flooding.  So gay marriage is not as bad as whatever those people were doing during Noah's time.  They think about kangaroos.  What a unique animal God decided to create.  Kangaroos prove there must be a god.

Quote from: SGOS on September 22, 2016, 07:21:57 AM
  They think about kangaroos.  What a unique animal God decided to create.  Kangaroos prove there must be a god.

And the platypus proves he has a sense of humor.

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on September 22, 2016, 09:21:13 AM
And the platypus proves he has a sense of humor.

Or he's actually a committee.

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on September 22, 2016, 09:21:13 AM
And the platypus proves he has a sense of humor.

IF G-d wanted women to carry purses he would have provided them with a built in pouch like the kangaroo ;-)

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on September 22, 2016, 09:28:56 AM
Or he's actually a committee.

That's Good. I have to remember that one.

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on September 22, 2016, 01:16:08 PM
That's Good. I have to remember that one.

"Committee will break into sub committees. Subs will be remembered as the things that sunk ships in both world wars.  This is a strong indicator of the success expected by the committee."

Is the original question still open?  If so the simple answer is dumb stupid chemistry.  How?  The same way dust bunnies are created under you bed.

These things are always open.  When I first got here, reopening a conversation would often get a curt reply, "How come you bumped an old thread?"  But it was usually because somebody didn't like what you said.  For some reason, people don't seem to get their nose out of joint from that anymore.  So you're OK, I think.

i bumped a few old threads when I first got here ... just because I was curious.  If you are a regular, you know what threads are hot and what are not.

Quote from: Mike Cl on August 17, 2016, 02:22:59 PM
Yep--no higher power, no lower power, no middle power.  There are no gods; never were and never will be.  Your god is simply a fiction.  If not, maybe you could supply us with a few facts?

Explain life?  Read about evolution to get a good start.  And just because one does not know how something works does not make 'god did it' legitimate--just lazy.  Good luck in your quest for god and facts fitting together in any way.

Are you absolutely certain that it is impossible for the Christian God to exist?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Alex ... what does it mean to exist?  Philosophers have debated that for 2500 years ... do you finally have THE answer? ;-)

Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 12:14:45 AM
Are you absolutely certain that it is impossible for the Christian God to exist?

THE christian God? As if there is only one?

Him being three people at once aside, there are as many Christian Gods as there are Christians.

Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 12:14:45 AM
Are you absolutely certain that it is impossible for the Christian God to exist?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Are you absolutely certain that it is impossible that the Earth is actually flat?

Quote from: Baruch on October 14, 2016, 06:42:26 AM
Alex ... what does it mean to exist?  Philosophers have debated that for 2500 years ... do you finally have THE answer? ;-)

Would you be able to answer my question?

In the context of my question, I'm asking if it's impossible for God to exist, be real, be true. To exist is to have objective reality, to be real is to be actually existing and not imagined or supposed and truth is that which corresponds to reality.

So now that I've explained myself, are you able to give an answer to my question?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on October 14, 2016, 06:46:46 AM
THE christian God? As if there is only one?

Him being three people at once aside, there are as many Christian Gods as there are Christians.

Ignoratio elenchi.

However, your argument is still a bad one.

"The three Biblical doctrines that flow directly into the river that is the Trinity are as follows:

1) There is one and only one God, eternal, immutable.

2) There are three eternal Persons described in Scripture - the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. These Persons are never identified with one another - that is, they are carefully differentiated as Persons.

3) The Father, the Son, and the Spirit, are identified as being fully deity---that is, the Bible teaches the Deity of Christ and the Deity of the Holy Spirit."

- http://vintage.aomin.org/trinitydef.html

I can provide scriptural references as well.

Now, do you have an answer to my original question?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: Blackleaf on October 14, 2016, 10:28:05 AM
Are you absolutely certain that it is impossible that the Earth is actually flat?

Ignoratio elenchi.

The earth be flat or not has nothing to do with my question.

Do you have an actual answer for me?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 11:06:42 AM
, I'm asking if it's impossible for God to exist,


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, I think it is impossible for the "christian" god to exist. The faults, impotency, ineptness and ignorance exhibited by this "god" cannot be aligned with something that could create a universe the size we have, complete with life and yet not understand the basics of human physiology, or be so consumed on a woman's menstrual cycle but unable to defeat any army until the third try or not at all if they have iron chariots...pathetic.

Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 11:12:12 AM
Ignoratio elenchi.

The earth be flat or not has nothing to do with my question.

Do you have an actual answer for me?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I love it when Christians, people who thrive on logical fallacies, try to look smart by pointing to the logical fallacies of others. When you come here and ask stupid questions, don't be surprised when people mock you.

Quote from: aitm on October 14, 2016, 11:15:27 AM
Yes, I think it is impossible for the "christian" god to exist. The faults, impotency, ineptness and ignorance exhibited by this "god" cannot be aligned with something that could create a universe the size we have, complete with life and yet not understand the basics of human physiology, or be so consumed on a woman's menstrual cycle but unable to defeat any army until the third try or not at all if they have iron chariots...pathetic.

Ok so now your giving me evidence that you think proves that the Christian God can not possibly exist. Are you using your reasoning to determine whether or not this evidence proves that?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 11:11:02 AM
Ignoratio elenchi.

However, your argument is still a bad one.

"The three Biblical doctrines that flow directly into the river that is the Trinity are as follows:

1) There is one and only one God, eternal, immutable.

2) There are three eternal Persons described in Scripture - the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. These Persons are never identified with one another - that is, they are carefully differentiated as Persons.

3) The Father, the Son, and the Spirit, are identified as being fully deity---that is, the Bible teaches the Deity of Christ and the Deity of the Holy Spirit."

- http://vintage.aomin.org/trinitydef.html

I can provide scriptural references as well.

Now, do you have an answer to my original question?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Do your references add anything of substance to your otherwise unsupported assertions? If not, save us both THE trouble, please.

Here is my three  step take, without THE assertion that there is an actual god

1) everyone who calls themselves a Christian has a notion of god
2) christian denominations bicker amongst themselves what god is Like and what he exactly wants
3) christians within these denominations do THE same with one another, be it about less significant differences

Hence they all have a different Notion of god. So to claim to talk about 'the christian god' is a phallacy in and by itself.

But whatever. Semantics aside, this is THE same question you've asked over and over on this forum. Only THE wording changes. And yes, i understand what you are getting at. And my answer here is THE same as THE previous one I gave in a different thread.

I could be wrong. No shame in that. No hassle to expres it. No reason to think it, but no reason to deny it.

And again I must ask: what off it?

Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 11:06:42 AM
Would you be able to answer my question?

In the context of my question, I'm asking if it's impossible for God to exist, be real, be true. To exist is to have objective reality, to be real is to be actually existing and not imagined or supposed and truth is that which corresponds to reality.

So now that I've explained myself, are you able to give an answer to my question?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am able to say that it is impossible for god to exist--your god or any other god.

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 14, 2016, 11:48:22 AM
I am able to say that it is impossible for god to exist--your god or any other god.

Ok so you believe in absolutes?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on October 14, 2016, 11:46:13 AM
Do your references add anything of substance to your otherwise unsupported assertions? If not, save us both THE trouble, please.

Here is my three  step take, without THE assertion that there is an actual god

1) everyone who calls themselves a Christian has a notion of god
2) christian denominations bicker amongst themselves what god is Like and what he exactly wants
3) christians within these denominations do THE same with one another, be it about less significant differences

Hence they all have a different Notion of god. So to claim to talk about 'the christian god' is a phallacy in and by itself.

But whatever. Semantics aside, this is THE same question you've asked over and over on this forum. Only THE wording changes. And yes, i understand what you are getting at. And my answer here is THE same as THE previous one I gave in a different thread.

I could be wrong. No shame in that. No hassle to expres it. No reason to think it, but no reason to deny it.

And again I must ask: what off it?

My references explained what the trinity is, unlike your mis definition of it. There you go using your reasoning again, but I want to know why you can trust your reasoning?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 12:09:23 PM
My references explained what the trinity is, unlike your mis definition of it. There you go using your reasoning again, but I want to know why you can trust your reasoning?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think you misread my first reply. THE reference to THE trinity was solely a jest. It's THE second part Why it's ridiculous to talk of one christian deity.
And before I get in to more, I want an answer to my question first, as I told you I might Well be wrong.

What off it?
I could be wrong. Your specific god just might exist. Not bloody likely, but sure, if you go enough decimals (give or take a few bilion) after .0% you could add something else than a zero.
Now; what off it? Does your question have a point? Is it supposed to sway me? Make me realize something? Make me doubt? Or are you just hoping we all show our dogmatic thinking and say; no, I know my opinion on god to be true. I cannot be swayed. I feel it in my heart.
If so, you've come to A forum on THE wrong Side of THE debate.

Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 12:07:40 PM
Ok so you believe in absolutes?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Absolutely not.  You seem to be a very judgmental person.  But then since you are a christian, that is a given.  But, there is absolutely no possible way your god can exist.  I would ask you to provide any evidence that it does exist; and I do; but usually your type of person just ignores and ducks such questions for they know they cannot provide an answer.

Primordial soup on a planetary scale, interesting things can happen. Here life happened. No doubt there are endless planets where it didn't happen. No magic required. (Unless you barely passed Chem. in high school, like i did. I still don't know what a mole is.)

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 14, 2016, 12:40:36 PM
I still don't know what a mole is.)

It's those things that live in the ground, eat worms and snails and fuck up your lawn.

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on October 14, 2016, 12:46:23 PM
It's those things that live in the ground, eat worms and snails and fuck up your lawn.

I thought it was some Mexican sauce of some kind?

This kid missed his calling as a medieval inquisitor. Anyone got a time machine?


Equal opportunity butt-stabber.

Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on October 14, 2016, 01:00:49 PM
This kid missed his calling as a medieval inquisitor. Anyone got a time machine?


Equal opportunity butt-stabber.

Dibs on the comfy chair, love!

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on October 14, 2016, 12:19:56 PM
I think you misread my first reply. THE reference to THE trinity was solely a jest. It's THE second part Why it's ridiculous to talk of one christian deity.
And before I get in to more, I want an answer to my question first, as I told you I might Well be wrong.

What off it?
I could be wrong. Your specific god just might exist. Not bloody likely, but sure, if you go enough decimals (give or take a few bilion) after .0% you could add something else than a zero.
Now; what off it? Does your question have a point? Is it supposed to sway me? Make me realize something? Make me doubt? Or are you just hoping we all show our dogmatic thinking and say; no, I know my opinion on god to be true. I cannot be swayed. I feel it in my heart.
If so, you've come to A forum on THE wrong Side of THE debate.

You just said you could be wrong but then you said that you KNOW that your opinion is true. If you could be wrong about something than by definition you can not know it.

Let me ask you this, could you be wrong about everything you claim to know?

If not please tell me one thing that you know but could be wrong about.

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 14, 2016, 12:34:20 PM
Absolutely not.  You seem to be a very judgmental person.  But then since you are a christian, that is a given.  But, there is absolutely no possible way your god can exist.  I would ask you to provide any evidence that it does exist; and I do; but usually your type of person just ignores and ducks such questions for they know they cannot provide an answer.

This we see the folly of atheism. You absolutely do not believe in absolutes right? Oh and you said that there's ABSOLUTELY no God, but you don't believe in absolutes right?

All evidence points to God the problem is that no matter what evidence I put forward you will dismiss it according to your presuppositions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 01:07:26 PM
You just said you could be wrong but then you said that you KNOW that your opinion is true.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Can you even read?
If so, try again. Slowly. Diligently. And without preconception.

Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 01:10:54 PM
This we see the folly of atheism. You absolutely do not believe in absolutes right? Oh and you said that there's ABSOLUTELY no God, but you don't believe in absolutes right?

All evidence points to God the problem is that no matter what evidence I put forward you will dismiss it according to your presuppositions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Presuppositions--that is ironic you use that word--you are full of them.  If you know what I think and what I will say, then why are you here?????

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 14, 2016, 01:19:10 PM
Presuppositions--that is ironic you use that word--you are full of them.  If you know what I think and what I will say, then why are you here?????

I see you ignored the part where I expose your self refuting argument about absolutes.

I'm here because I want to expose to you the folly of the atheistic worldview.

Everyone has presuppositions including you and I can point them out to you if you are unaware of them.

The problem is not whether or not we have presuppositions but if they are true or not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on October 14, 2016, 01:12:26 PM
Can you even read?
If so, try again. Slowly. Diligently. And without preconception.

Im at work sorry I read it quickly... please forgive me.

I know that God exists the same way that you do. By his revelation.

Could you be wrong about everything you claim to know?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 01:26:28 PM
Im at work sorry I read it quickly... please forgive me.

I know that God exists the same way that you do. By his revelation.

Could you be wrong about everything you claim to know?

No worries. So was I.
I don't know that God exists. I don't know he doesn't. I just don't have any reason to suspect that he does.

And could I be wrong about everything I claim to know? I feel like I've answered this question you posed 2 or 3  times already in the short time you arrived. Both in another thread and in this one, though differently worded but aimed at the same thing.

And again, semantics aside as I think I understand what you are trying to ask: yes. I could.

So could you.

Now. Again. What off it?

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on October 14, 2016, 02:20:26 PM
No worries. So was I.
I don't know that God exists. I don't know he doesn't. I just don't have any reason to suspect that he does.

And could I be wrong about everything I claim to know? I feel like I've answered this question you posed 2 or 3  times already in the short time you arrived. Both in another thread and in this one, though differently worded but aimed at the same thing.

And again, semantics aside as I think I understand what you are trying to ask: yes. I could.

So could you.

Now. Again. What off it?

Could you be wrong in saying that you know that I could be wrong about everything I could claim to know?

If you could be wrong about everything you claim to know then you can't know anything.

If you can't know anything then you can't know what I do or do not know.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 02:22:21 PM
Could you be wrong in saying that you know that I could be wrong about everything I could claim to know?

If you could be wrong about everything you claim to know then you can't know anything.

If you can't know anything then you can't know what I do or do not know.

Gee, I don't know? You know?

But I think.
And I try to be intellectualy honest.

You know?

No. I don't think you know, honestly.

Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 01:26:28 PM
Could you be wrong about everything you claim to know?

Well, you are, so it's slightly possible that I am.

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on October 14, 2016, 02:26:42 PM
Gee, I don't know? You know?

But I think.
And I try to be intellectualy honest.

You know?

No. I don't think you know, honestly.

Thinking and knowing are two different things. You can not know anything you have given up all knowledge.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 14, 2016, 02:37:14 PM
Well, you are, so it's slightly possible that I am.

If you could be wrong about everything you claim to know, then you can't know anything. If you can't know anything you can't know what I do or do not know.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 02:44:38 PM
Thinking and knowing are two different things. You can not know anything you have given up all knowledge.

They are two different things, I think.

You should try thinking sometime. I think it's more intellectually honest than claiming you know something.

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on October 14, 2016, 02:49:20 PM
They are two different things, I think.

You should try thinking sometime. I think it's more intellectually honest than claiming you know something.

Are you certain about that? Or could you be wrong?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 02:50:19 PM
Are you certain about that? Or could you be wrong?

I could be wrong.

I don't know.

I think.

How long do you want to keep on dancing this dance? Does any of this have a point? If so is it coming up soon?
You choose to know what you know, and could still be wrong about that. Big whoop? I'll stick to thinking.

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on October 14, 2016, 02:52:43 PM
I could be wrong.

I don't know.

I think.

How long do you want to keep on dancing this dance? Does any of this have a point? If so is it coming up soon?
You choose to know what you know, and could still be wrong about that. Big whoop? I'll stick to thinking.

You can't know what I can know if you could be wrong about everything you claim to know. You literally can't know anything. You have given up knowledge and there fore are reduced to absurdity. You can't have knowledge without God, in fact all you can have is absurdity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 02:58:11 PM
You can't know what I can know if you could be wrong about everything you claim to know. You literally can't know anything. You have given up knowledge and there fore are reduced to absurdity. You can't have knowledge without God, in fact all you can have is absurdity.

I think I have my thoughts.

And I think you think you have a point in there somewhere. But I don't think you do.

Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 11:06:42 AM
Would you be able to answer my question?

In the context of my question, I'm asking if it's impossible for God to exist, be real, be true.

Most Christians posit a fairly well defined, but highly self contradictory god, so possible but not very possible.  Maybe one chance in billions.  If he's defined as a mist that permeates everything, but does not interact, the chances go up to "probably not."

Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 11:06:42 AM
To be real is to be actually existing and not imagined.

Without empirical evidence, a god can only be imagined.  There is no other way to claim his existence.

This is why theists all point to some sort of woo as a proof substitute.

Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 02:45:25 PM
If you could be wrong about everything you claim to know, then you can't know anything. If you can't know anything you can't know what I do or do not know.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quibbles. Did you swallow a Jesuit or something?

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on October 14, 2016, 02:59:18 PM
I think I have my thoughts.

And I think you think you have a point in there somewhere. But I don't think you do.

More absurdity, further proving my point. If you wish to choose absurdity you are free to do so. Wisdom belongs to Jesus and if you wish to find understanding, ask of God.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 14, 2016, 03:06:34 PM
Quibbles. Did you swallow a Jesuit or something?

A you certain that it's "quibbles" or could you be wrong about that?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: SGOS on October 14, 2016, 03:00:21 PM
Most Christians posit a fairly well defined, but highly self contradictory god, so possible but not very possible.  Maybe one chance in billions.  If he's defined as a mist that permeates everything, but does not interact, the chances go up to "probably not."

Without empirical evidence, a god can only be imagined.  There is no other way to claim his existence.

This is why theists all point to some sort of woo as a proof substitute.

Evidence presupposes truth. What is truth?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 03:10:46 PM
Evidence presupposes truth. What is truth?

Truth can not be determined without evidence.

Quote from: SGOS on October 14, 2016, 03:17:22 PM
Truth can not be determined without evidence.

I'm not asking how you determine truth. I'm asking what is truth. Truth is what corresponds to reality right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 03:09:36 PM
A you certain that it's "quibbles" or could you be wrong about that?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A me don't make typos.

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 14, 2016, 03:27:47 PM
A me don't make typos.

Ok so your absolutely certain... how do you know that?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 01:23:55 PM
I see you ignored the part where I expose your self refuting argument about absolutes.

I'm here because I want to expose to you the folly of the atheistic worldview.

Everyone has presuppositions including you and I can point them out to you if you are unaware of them.

The problem is not whether or not we have presuppositions but if they are true or not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are about as dumb as a stump, aren't you?  You are going to 'expose' the folly of the atheistic worldview????  My, what a blowhard you are.  You are going to disprove my world view using your fictitious world view.  You have offered not one fact to support your fiction.  You ask the same question over and over even when it is answered.  And you would not know a fact if you saw one.

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 14, 2016, 03:40:46 PM
You are about as dumb as a stump, aren't you?  You are going to 'expose' the folly of the atheistic worldview????  My, what a blowhard you are.  You are going to disprove my world view using your fictitious world view.  You have offered not one fact to support your fiction.  You ask the same question over and over even when it is answered.  And you would not know a fact if you saw one.

That's exactly what happened. You literally told me that you absolutely do not believe in absolutes.

Do you see the problem there?

The proof of my position is that without God you are reduced to absurdity, which we see when you claim "there are absolutely no absolutes."

But again my question is "How do you know anything to be true?" You don't.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 03:49:42 PM
That's exactly what happened. You literally told me that you absolutely do not believe in absolutes.

Do you see the problem there?

The proof of my position is that without God you are reduced to absurdity, which we see when you claim "there are absolutely no absolutes."

But again my question is "How do you know anything to be true?" You don't.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How do you know anything is true?

Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 11:06:42 AM
Would you be able to answer my question?

In the context of my question, I'm asking if it's impossible for God to exist, be real, be true. To exist is to have objective reality, to be real is to be actually existing and not imagined or supposed and truth is that which corresponds to reality.

So now that I've explained myself, are you able to give an answer to my question?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Actually, I can.  Thanks for clarifying your use of language.  Here is my use of language ... there is potentiality and there is actuality.  What is past or present ... is actuality.  Existence is that which is actual, and present.  Dinosaurs don't exist today, but they did in the past.  I don't know if dinosaurs will exist in the future however.  Using Jurassic Park technology, they might.  I can't tell one way or the other.  It is possible, that dinosaurs might potentially exist in the future.  That is an example of potentiality.  Potentiality is a lot harder to grasp than actuality ... and the present is easier to grasp than the past.  That is why I prefer to talk of the present.  So does G-d exist?  Existence is a property of Creation, not Creator.  Creation is the image of the Creator (think of a self portrait of Van Gough).  The portrait of Van Gough exists, but Van Gough doesn't exist today.  But G-d is not created ... and so G-d cannot exist, like you and I exist.  That is why people can't see G-d, or hear G-d, unless they have eyes to see and ears to hear.  Most people are blind and deaf to this, and can't acknowledge (nor should they) things they can't see and can't hear ... or trust the testimony of ape men.  But G-d can not only be seen and heard second hand in actuality, in our imagination (I know people here hate the imagination) we can possibly see and hear the potentiality of G-d in the present ... we can see and hear the future.  That is prophecy ... but it isn't like physics or math, it is personal, not impersonal.  Of course imagination might be thwarted ... it is largely up to us to make it happen, for good or ill.  My hand isn't me, but it shows that I exist at present.  Creation in the present, shows that at least the image of G-d exists in the present.  Draw what conclusions you will based on the image.  People who have been hurt by G-d, reject the image, and so reject G-d as well.  And I am not sure they aren't justified, since as I pointed out elsewhere, G-d and the Devil are the same ... even if Christians flunk the math of monotheism.

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 14, 2016, 12:40:36 PM
Primordial soup on a planetary scale, interesting things can happen. Here life happened. No doubt there are endless planets where it didn't happen. No magic required. (Unless you barely passed Chem. in high school, like i did. I still don't know what a mole is.)

A mole is a standard quantity of molecules, which may be mono-atomic or complex.  It depends on Avogadro's Constant, which wasn't securely known, until Young Einstein proved the existence of atoms (only took 2400 years).

Interesting things happen even in outer space, even organic molecules and amino acids (what makes proteins).  Pan-spermia ... I knew that that mischievous Greek god, Pan, was behind this!

Quote from: Baruch on October 14, 2016, 07:42:03 PM
A mole is a standard quantity of molecules, which may be mono-atomic or complex.  It depends on Avogadro's Constant, which wasn't securely known, until Young Einstein proved the existence of atoms (only took 2400 years).

Interesting things happen even in outer space, even organic molecules and amino acids (what makes proteins).  Pan-spermia ... I knew that that mischievous Greek god, Pan, was behind this!

No--a mole is an undercover agent who has been in deep cover for decades and then starts doing his/her real business.