Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

RE: Atheist FAQ

B

BenjaminTC

Guest
Well, droopfeather, you bravely refused to respond to what I had to say, until I moved my response. So in order to humor your arbitrary preferences, here is my response. I actually should thank you. This gave me a chance to revamp my response. Now its a little more concise and in order than last time. Anyone else is free to respond to this, but my time is somewhat limited, so don't expect an indepth response to everything if I get a large number of responses.



Q:Do Christians hate atheists?

A:No. One cannot be a christian and hate another human being. The two are incompatible.
__________

Well, history and reality disagree with you. But I know the ideal Christian shouldn't hate

others, I understand.
------------------

Q: Do christians hate atheism, then?

A:I'm sure some(or many), do. Many realize how destructive and false it is, and therefore would

like to stop or obliterate the spread of atheism. It has caused too much damage to our world and

nation, and leads other harmful practices, lifestyles, etc.
__________

Destructive to what? The church? Christianity is destructive to free thought, free will,

scientific advancement, civil liberties, privacy, the list goes on... Please elaborate on what

atheism has done to harm society.
--------------


Q: christians beleive that atheism contains fallacies, errors in logic, etc?

A:I'm sure most do. In fact, the truth is that atheism does contain many errors that contradict

logic, truth, and reality.

__________
Q:What are the errors?

A:An atheist error that contradicts logic, for instance, is that matter and energy had no

starting point, were never created, and are eternal.
An error in truth is denying that God exists, atheists "know" that God doesn't exist, it affirms

a negative. An error that contradicts reality is the atheist denial of anything supernatural,

which has been shown false many, many, many times.
__________

Firstly, there are two deffinitions of the word atheist. You are using only one of them. Here are

the two: One who believes there is no god OR an atheist does not have a belief in a god. The

differences are subtle, but they are there. There is a bit of faith in the first kind to affirm

there is no god, I agree. However the second kind affirms nothing. Therefore they do not affirm a

begining with or without a starting point, etc.

The supernatural has not been proven. I can't even imagine how you can think that the

SUPERNATURAL has been PROVEN. Just think about it for a little. There are phenomenon that have

not been explained. Lack of explination is not proof of the supernatural. Solar eclipses were a

complete mistery to humans for thousands and thousands of years. It lacked an explination, it was

not proof of the supernatural.

Atheists have varying views regarding the begining of the universe, so I will not adress that on

behalf of all atheists. It wouldn't be fair.

Like I said before, atheists don't necessarily "affirm" the non-existance of a god, they simply

lack a belief in one. I, for example, do not have a belief in a god. I affirm that the bible

god does not exist. This, I admit, affirms a negative, and therefore has some faith behind it.

But I aknoweledge that our understanding of the origins of our universe is so far beyond our

understanding, that I cannot claim to know what happened, and anyone who claims to know is almost

doubtlessly completely wrong.
__________
Q:How can you be sure that God exists?

A:Becuase God has revealed Himself in many ways.
__________
Q:Oh Yeah? Like how?

A:The creation of our universe, for instance, that is proof enough that there is a creator God.
__________

This also is not proof. You have indulged into the dreaded method of circular reasoning.

OBSERVATION: The universe exists. HYPOTHESIS: God created it. SUPPORT: The universe exists.

CONCLUSION: God created it.

This is not proof. This is circular reasoning. Your support can't be the observation. Your

support must be something else.

__________
Q:Thats it?

A:No. There are many ways, I said. Another proof of God is supernatural experiances, such as

miracles.
__________

Once again, your using fairy tales and myths as alleged proof. Miracles are just unexplained

things. Anyone can use the word miracle for just about anything. If you get shot in the stomach

and don't die, you'd think its a miracle. This is not proof. Supernatural experiences are not

proof.

Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2004 12:47 am Post subject: Atheist FAQ



Q:So? People are making those "miracles" up and lying aren't they?

A:Well, it could be possible, but do you really think that millions upon millions of people make

up stories about miracles? Didn't think so.
__________

To what "miracles" are you refering? Are there indeed millions upon millions of these supposed

miracles? Do you know that there is not a practical explination for these occurances, whatever

they may be?

I'm not saying "millions upon millions," as you say, of stories are made up. But they can be

exagerated, misinterperated, etc. Still, I don't know exactly what "miracles" you are talking

about, so this is hard for me to argue.

__________
Q:Don't some people beleive that miracles are really always non-supernatural, or that they always

made up?

A:Yes. Those people are called morons.
__________

Wrong. Those people are called skeptics. People who believe whatever they are taught or whatever

they hear without question are the morons.

__________
Q:How can atheists be afraid of what they don't beleive in?

A:They do beleive in God, they just don't acknowledge it. EX:A man is overweight, he does not

admit that he is, and does not beleive that he is overweight. The reality is that he is, but

won't acknowledge it.
__________

Hmmm... where to begin???? And he was calling ME the moron.... heh...
You are posting this thread as if you have an iota of knoweledge as to what an atheist IS. An

atheist BY deffinition does not believe in a god or gods. You can't even come close to

understanding WHO atheists are if you are so confused about WHAT they are.

By saying all atheists not only believe your god exists, but deny its existance is absolutely

asinine. Your analogy of the overweight person is completely false. How can you equate something

as plainly visible as an overweight person to the invisible god you speak of? This is

perposterous. If you EVER talk with atheists, and you tell them that they truly believe in god,

but just won't admit it, they will laugh in your face. I'm laughing as I write this response. You

clearly have little understanding of anything outside of what you were taught.

__________
Q: christians beleive that atheists exist?

A:Some do. Some do not. I do not. I have never been presented with evidence that atheists are

indeed real. People that claim they are "atheists" i do beleive in, however.
__________

Atheists exist. How can you deny the existance of 8-12% of the American population, but you have

no problem in believing in this invisible silent deity?

_____________________________________________________________
Q:Thats different than usual, then why are there so many religions, and even arguements over what

the "truth" is in different religioius groups and churches?

A:Because people are prideful, and on the whole, morons. You need to look for yourself, and not

look for answers to what the truth is in churches or religions.
__________

Bingo.

__________
Q:What about the Bible? Why do christians beleive it is the Word of God?

A:Because(I hope) many of them realize what sets it apart from all man-made works. Do some

research and read about it.
__________

And what research demonstrates that it is the word of god? What sets it apart from other manmade

works? Even better: What sets it appart from any other mythology? What sets it apart from fairy

tales? Many Christian beliefs are quite similar to older, pagan beliefs. Birth of a savior of a

virgin, execution and resurection of the savior, baptism, immortality, holy meal representing

human flesh, and many others. All these beliefs and rituals are predated by mediterranian pagan

religions.

Maybe you shoud do some reasearch.

__________
Q:What about the age of the earth? Doesn't the evidence point to it being 4.5 billion years old?

A:It might. Noone knows for sure. It is my beleif, based on evidence that the earth was created

as if it had a history.
__________

Saying "no one knows for sure" is the biggest cop-out in the book. Science prooves that the earth

is over 4 billion years old. The only people who dispute this are Christian fundamentalists who

see some parts of science as a threat to what they teach or are taught.

With what evidence do you believe that a creator god created the earth AS IF it were billions of

years old? This belief is not supported by evidence. The evidence shows the earth IS billions of

years old. Your belief is just middle ground between the new-earth creationists and rational

people.

__________
Q:What is there evidence of that?

A:Other things were created as if they were already there before. Adam and Eve, animals, plants,

etc.
__________

You clearly have not a shadow of a clue of what the words "evidence" or "proof" mean.

__________
Q:What about evolution?

A:What about it? If you mean if it is true or not, then it depends on how you view the evidence.

Some say evolution happened, some say that literal genesis creation happened. My observation is

that the evidence points to literal genesis creation.
__________

The truth of evolution does not hang in the balance of how you view it. The given is that it

happened. The variable is whether or not you accept it.

Also, there seems to be this belief that if evolution is true, that automatically Christianity is

false. That is false. (Christianity is false for other reasons.) Evolution does not cancel out

the existance of god, or jesus or anything. The evidence does not point to a literal genesis

creation. Evolution is true, but you don't have to be afraid of believing in it. You can be a

Christian and an evolutionist at the same time.

__________
Q:Didn't you know that it is a fact that Humans evolved from lower apes?

A:Let me see it happen, and I'll beleive you.
__________

Get a time machine. We cannot observe evolution HAPPENING. It is a prossess that requires

millions of years. However, we observe that it HAPPENED. We have the fossil records, and what

exists now. You cannot watch evolution happen.

And why can you not apply the same methods of skeptical thinking to your god as you do to

demonstrated fact? Why do you have to see evolution, but not your god?

__________
Q:The global flood couldn't have happened, unless there were many miracles involved, right?

A:God is the creator of miracles.
__________

There is a key word to science: Falsify. If your belief, or hypothesis, cannot be falsified it is

not science. CHristianity cannot be falsified. Any time someone comes up with evidence that

something in the bible is false or impossible, you use the magic word "miracle." For that reason,

your belief is not scientific, it is religious, mythological, imaginary, etc.

__________
Q:Your religion is all lies, can't you see that?

A:I don't have a religion, what the heck are you talking about?
__________

I'm talking about Christianity, what are you talking about?
You also didn't respond to the "lies" part. Whether to you its a relationship or a religion,

(its a religion) the lies still exist.

__________
Q:Isn't that the same as we atheists claiming that energy and matter are eternal?

A:No. No atheist has ever claimed any supernatural properties of matter or energy that allow it

to be eternal. We know for a fact that God is above our understanding,. and His supernatural

ability of always having been is not understood either.
__________

"We know for a fact God is above our understanding." Well, if that's not paradox, what is?

Ok. Look up the following words in your dictionary: FACT, PROOF, EVIDENCE.

Ok, that said, who says anything about eternity is supernatural? Many believe the universe is

infinately large, so why can't time be infinate? Infact Einstein proved time and space are

closely interlocked, so its quite possible that it is true. Many atheists do believe in an

eternal universe, and others do not. Some don't have a belief either way. There is nothing

supernatural about eternity.

__________
Q:Isn't that the same as what we claim though?

A:No. We know the How, we just don't understand the How. Atheists neither give an explanation nor

understand it.
__________

EXACTLY. This is exactly what is WRONG with your belief. What is so hard about saying "I DON'T

KNOW?" You believe that a wrong answer is better than no answer at all. If I ask "why did the

universe come into being?" the honest answer for anyone is "I don't know!" because no on knows!

You would rather say something completely unsubstantiated, with no evidence, proof, or anything

to stand on at all, and say "god made it." You don't know that. Thats just a guess.

__________
Q:Okay. Do christians beleive atheists to be "fools"?

A:Yes. The Bible tells us those who beleive there is no God are fools, and reality tells us that

as well.
__________

And atheists believe Christians are fools, to generalize a bit as you did.

__________
Q:Can't you say anything good about atheists?

A:Yes, I do have something good to say about them. They are very creative coming up with their

outrageous fairy tales.
__________

Once again, we say the same about you. But hold on a second, what fairy tales have atheists

created? You're the one with the ancient mythology. You're the one with the talking snakes,

demons, angels, vengeful dieties, david and goliath, jonah and the whale, the resurections,

miracles. Those are your fairy tales. WHat are ours?

__________
Q:Can't you prove that your God is real?

A:Yes, and I have my proof. I can't give my personal experiances away, I can't make god reveal

Himself to you. You don't need that extreme of proof to know that God is real, though, you have

more than plenty already. The choice is yours alone to accept reality or to live in a play-world.

_____________________________________________________________

Proof is universal. It is proven that force = mass times acceleration. People didn't have to

discover it on their own, it is a universal truth. I don't need "extreme" proof. Proof is fine

enough. There is not "more than plenty" of proof; there is none. I have made my choice to live in

reality. I encourage you to leave your "play-world".
 
drooper of feathers said:
Q:Aren't christians worried that atheist numbers are growing?
A:Atheist numbers are shrinking. A liberal lie is all that is.
It is actually a fact. In the US and Canada, the number of "non believers" has approximately doubled in the last 10 years, growing from about 7% to about 14%. If the trend continues at this pace, (which it probably will, with people like droopfeather as the christian poster child) by around 2050, the religious will be out numbered by the non religious.
So...are christians worried? I hope they are not, regardless of the fact that the number of non believers is growing. Atheists in this country, generally are non aggressive, just want to be left alone, and are more than glad to let you worship your god how ever you see fit, as long as you do not limit our rights to ignore your god.

"I contend that we are both atheists, I just believe in one less god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods, then you will know why I dismiss yours."
Stephen F. Roberts
 
I love that quote it is one of my favorites.

I read through his addition to the "FAQ" and his "liberal lie" stood out as more perposterous than the rest. The percentage non-religious people has grown in the US, Canada and Europe undeniably over the past few decades. A new study shows that within the next year or so, Protestant Christians will no longer be the majority in the United States. This is partly due to the growth of the non-religious, but also the growth of alternative churches. The J-dubs (Jehova's Witnesses) are up in numbers :o scarry! Immigration of non-Protestants is also a factor, I'm sure.

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pi ... 4&refer=us

I don't expect Droopy to grasp reality on this one either. He'll surely dismiss it as a "liberal lie."
 
Is droopfeather going to reply to this, or has he gone into hiding?
 
I really don't understand it. Its a scientifically proven fact that atheists are weak, so he should have no problem tearing me to bits.


I'm waaaaaaaaiting.
 
Come on Dopefeather - we're waiting for your reply with baited breath. :fadein:
 
said--Saying "no one knows for sure" is the biggest cop-out in the book. Science prooves that the earth is over 4 billion years old.

LOL this is cute, science is the observation of nature, and certainly we have not observed the earth from the first day, so to say that science proves the age of the earth is silly. No, all that has happened is that scientist has interpreted the evidence according to there presumptions, and nothing more or less then that.

said--With what evidence do you believe that a creator god created the earth AS IF it were billions of years old?

LOL man this guy is funny, again God did not creat the earth to look like it was older or younger, that theory (and it is a theory) is based on some mens interpretation of the evidence based on presumptions.

For example the presume that rock layers indicate years of build up, and that they can determ the age of the earth by examining the rock layers. However, they did not observe the rock layers being formed so the idea that it took X years, is presumption.

The evidence only proves one thing, there are rock layers.

said--The truth of evolution does not hang in the balance of how you view it. The given is that it happened. The variable is whether or not you accept it.

WOW, can you believe this, after all that stuff about the evidence and so on, now we are told to take evolution on faith. That is amazing !!! Funny too after all the evidence is against the idea of evolution and not for it. But hey, we just take it on faith right??? LOL

said--Evolution is true, but you don't have to be afraid of believing in it. You can be a
Christian and an evolutionist at the same time.

This is just one of the most ignorant things I have heard before. Some get me a clue so I can send it to this guy, he needs it. Wooooooo

said--We have the fossil records, and what

Were?? Do we find these fossil marked and tagged with a date and what animal they where, and are about to become. LOL we don't have a fossil record, we have fossils and get this we do not have single transitional fossil, no missing link.

Thousands of fossils of all sort of kritters, but not one single middle of the line, missing link one. Well except for those which certain men faked. But hey, you know it happened do faked fossils are OK right.

said--"why did the universe come into being?" the honest answer for anyone is "I don't know!" because no on knows!

No you don't know, I know. Just becuase you do not know does not mean that other do not know, the univers came into being becuase GOD called it into being simple as that. But never the less, you can not impy your own ignorance onto others, if you don't know that does not mean that others don't know. We know :)

said--Proof is universal. It is proven that force = mass times acceleration.

Wait this is the same guy that said we have to take evolution on faith, and now he's back to this proof stuff again. Intersting how he convinently uses this "proof" thing as needed.

Weeeeee this fellow is a dinger, some one please get him a clue the guy is drowing in ignorance. HELP HIM!!!
 
said--With what evidence do you believe that a creator god created the earth AS IF it were billions of years old?
My response to this is simple. How old was Adam when God created him?
  • Adam was 1 DAY OLD. Now, how old did Adam appear to be? Not sure but he did appear to be a man!
So, we see that God has created things that APPEAR older than they actually are.
 
said--Saying "no one knows for sure" is the biggest cop-out in the book. Science prooves that the earth is over 4 billion years old.

LOL this is cute, science is the observation of nature, and certainly we have not observed the earth from the first day, so to say that science proves the age of the earth is silly. No, all that has happened is that scientist has interpreted the evidence according to there presumptions, and nothing more or less then that.

There are some deep problems with your reasoning in this. You are saying that for something to be accepted as fact, it has to be directly witnessed. Of course no one was around at the begining of the earth, so we have to use the clues that we have at our disposal. Its just like the scene of a crime. No one witnessed the murder, but we can tell that it was Sally, because her gun was fired, her gun was at the scene, her prints were on the gun, and her DNA was at the scene. We didn't need eyewitness accounts to tell that it was Sally.

This is the same situation with the age of the earth. We don't have any eyewitness accounts, so we're using the clues. The clues (ie scientific evidence) are sufficient to come to a conclusion that the earth is 4.55 billion years old.

FOr a scientific explination on how the age of the earth is scientifically determined, read this: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html

said--With what evidence do you believe that a creator god created the earth AS IF it were billions of years old?

LOL man this guy is funny, again God did not creat the earth to look like it was older or younger, that theory (and it is a theory) is based on some mens interpretation of the evidence based on presumptions.

For example the presume that rock layers indicate years of build up, and that they can determ the age of the earth by examining the rock layers. However, they did not observe the rock layers being formed so the idea that it took X years, is presumption.

The evidence only proves one thing, there are rock layers.

Well, I take it you disagree with droopy on the nature of the earth when it was newly created, so, although I was expecting an answer to my question, I'll simply respond to your arguments.

As I understand it, you believe that scientists simply looked at a mountain, or an outcropping of rock and said, "Ok, the earth is 4.55 billion years old, 1% margin of error." You simply do not understand the method used to determine the age of the earth. Refer to the above link.

And some of you may come forward with the same tired old young earth arguments. The moon dust, metals in the ocean, decaying magnetic field, blah blah blah. Well, here's the answers:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood.html

said--The truth of evolution does not hang in the balance of how you view it. The given is that it happened. The variable is whether or not you accept it.

WOW, can you believe this, after all that stuff about the evidence and so on, now we are told to take evolution on faith. That is amazing !!! Funny too after all the evidence is against the idea of evolution and not for it. But hey, we just take it on faith right??? LOL

Umm. Where did I say faith? Where did I say, "believe this, even though it can't be substantiated by science."? Evolution is substantiated by science. I simply urged you to accept it because its true. It is science.

Perhaps you do put some faith into the belief in evolution. Science if falsifiable. I'd also say you'd have to put faith into the belief that Alexander the Great lived, or Julius Caeser, or Christopher Columbus. Its not something I personally witnessed, but there is enough support for these things.

And I deffinately don't see where you are coming from, attacking something you believe is based on faith. This is a Christian forum, right? Am I missing something? Evolution requires the tinyest fraction of faith that you need to believe in your magical sky god and his devine myth book.

said--Evolution is true, but you don't have to be afraid of believing in it. You can be a
Christian and an evolutionist at the same time.

This is just one of the most ignorant things I have heard before. Some get me a clue so I can send it to this guy, he needs it. Wooooooo

Well, unless you're one of these people that changes the definition of Christianity to fit your specific beliefs, you're wrong. There are many Christian evolutionists; there are even scientists who are both. Perhaps you mean no fundamentalist Christian can be an evolutionist. With that, I agree. However, it sounds like you're saying if you're not a fundamentalist Christian, you're not a Christian. And at that, millions of Christians would be offended by your comment.

said--We have the fossil records, and what

Were?? Do we find these fossil marked and tagged with a date and what animal they where, and are about to become. LOL we don't have a fossil record, we have fossils and get this we do not have single transitional fossil, no missing link.

Thousands of fossils of all sort of kritters, but not one single middle of the line, missing link one. Well except for those which certain men faked. But hey, you know it happened do faked fossils are OK right.

I think I know what "faked" fossils your refering to. The peking man, and piltdown man. I love how creationists go flaunting these mistakes around as proof evolution is wrong, even though since being debunked, no one has ever taught how these are pre-human species leading up to modern man. There is already enough evidence with what we have now. Australopithicine fossils date back 5 million years, these australopithicus species end at about 2-1 MYA, overlapped and followed by the homo halbilis, then homo erectus, and early homo sapiens. Neanderthals also existed, but we did not decend from them, we had a common ancestor, but they turned out to be an evolutionary dead end.

But anyways, the "no transitional fossils" argument is rather loaded. The problem is humans, not nature, invent the deffinitions for species and so on. So maybe there's no fossils directly between two species. That is because fossils are so scarce, and excavated land is such a tiny percentage of the land on earth. Also, species is a very specific deffinition. We have seen, however, change from fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, reptile to mamal, and reptile to bird.

This link should help. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

said--"why did the universe come into being?" the honest answer for anyone is "I don't know!" because no on knows!

No you don't know, I know. Just becuase you do not know does not mean that other do not know, the univers came into being becuase GOD called it into being simple as that. But never the less, you can not impy your own ignorance onto others, if you don't know that does not mean that others don't know. We know :)

You do not know. You believe; I do not believe. That is the difference between us. Neither of us know. That is our similarity.

You were the one skeptical of evolution and the age of the earth because no one was there to see it, but you take the word of some ancient book to be absolute fact. This is the greatest double standard imaginable. Why can't you apply the same principles of critical thinking you do to science as you do to religion? If there is one thing we as humans should be skeptical about, it should be religion. Your just taking someone's word as truth because they say they have the word of god, but can't know that.

said--Proof is universal. It is proven that force = mass times acceleration.

Wait this is the same guy that said we have to take evolution on faith, and now he's back to this proof stuff again. Intersting how he convinently uses this "proof" thing as needed.

No, I never said you need to take evolution on faith. You said that, and you were wrong. Of course I use proof whenever its needed. I also ask for proof whenever its needed. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. Evolution satisfies this. Christianity does not.

Weeeeee this fellow is a dinger, some one please get him a clue the guy is drowing in ignorance. HELP HIM!!!

A dinger? Ok.

Well, you can help me by responding to this. Also, not that I don't enjoy a good evolution vs. creationism debate, doesn't anyone have anything to say in response to what I said not pertaining to evolution? I'd definately like that.[/quote]
 
Collier said:
said--With what evidence do you believe that a creator god created the earth AS IF it were billions of years old?
My response to this is simple. How old was Adam when God created him?
  • Adam was 1 DAY OLD. Now, how old did Adam appear to be? Not sure but he did appear to be a man!
So, we see that God has created things that APPEAR older than they actually are.

They key word in my question was "evidence." You simply used scripture. Not good enough.
 
"Evidence" as you accept and define it. :-?
  • Christians have faith in the one God. You put faith in science or scientist.
The only "evidence" science has is how they choose to interpret it.
  • So you see, it is just a matter where you choose to put faith as to what you call "evidence". However, my last post more than makes up the difference in appearance and actuality.
 
BenjaminTC

said--They key word in my question was "evidence." You simply used scripture. Not good enough.

The key word is INTERPRETATION of the evidence. And we do not JUST use scripture, though that would be good enough. Scripture is backed by what we can see, but if you are not taking the time to study it in deapth then you can not know that.

The bible for example says there was a city name UR, for the longest time the scpeptics said "UR is just a myth, we know the bible is myth becuase it talks about mythilogical places" Well SCIENCE, more specifically archeology found the city of UR WOOOO...... it was a real place after all.

The funny thing is that Science actually proves the bible to be true, but you are not told that by the sceptics they just move on to the next thing they believe is an error, and when they are shown that they are wrong AGAIN, they move on again.

Here is what cracks me up, you guys will say "There is not proof of God" and certainly reject all the proof there is, and say that we merely interpret it that way. Then on the other hand you say that we should accpept evolution, when there is no proof.

On one hand you say if you can not see clear proof of what we believe to be true, then you reject it. Yet on the other hand you believe what you do on faith, with out evidence or proof at all.

So, the problem is not evidence it is the way you choice to see it and interpret it and presume toward it. If we see a rock with a bug in it, all that really proves is that there is a rock with a bug in it, the rest is conjecture...it may be educated conjecture, but a geuss never the less.
 
The bible for example says there was a city name UR, for the longest time the scpeptics said "UR is just a myth, we know the bible is myth becuase it talks about mythilogical places" Well SCIENCE, more specifically archeology found the city of UR WOOOO...... it was a real place after all.

The funny thing is that Science actually proves the bible to be true, but you are not told that by the sceptics they just move on to the next thing they believe is an error, and when they are shown that they are wrong AGAIN, they move on again.

Here is what cracks me up, you guys will say "There is not proof of God" and certainly reject all the proof there is, and say that we merely interpret it that way. Then on the other hand you say that we should accpept evolution, when there is no proof.

If this is your "evidence" of God, it is a poor example.

No atheist I know of denies the antiquity of the Bible. Even the most conservative estimates place the oldest parts of the OT at around 800 BC. The bible is an important document to science for social, historical and anthropological reasons. No one denies that.

Because it was written over 2800 years ago, it is certain to reference contemporary places and people that have been lost to time. In the case of Ur, this is what happened.

All this proves is the bible is old, everyone agrees anyway. It's not like the bible mentioned Chicago, which would be much more convincing.
 
The key word is INTERPRETATION of the evidence.

Perhaps. BUt there is correct and incorrect interperatation of evidence. The correct interperatation is that hte earth is 4.55 billion years old. There is no 'reality relitivism' in science. There is fact. We have to figure out what it is. There are two ways to do this. We can look at the evidence and scientifically determine the age of the earth, or we can read old fairy tales and take them as absolute truth. Interperatation of evidence leads to one conclusion.

And we do not JUST use scripture, though that would be good enough.

Wrong twice. You only have scripture, and it isn't enough.

Scripture is backed by what we can see, but if you are not taking the time to study it in deapth then you can not know that.

First of all, I would advise you not to assume my level of knoweledge regarding the bible.

But regarding the first part of your sentence, I'd say you're right. Creationism says that the earth exists, and indeed you are corrrect. Creationism explains our existance. However, we need more than an explination. We need something to back it up.

I could say: The earth was created by three giants from the sun. They created the earth as it is today, and then they turned into mercury, venus and mars.

Well, this story checks out. It takes into account the existance of earth, and even celestial bodies. It does not conflict with the nature of the earth. It doesnt say the sky is green. It doesn't say people can fly. By your logic this could be the true story. It doesn't check out with scientists, because things have to be substantiated. The creation story is not. This loose convenient evidence is frankly unacceptable. Why do you reject every other mythological creation story but beleive without a doubt that the bible creation story is absolutely true?

The bible for example says there was a city name UR, for the longest time the scpeptics said "UR is just a myth, we know the bible is myth becuase it talks about mythilogical places" Well SCIENCE, more specifically archeology found the city of UR WOOOO...... it was a real place after all.

Is this proof that the bible is the word of god? Do you think that the only argument against the bible was saying that Ur existed? The bible is mythological for many reasons. You could find explinations for a handful, like finding the walls of Jericho, or the tower of babal. But the bible is just filled to the brim with fairy tales and mythology.

Saying the if the bible is right about somethings its right about everything is completely ludicrous. Let's say it becomes proven that Moses is a historical figure. Does that automatically prove that the plagues happened? Absolutely not.

So some things in the bible are true. That doesn't mean it is all true. It certainly doesn't mean it is devine. Believing so is specious.

The funny thing is that Science actually proves the bible to be true

I agree, that is very funny.

but you are not told that by the sceptics they just move on to the next thing they believe is an error, and when they are shown that they are wrong AGAIN, they move on again.

Well, I can't see how you would believe that about skeptics. Since I, a skeptic, have shown you dozens of things wrong with Christianity and you have not responded to the majority of them. The parts you have responded to you just say "well, we interperate it differently," and "the bible is sufficient evidence." You haven't shown me to be wrong, but if you'd like me to move on to a different subject relating to Christianity I still can. But your luck won't be any better.

Here is what cracks me up, you guys will say "There is not proof of God" and certainly reject all the proof there is, and say that we merely interpret it that way. Then on the other hand you say that we should accpept evolution, when there is no proof.

I find it quite ironic that you use the word "interperatation" so frequently, using it as your shield against reality while you completely misinterperate everything I say and scientists say.

I've said this before, but the proof cannot be the observation. Did you learn the scientific method? It goes: Observation, hypothesis, experiment, conclusion. The creationist method is: observation, conclusion. Often times, its just conclusion.

You do not interperate proof of god and concude that there is a god. You interperate an observation and conclude there is a god.

Do you understand what circular reasoning is?

I urge you to accept evolution because there is proof, not because there isn't. You don't quite understand what your conclusion is. You think that your belief is simply a interperatation of facts. No, it is a misinterperatation of facts. It is an interperatation of an observation.

On one hand you say if you can not see clear proof of what we believe to be true, then you reject it. Yet on the other hand you believe what you do on faith, with out evidence or proof at all.

Are you accusing me of having a double standard? A young earth creationist is accusing me of having a double standard. Hillarious.

I think I need not explain once again that there is proof of evolution, so I'll move on.

I concede that perhaps faith is needed to believe in evolution. BUt faith is needed to believe in most everything. To compare the ammount of faith required to believe in evolution as to the faith required to believe in hte bible is laughable. It is a fraction of an iota of that faith. So now you're accusing me of having a double standard because I believe in science rather than religion. Do you see the problem with your reasoning?

So, the problem is not evidence it is the way you choice to see it and interpret it and presume toward it. If we see a rock with a bug in it, all that really proves is that there is a rock with a bug in it, the rest is conjecture...it may be educated conjecture, but a geuss never the less.

You have not the faintest idea of what you're talking about. You take comfort in whenever a scientists makes a discovery, you can just say "he doesn't know that for sure," and you think your interperatation is just as valid as his.
 
Hi there!

Since I've been posting on the forums again. I see there are a whole new set of rules... and according to those rules, there has been a lot of flaming in this thread... baiting and brinking.


I'm going back to the opening thead and begin replying, but any further off-topic, trolling and baiting will be reported.


~serapha~
 
Q:Do Christians hate atheists?

A:No. One cannot be a christian and hate another human being. The two are incompatible.
__________

Well, history and reality disagree with you. But I know the ideal Christian shouldn't hate

others, I understand.
------------------

I note that you have not differentiated between the professing Christian and the nominal Christian, between the cultic and unorthodox Christian an the orthodox Christians, but you have put off Christian in a little box and label it as something you don't agree with.

Well, I am a professing Christian and I don't agree that you have an argument. True believers will love the sinner, yet hate the sin; love the athiest, yet dislike the profession. Nominal Christians live by a totally different standard as do unorthodox Christians.


~serapha~
 
Q: Do christians hate atheism, then?

A:I'm sure some(or many), do. Many realize how destructive and false it is, and therefore would

like to stop or obliterate the spread of atheism. It has caused too much damage to our world and

nation, and leads other harmful practices, lifestyles, etc.
__________

Destructive to what? The church? Christianity is destructive to free thought, free will,

scientific advancement, civil liberties, privacy, the list goes on... Please elaborate on what

atheism has done to harm society.
--------------



Quoting the Bible seems to offend you... but since it is the basis for Christianity, it needs to be included in the disucssion. Christians are set free from the bondages of sin. Athiesm simply lets go fof the guilt.

Letting go isn't "freedom", it is just passing the buck.

~serapha~
 
serapha said:
Q: Do christians hate atheism, then?

A:I'm sure some(or many), do. Many realize how destructive and false it is, and therefore would

like to stop or obliterate the spread of atheism. It has caused too much damage to our world and

nation, and leads other harmful practices, lifestyles, etc.
__________

Destructive to what? The church? Christianity is destructive to free thought, free will,

scientific advancement, civil liberties, privacy, the list goes on... Please elaborate on what

atheism has done to harm society.
--------------



Quoting the Bible seems to offend you... but since it is the basis for Christianity, it needs to be included in the disucssion. Christians are set free from the bondages of sin. Athiesm simply lets go fof the guilt.

Letting go isn't "freedom", it is just passing the buck.

~serapha~


It's not that the Bible offends, it's just that using the Bible to back up the Bible, or using the Bible to back up God, and then using God to back up the Bible always leads to circular reasoning and bad logic.
 
It's not that the Bible offends, it's just that using the Bible to back up the Bible, or using the Bible to back up God, and then using God to back up the Bible always leads to circular reasoning and bad logic.

I agree. The bible does not offend me. I know your beliefs, that's why I ask for practical answers. I ask for real life examples. Show me how atheism has, historically, been destructive to society.

I note that you have not differentiated between the professing Christian and the nominal Christian, between the cultic and unorthodox Christian an the orthodox Christians, but you have put off Christian in a little box and label it as something you don't agree with.

Well, I am a professing Christian and I don't agree that you have an argument. True believers will love the sinner, yet hate the sin; love the athiest, yet dislike the profession. Nominal Christians live by a totally different standard as do unorthodox Christians.


~serapha~

Like I have said, I understand ideal Christians do not hate. However, you are saying people who do not live up to the ideal are not Christians. I disagree. I still see those who use the faith of Christianity to justify hate are still Christians, and often use scripture to back it up. (example: the god hates fags movement.) This is not a problem exclusively of Christianity; its a problem of religion. Benign religions such as Buddhism and many pagan religions have no problem with the 'live and let live' philosophy. However, Christianity, Islam, and perhaps some others have always felt the need to spread their word and make others submit to their teaching. Often it is has been forced on society. There is also a lot of pride in these religions. This 'we're right and you're wrong' philosophy is dangerous, and Islam and Christianity both suffer from it. These mentalities, if not the scriptures of the particular religions, breed hate, discrimination, and elitism.
 
So no one has anymore corrections or comments on what I've said?
 
Back
Top