Page 4 of 13 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 318

Thread: The Tangent Topic (Currently: Homosexuality and Religion)

  1. #76
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Hoenn
    Posts
    2,936

    Default

    Ok, I would like to preface my post with a quote:
    It is a capital mistake to theorize before you have all the evidence. It biases the judgment.-Sherlock Holmes

    I am afraid this is what has going on with most of the world today. Most people have made up their minds on what they want to believe before they even have any evidence. These are the most common biases I have come across:

    1) Seeing all the bad the comes from Religion(specifically Christianity) They conclude that religion is bad, and look for other biased evidence that backs them up, while making excuses for the evidence that says otherwise. -Believe me, I totally get this conclusion, as I have said before, there is a lot of bad in it, But the words and actions of morons are not rally worth paying attention to.

    2) The fact that they don't think its possible that god could see all the pain and suffering that is going on here, and still not do anything about it.-I will touch more on this later, but I can sympathize with this conclusion as well.

    3) The fact that they don't WANT there to be a god for them to be accountable for their actions to. They don't want to be told what's right and wrong, they want to decide that for themselves.- Once again, I can understand the reasoning behind this.

    Now, In this post, I will do my best to touch on these three topics and your past arguments as best I can.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    Historical accuracy and reliability of prophesy aren't analogous. Prophesy fulfillment and historically viable portions don't support one another. Even if prophesy came true every single time it was said to and was accredited to a God or god, it wouldn't prove the existence of a God. Proof of supernatural acts and proof of a God are different things entirely.
    Not to argue, but yes they do. History Proves that the events HAVE taken place, and archaeology is where we get WHEN they were said in the first place, by obtaining ancient writings like the dead sea scrolls.

    And I would like to point out that proof of supernatural acts then does prove that SOMETHING is out there that is beyond our CURRENT complete understanding, but-I repeat- what reason do we have not to trust this supernatural force to be what IT says it is? I would like to point out my earlier definition of a god:
    a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.

    That would fit this definition, and I repeat again for emphasis "what reason do we have not to trust 'it' to be what 'it' says it is?"

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    Well, we know physical matter existed, that physical matter by definition isn't "empty space". That the production of a self-replicating polymer is possible, that it could have survived. That evolution is a viable theory, which it absolutely is, and that the timeframe is correct, which it is. 13 billion years is an unbelievably long time, and to say that it isn't enough time without evidence is an argument from ignorance.
    I would like to add to my own list to help establish my point.

    1) Physical matter will have to exist, which would have been a statistical improbability in itself.

    2) Within the physical matter that existed, there would have had to be our planet

    3) The Planet had to be more than barren rock, and its location in our universe had a big effect on that

    4) there would have had been an abiogenesis of a single celled organism (or protein idk, I'm not a scientist)

    5) This protein would have had to survive long enough to reproduce

    6) The protein would have to have been in an environment that it could have survived in, which is another unlikely possibility

    7) This protein would have had to evolve into a higher species. Which is a scientific and scientific IMPOSSIBILITY http://www.icr.org/article/493/

    8) All of this had to happen like clockwork all in the course of the age of the universe which is 13 billion years, simply not enough time for this to have happen.

    I would also like to mention that if you google "Is evolution possible?" it'll take you a while to find an article that supports evolution, and even when you do, it sounds desperate.

    Once you eliminate the IMPOSSIBLE, whatever remains, however IMPROBABLE must be the truth. - Sherlock Holmes


    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    Have you ever heard of the anthropic principal? We're looking at things as if they care whether or not we exist. The natural world doesn't care. The chances that a leaf will fall onto a specific spot on the ground are astronomically low, but it will fall, and will land somewhere. It's the same with the universe. It does exist, did have a start and the chances for it to take any course of action are astronomically low, and we only see that as odd because we exist to observe it. That's a bias because if we didn't exist to say how odd it is we exist, it wouldn't be odd at all. That's the anthropic principal.
    You are suggesting a paradox. It is simply an insane notion, the real question SHOULD be "Because we exist, and we think its odd, shouldn't that tell us something?"


    It is at this point that I would like to cite a documentary of sorts http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpOWvPVHlAI It originally was a DVD but someone ripped it to youtube.

    and This

    http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_evide...inely_inspired



    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    I'll ask again: if those who had no knowledge of morality (good and evil) were told it's evil to eat from the tree, why should they care?
    Hence why Eve is the one that sinned. According to the Bible, Adam existed for some time before he sinned, it says that he became "Friends with god". That would have given him a sense of morality (maybe not a huge one, but still). But Eve had not been on earth as long as Adam was. And the only reason that Adam sinned, was because he wanted to be with his wife.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    Omnipotence is theoretically impossible to turn on and off. It's a state of being.
    Oh really?
    This is another example of HUMAN definitions. We have no clue what Omnipotent is, and thus cannot accurately define it.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    If you are capable of knowing what was going to happen, knew that Satan would escape, knew that humanity would fall, and still engineered the situation, are you immoral? He literally created man knowing that he would be sending anyone that failed to accept the dogma he would later create to hell, which is, at the very least, not a very nice place to be. To do something such as that is a moral repugnance.
    Hell doesn't exist, there is no mention of it in the bible. The WORD hell is there, but it does not mean what everyone thinks it means. It literally means "The Grave".
    I will touch more on the reason its not immoral for him to have let good humans suffer and die.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    You said that God allows us to see how we've failed. Yes, we've made mistakes, but we are millions of times better than the bronze age. We are at the industrial peak of our existence.
    But not Happy, content, Free from fear, etc.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    If everyone does it, it's not extremism. It's your bible.
    If you say so.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    The bible is a book where the God commissions millions of deaths, and Satan kills about a dozen, some under God's order.
    Oh really, love to hear that.
    As I will get into later, there is a HUGE difference between CAUSING something to happen and ALLOWING it.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    Satan is the villain. He's the villain because he caused the fall of man that God necessarily engineered. People worship and praise the God of the bible, who was the biggest murderer in the history of fiction. Then people will say it's a perversion of the doctrine when people use it to justify slavery, misogyny, racial superiority, gay bashing, war, burning of "witches", and murder. I understand that there are good religious people, but that's not caused by their book. It's the person behind the dogma that really matters.
    Ok, I would like to make something clear. Just because god ALLOWED things to happen, does not mean he APPROVES of it. Again I will get in to this more later.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    Before I end with a quote, I ask you, what is your best evidence for the God of the Bible? What is your resolution for the problem of evil? What is your answer to my claim that God has killed or endorsed the killing of more people than any other character in history?
    My answer to these may be a bit long.

    Why would someone want to believe the bible? Its a valid question. Like you have mentioned, god could be considered the worst mass murderer in history.

    But I would like to cite the genesis account again, but look at it from a different standpoint. God created humans. The Devil convinced the humans to commit sin, in effect, saying that they can chose what THEY think is right and wrong, that THEY can rule themselves. So, what does god do? Think about this comparison:

    A teacher is teaching his class how to solve a math problem. One of his students speaks up, saying he has a BETTER way to solve the problem. How would the teacher react to the child's lack of respect and rebelliousness? He could have the child removed from class. Or, he could let the student get up and show the class how to solve the problem his way. If he had the student removed, the other students may wonder "was he right?", "was the teachers way wrong?" It would soon become clear that the student was right or wrong.

    That is what god has done today, he has ALLOWED humans to rule themselves over the course of time. Yes we may be at the top of the food chain, but people are rarely happy. There is crime, disease, and still death.

    But remember that when god put Adam and Eve on earth, he did not WANT them to sin, and what would have happened if they hadn't? They would have lived forever.

    Now the bible is full of prophesies, including some that say that God is once again going to take back the earth (the teacher finally removing the rebellious student after he failed at proving his way). When he does, those who were faithful to him (students who sided with the teacher) will rewarded.

    John 5: 28, 29 “Do not be amazed at this, for the hour is coming in which all those in the memorial tombs will hear his voice and come out.”

    The bible says that god will resurrect those who had died to eternal life on a perfect earth. One verse even says that "there will be a resurrection of the righteous AND the unrighteous" (acts 24:15)meaning that he would give people a second chance. So god cannot be considered the murderer of people, when he plans on bringing them back.

    And this also indicates that god currently is not in control of the earth, the Devil is. He has ALLOWED that to happen.

    And the Bible gives many promises about what the world will be like when god DOES take back the earth.

    Isaiah 33:24
    And no resident will say "I am sick"

    Revelation 21:4
    And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning no crying be any more. The former things have passed away.


    Isaiah 65: 21, 22 They will build houses and live in them, and they will plant vineyards and eat their fruitage. They will not build for someone else to in habit, nor will they plant for others to eat. For the days of my people will be like the days of a tree, and the work of their hands my chosen ones will enjoy to the full.



    What person would not want to live in a place like that? And as I have debated this entire time, this in not a belief withought cause. We have reason to believe it, and its what most people actually WOULD WANT.




    I think I have made my points quite clear.
    #PokemonUltraMoon #PokemonVGC2017


  2. #77
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    1,947

    Default

    "It is a capital mistake to theorize before you have all the evidence. It biases the judgment."

    - Sherlock Holmes

    Yep, he said that and many other profound things.

    Sadly, he was a fictional character created by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, who, despite being a brilliant author, had some beliefs regarding religion that are considered rather... Bizarre today. He was a member of a Christian Spiritualist group, an offshoot of Spiritualism as a whole, encouraged the Spiritualists' National Union to add an principle to their dogma, that of following the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth (they didn't do so), and was also a member of a group called The Ghost Club, whose goal was to study alleged supernatural activities in order to prove (or if necessary, refute) them. (By the way, he was a close friend of Harry Houdini, who was known for exposing charlatan mediums.)

    In other words, Ansem, the actual man you quoted, ironically, was some who, much like the fundamentalists of today was someone who thought he could pick and choose what parts of the Bible applied, and which ones did not. Just like the anti-gay marriage crowd keeps trying to cram that dumb passage from Leviticus down our throats but quickly goes silent when we mention the parts of the Good Book that say slavery is okay and working on Sunday is a sin punishable by death.

  3. #78
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    ---
    Posts
    935

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ansem the wise View Post
    I am afraid this is what has going on with most of the world today. Most people have made up their minds on what they want to believe before they even have any evidence.
    Actually, the primary motivator for becoming an atheist, at least in my experience with my fellows, is an profound acceptance of a skeptical worldview. I haven't met a single person who looked at the world's evil and gave up their faith right then and there. Sure, there are people like that, and even more than lose faith due to the argument from evil, but nobody that I have ever met my entire life has given up religion in order to avoid accountability or escape their grief.

    More often I see people who get around these problems who are Christian, because they can get forgiveness or confide in their God. It's clearly much simpler than lacking belief.

    And I would like to point out that proof of supernatural acts then does prove that SOMETHING is out there that is beyond our CURRENT complete understanding, but-I repeat- what reason do we have not to trust this supernatural force to be what IT says it is?
    This is really clear, at least for me. There's no evidence apart from the supernatural events, in this hypothetical, that would support the existence of a God. It could literally be anything, or even another god posing as God, or another power we can't comprehend fooling with us. We don't know. This is assuming there was an ounce of credibility in the assertion that prophesies actually manifested themselves in reality, which didn't happen.

    1) Physical matter will have to exist, which would have been a statistical improbability in itself.
    How so? Even if it is, the only way we could view it as such an improbable event is if it occurred, which is anthropic bias.

    2) Within the physical matter that existed, there would have had to be our planet
    Nope, there would only have to be a planet with similar composition to our planet that has high potential for life.

    3) The Planet had to be more than barren rock, and its location in our universe had a big effect on that
    Sure, but there are thousands of suitable planets already discovered. We're in the process of determining suitable planets from Kepler's thousands of candidates.
    http://science.time.com/2013/08/16/t...ion-continues/


    4) there would have had been an abiogenesis of a single celled organism (or protein idk, I'm not a scientist)
    Or panspermia, or a process we don't yet know about...

    5) This protein would have had to survive long enough to reproduce
    ... Sure

    6) The protein would have to have been in an environment that it could have survived in, which is another unlikely possibility
    If it was created in an environment, it would likely be able to survive in that environment, considering it contains its vital elements.

    7) This protein would have had to evolve into a higher species. Which is a scientific and scientific IMPOSSIBILITY http://www.icr.org/article/493/
    This is unacceptable as evidence, first of all. Find an accredited scientific institute of a valid news source, but don't use "creation science".
    Also, this has long been disproven.
    http://phys.org/news/2010-12-mathema...evolution.html


    8) All of this had to happen like clockwork all in the course of the age of the universe which is 13 billion years, simply not enough time for this to have happen.
    Not sure what you mean by "this", but evolution is within its timeframe, and by the fact that we exist we know that panspermia/abiogenesis/another method of the first cell's creation is within its timeframe too.
    You are suggesting a paradox. It is simply an insane notion, the real question SHOULD be "Because we exist, and we think its odd, shouldn't that tell us something?"
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
    Critics of the SAP argue in favor of a weak anthropic principle (WAP) similar to the one defined by Brandon Carter, which states that the universe's ostensible fine tuning is the result of selection bias: i.e., only in a universe capable of eventually supporting life will there be living beings capable of observing any such fine tuning, while a universe less compatible with life will go unbeheld.
    No, stating out existence is odd is inherently biased because we exist. If you want to argue the point, fine, but you have to understand the principle first,.

    I won't be watching the documentary because I don't want to deal with an argument from authority or something that isn't coming from you. That, and I respect your time so I expect you to respect mine. I don't want to waste an hour on a video when you can find the info yourself. Now, if you want to make a claim and provide a wiki to source it, that's ok, usually. But if you just give me the article I won't bother to refute all of it. Please be concise and respect my time, I'm doing the same for you.

    Hence why Eve is the one that sinned. According to the Bible, Adam existed for some time before he sinned, it says that he became "Friends with god". That would have given him a sense of morality (maybe not a huge one, but still). But Eve had not been on earth as long as Adam was. And the only reason that Adam sinned, was because he wanted to be with his wife.
    This just makes the problem more profound. I disagree that Adam developed a sense of morality, as it's stated he was ignorant in the narrative, but that's not even the important part. The issue is and remains, why did Eve get punished for doing something that God knew she would do, that wasn't wrong, and that couldn't have been her fault due to her ignorance? Why would anyone be punished for something completely out of their control? It reminds me of generational debt, you know, back before humans developed a sense of societal morals... like the bronze age. Odd.

    Oh really?
    This is another example of HUMAN definitions. We have no clue what Omnipotent is, and thus cannot accurately define it.
    Human definitions are all there is. Don't you see how illogical this statement is? Omnipotent is the ability to do anything at any time, period. To make anything at all. If you want to say your God can "turn off" omnipotence then turn it back on, you are suggesting an intrinsically illogical God. Sure, omnipotence entails the ability to circumvent logical absolutes, but you're backing down from claiming an objective God if you suggest this.

    Hell doesn't exist, there is no mention of it in the bible. The WORD hell is there, but it does not mean what everyone thinks it means. It literally means "The Grave".
    http://www.openbible.info/topics/torture
    Do a search on the page for "hell". It certainly does exist as often described.

    But not Happy, content, Free from fear, etc.
    For the most part, we are. We are living better lives than anyone else has in the entirety of this specie's existence.

    Oh really, love to hear that.
    As I will get into later, there is a HUGE difference between CAUSING something to happen and ALLOWING it.
    Not for a God, who created the world and designed it to work as it does, knowing the consequences. Allowing something and causing it in that scenario are identical. Besides, it doesn't matter. It was at the order of God in the Bible for these massacres, slavery, rape, thievery, and atrocity occurred.


    God created humans. The Devil convinced the humans to commit sin, in effect, saying that they can chose what THEY think is right and wrong, that THEY can rule themselves. So, what does god do?
    In other words, that they can be free. Freedom over confinement, knowledge over ignorance. This seems to be a step forwards, and also something they had absolutely no control over.

    A teacher is teaching his class how to solve a math problem. One of his students speaks up, saying he has a BETTER way to solve the problem. How would the teacher react to the child's lack of respect and rebelliousness? He could have the child removed from class. Or, he could let the student get up and show the class how to solve the problem his way. If he had the student removed, the other students may wonder "was he right?", "was the teachers way wrong?" It would soon become clear that the student was right or wrong.
    Here's the real analogy:
    A teacher is teaching a math class to kids who have never seen numbers and don't know their significance. The teacher doesn't want the kids to learn math, either. When one of the kids is told to try to grasp the concepts, he's kicked out and faces whippings from the principal every day for the rest of his life, as well as whippings for his kids and his kid's kids.

    But remember that when god put Adam and Eve on earth, he did not WANT them to sin, and what would have happened if they hadn't? They would have lived forever.
    They weren't at fault. They were ultimately ignorant, they didn't know what was going on. They were being judged on a moral basis when the goal of their actions were to gain an understanding of morality. On top of all this, God knew all along, one could even say he orchestrated, this occurrence. Did he not know that this would be the final goal? If he knew, why didn't he change his plans? He could have made a perfect world, where people could choose but would never choose anything immoral or wrong.


    The bible says that god will resurrect those who had died to eternal life on a perfect earth. One verse even says that "there will be a resurrection of the righteous AND the unrighteous" (acts 24:15)meaning that he would give people a second chance. So god cannot be considered the murderer of people, when he plans on bringing them back.
    Yeah, cool. So if I found a device that brought people back to life, then brutally tortured and killed billions of people throughout the course of history only to bring them back, would I be immoral? After all, I brought them back. I clearly played with their lives, treated them like garbage, let them suffer tremendously and die horrific deaths, but I brought them back. No, you killed them in the first place. Bringing them back doesn't solve the issue.

    And this also indicates that god currently is not in control of the earth, the Devil is. He has ALLOWED that to happen.
    Like I said before, an omnipotent/omniscient being "allowing" something immoral to happen is the same as causing it. If I was omnipotent and I created a world where I knew everything is going to act out according to my design, then I have caused everything in that universe to happen in a specific way.

    What person would not want to live in a place like that? And as I have debated this entire time, this in not a belief withought cause. We have reason to believe it, and its what most people actually WOULD WANT.
    Wanting something and believing it should be separated. You haven't provided any evidence that a God exists even now. Let's go through the evidence for God as provided:

    1. Life as it exists is too improbable to have occurred naturally.
    Refutation: This is an argument from ignorance and is generally flawed. We are biased towards this conclusion of improbability by the anthropic principal. Natural occurrence is far more likely than it happening by any other means, and even if a deity were to have intervened, there is nothing to suggest that it was Yahweh.

    2. Prophesied events in the bible have come true; this proves God.
    Refutation: No they haven't. We see time and time again that these interpretations are very selective, or are simply flawed. We know that the NT was written by supporters of the religion after the fact, clearly trying to make prophesies come true and in many cases it's likely they simply wrote old ones in. Since this is the case, it's too shaky to consider as evidence.

    3. The bible was divinely inspired because it has supports odd views for the time that were true.
    Refutation: Another example of how you have to pick at the bible for any information. Was Earth flat or round? Most interpreted it as flat. They thought they were as right as you. Extend my arguments on feces from previous posts.

    I have argued that freedom and foreknowledge are incompatible, because design dictates a specific set of events that can't be changed by humans. This means that everything that has ever occurred has been incompatible with freedom, and thus caused God to be burdened with being the cause of everything. I can add to the negative thesis, but I'll let it sit for now. This post is way too long.

  4. #79
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Hoenn
    Posts
    2,936

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    Actually, the primary motivator for becoming an atheist, at least in my experience with my fellows, is an profound acceptance of a skeptical worldview. I haven't met a single person who looked at the world's evil and gave up their faith right then and there. Sure, there are people like that, and even more than lose faith due to the argument from evil, but nobody that I have ever met my entire life has given up religion in order to avoid accountability or escape their grief.

    More often I see people who get around these problems who are Christian, because they can get forgiveness or confide in their God. It's clearly much simpler than lacking belief.
    Well, I thought so too, but part of my "job description" involves discussing the bible, and honestly those are the ones that I have come across the most.

    Now as to how you came to that conclusion, I do not know every event that happened in your life so I can't and won't pretend I know. But As to it being a "skeptical world view"... The very definition of Skeptical is this:
    1: not easily convinced; having doubts or reservations.
    2: relating to the theory that certain knowledge is impossible.

    Especially if you are referring to the latter definition, then you hardly have a skeptical world view seeing as you are fighting hard AGAINST the existence of god when, having a skeptical view, you would simply accept that there are things that you don't know.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    This is really clear, at least for me. There's no evidence apart from the supernatural events, in this hypothetical, that would support the existence of a God. It could literally be anything, or even another god posing as God, or another power we can't comprehend fooling with us.
    Umm...Ok...Well, we don't really know all that much about god himself, mainly just the things that he has done and some facets of his personality. How exactly could "another god" fake being another god when an event occurred. And once again, even if it is POSSIBLE that the god of the bible is being "impersonated", what reason do we have to think that that is what happened?


    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    We don't know. This is assuming there was an ounce of credibility in the assertion that prophesies actually manifested themselves in reality, which didn't happen.
    there are over 2000 prophesies that came true in the bible, that article that you posted earlier didn't even disprove 5% of those. And most of them it didn't even disprove them, it just said in effect that Archaeology has not specifically found something that corresponded with that exact event yet. It has happened before where archaeology has backed up the bible, it will continue to happen, and so far, nothing has been found to DISprove the bible record.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    1) Physical matter will have to exist, which would have been a statistical improbability in itself.
    How so? Even if it is, the only way we could view it as such an improbable event is if it occurred, which is anthropic bias.

    what are the odds of a lump of gold matter appearing out of nowhere? And yet you expect me to believe that the whole universe did that?

    2) Within the physical matter that existed, there would have had to be our planet
    Nope, there would only have to be a planet with similar composition to our planet that has high potential for life.

    I was stating the chain of events leading to us standing on earth right now.

    3) The Planet had to be more than barren rock, and its location in our universe had a big effect on that
    Sure, but there are thousands of suitable planets already discovered. We're in the process of determining suitable planets from Kepler's thousands of candidates.
    http://science.time.com/2013/08/16/t...ion-continues/

    From all the articles I have read, there always was one problem, like "IT was just a little bit to big" "needed a moon" Etc.

    4) there would have had been an abiogenesis of a single celled organism (or protein idk, I'm not a scientist)
    Or panspermia, or a process we don't yet know about...

    Yet we have the bible, which is proof of the supernatural that is telling us that we were created.

    5) This protein would have had to survive long enough to reproduce
    ... Sure

    6) The protein would have to have been in an environment that it could have survived in, which is another unlikely possibility
    If it was created in an environment, it would likely be able to survive in that environment, considering it contains its vital elements.

    This is just a guess.

    7) This protein would have had to evolve into a higher species. Which is a scientific and scientific IMPOSSIBILITY http://www.icr.org/article/493/
    This is unacceptable as evidence, first of all. Find an accredited scientific institute of a valid news source, but don't use "creation science".
    Also, this has long been disproven.
    http://phys.org/news/2010-12-mathema...evolution.html

    This article is absurd. It would have to have happened all at one time or the organism would have died off, being a grotesque mess of limbs etc.
    http://english.pravda.ru/science/ear...roevolution-0/

    8) All of this had to happen like clockwork all in the course of the age of the universe which is 13 billion years, simply not enough time for this to have happen.
    Not sure what you mean by "this", but evolution is within its timeframe, and by the fact that we exist we know that panspermia/abiogenesis/another method of the first cell's creation is within its timeframe too.

    Whatever you say.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    You get on me about being ignorant. Yet this very principle is ignorance. Simple because a 1 in a trillion (being reasonable) event happened, then we shouldn't see it as odd? ......Ok then. Whatever you say.

    This very principle appears to have been created as a "we shouldn't question evolution".



    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    I won't be watching the documentary because I don't want to deal with an argument from authority or something that isn't coming from you. That, and I respect your time so I expect you to respect mine. I don't want to waste an hour on a video when you can find the info yourself. Now, if you want to make a claim and provide a wiki to source it, that's ok, usually. But if you just give me the article I won't bother to refute all of it. Please be concise and respect my time, I'm doing the same for you.
    I will respect your decision. But honestly, when debating something as large as the origin of life and the fate of the universe, I don't think that 42 minutes is much to ask. Just know that the link is still there if you change your mind.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    This just makes the problem more profound. I disagree that Adam developed a sense of morality, as it's stated he was ignorant in the narrative, but that's not even the important part.
    Just out of curiosity, where does it say that he was ignorant?


    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    The issue is and remains, why did Eve get punished for doing something that God knew she would do, that wasn't wrong, and that couldn't have been her fault due to her ignorance?
    1) The bible says that God created humans with "Free will" or the choice to do what they wanted, and while yes god is all knowing, other scriptures suggest that god uses his foreknowledge WHEN he wants to. Because he respects the fact that we have the choice to make our own decisions, and if he "saw the future" 100% of the time, he would not be giving us free will would he? He would be setting the future into stone. So he uses his foreknowledge when he wishes to.
    2) It WAS wrong for Eve to eat the fruit, because that was the one command that was given them. And One bible scholar pointed out to me (I'll have to find his article eventually) the bible never says anything about animals having eternal life, so Adam and Eve had seen death, they knew what it was, yet they still disobeyed.
    3) As I said before, she knew full well the consequences of what would happen, yet she chose her own path.



    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    Why would anyone be punished for something completely out of their control? It reminds me of generational debt, you know, back before humans developed a sense of societal morals... like the bronze age. Odd.
    I will get more into this later, but as I said before, it was completely in their own hands.




    [QUOTE=The Federation;16511571] Human definitions are all there is. Don't you see how illogical this statement is?
    Humans define things according to what they perceive is correct. That doesn't guarantee 100% accuracy, and again, they can be applied to things that are not 100% correct for the definition.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    Omnipotent is the ability to do anything at any time, period. To make anything at all.
    That is the HUMAN definition of omnipotence, whether or not that is 100% true of god......



    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    If you want to say your God can "turn off" omnipotence then turn it back on, you are suggesting an intrinsically illogical God. Sure, omnipotence entails the ability to circumvent logical absolutes, but you're backing down from claiming an objective God if you suggest this.
    What is illogical about granting your creation free will?

    Think about this for a minute:
    If you created a robot, and programmed it to have free will, have emotion, make its own choices etc. but you were all knowing, so the robot really couldn't make its own choices as they were already set in stone. If you could simply not view the future if you didn't want to, would you do it in a situation like that? Simply to see the robots interaction?

    Now I know that that may not be the best comparison in the world but still.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    It certainly does exist as often described.
    http://www.goodnewsaboutgod.com/studies/hellfire2.htm
    and
    http://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings.../what-is-hell/
    No it does not, this is what I was talking about in my earlier posts, most of Christianity does not actually follow what the bible says, it is mostly tradition that was founded after the bible was completed. In fact a good chunk of doctrines that people will quickly associate with Christianity are simply not found in the bible. Doctrines like Jesus dying on a cross(http://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings...-die-on-cross/) The trinity(http://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/trinity/ and http://www.ucg.org/booklet/god-trini...nity-doctrine/) Hellfire and others.



    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    For the most part, we are. We are living better lives than anyone else has in the entirety of this specie's existence.
    Our lives have become more CONVENIENT, not happier, and no sane person will tell you he doesn't live without fear that something bad could happen to him.
    And no one is content with what they have, they always want the "Next big thing".



    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    Not for a God, who created the world and designed it to work as it does, knowing the consequences. Allowing something and causing it in that scenario are identical. Besides, it doesn't matter. It was at the order of God in the Bible for these massacres, slavery, rape, thievery, and atrocity occurred.
    When a man embarks on a crime, he is morally responsible for all crimes that spring from it. - Sherlock Holmes

    Now, who was the one who commit the fist sin or "crime"? It was the Devil, not God, when he lied to Eve saying that she could eat the fruit and live.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    In other words, that they can be free. Freedom over confinement, knowledge over ignorance. This seems to be a step forwards, and also something they had absolutely no control over.
    Let me put it to you this way. Say you lived in a kingdom that had several laws, but everyone was happy and no one ever died or got sick. And then you have a second kingdom that has far fewer laws, but there was constant crime, people died and no one was happy. Which kingdom would you want to live in?


    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    Here's the real analogy:
    A teacher is teaching a math class to kids who have never seen numbers and don't know their significance. The teacher doesn't want the kids to learn math, either. When one of the kids is told to try to grasp the concepts, he's kicked out and faces whippings from the principal every day for the rest of his life, as well as whippings for his kids and his kid's kids.
    Now this is just wrong. God did expect his creations to follow rules, at the time of the events in genesis, they only had one command, which they still broke. And they knew the consequences as I have stated earlier. I will make an illustration comparing this in a minute.



    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    They weren't at fault. They were ultimately ignorant, they didn't know what was going on. They were being judged on a moral basis when the goal of their actions were to gain an understanding of morality. On top of all this, God knew all along, one could even say he orchestrated, this occurrence. Did he not know that this would be the final goal? If he knew, why didn't he change his plans? He could have made a perfect world, where people could choose but would never choose anything immoral or wrong.
    If we could never chose something immoral then people would always wonder what would happen if they did. As I have said before, God plans on re-making this earth exactly the way he had planned it in genesis, but after the events we have seen in human history, we will see that humans cannot rule one another, and that Gods way of rule (even if it has a few laws) will be best.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    Yeah, cool. So if I found a device that brought people back to life, then brutally tortured and killed billions of people throughout the course of history only to bring them back, would I be immoral? After all, I brought them back. I clearly played with their lives, treated them like garbage, let them suffer tremendously and die horrific deaths, but I brought them back. No, you killed them in the first place. Bringing them back doesn't solve the issue.
    Let me put it this way:
    Say you are a mountain guide, and you are helping a family on a hike. Along the way, you do many things to help the family and prove that you are trustworthy. Now, you stop to rest and eat. You go looking for food with the family when you see some berries and you say "Be careful, if you eat those berries then it will give you a disease that will cut short your life, give you intense pain, and many other problems and it will spread to anyone you come into contact with." Now, they ignore you despite you having given them reason to trust you. If they eat it are you at fault? Of course not!

    And If you could bring them back to life would you? You most likely would.

    This is what happened. Humans rebelled, and now god is allowing time for us to rule ourselves, and when it becomes obvious that we can't, then he will step in, destroy all cause of pain, and give all those deserving eternal life ON EARTH as he intended when he created the earth. And once that has happened, then no one can say "my way of morality and ruling is better" because we will have the history of humans to prove it.




    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    1. Life as it exists is too improbable to have occurred naturally.
    Refutation: This is an argument from ignorance and is generally flawed. We are biased towards this conclusion of improbability by the anthropic principal. Natural occurrence is far more likely than it happening by any other means, and even if a deity were to have intervened, there is nothing to suggest that it was Yahweh.

    2. Prophesied events in the bible have come true; this proves God.
    Refutation: No they haven't. We see time and time again that these interpretations are very selective, or are simply flawed. We know that the NT was written by supporters of the religion after the fact, clearly trying to make prophesies come true and in many cases it's likely they simply wrote old ones in. Since this is the case, it's too shaky to consider as evidence.

    3. The bible was divinely inspired because it has supports odd views for the time that were true.
    Refutation: Another example of how you have to pick at the bible for any information. Was Earth flat or round? Most interpreted it as flat. They thought they were as right as you. Extend my arguments on feces from previous posts.
    1. Life as it exists is too improbable to have occurred naturally.
    The supernatural events contained in the bible(including prophesies) prove that there are "things" out there. And what reason do we have to think that it was not Yaweh? And Evolution simply is impossible as has been stated.

    2. Prophesied events in the bible have come true; this proves God.
    Aye. At the very least it proves the supernatural, and then as I have stated before(many times) We have no reason not to trust that Yahweh(Jehovah) is who he says he is.

    3. The bible was divinely inspired because it supports odd views for the time that were true.
    This is what is called "being in harmony" or "being unable to contradict". Science has not been able to disprove these, simply because they are true. To chalk extremely unlikely events to chance is just plain ignorance.
    #PokemonUltraMoon #PokemonVGC2017


  5. #80
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    1,947

    Default

    As I said before, Ansem, saying that something "Can't be disproven" means squat. It is not a valid argument that it's legit.

    If I said that "it's possible that leprechauns are real because their existence can't be disproven", I technically wouldn't be lying. (Can you disprove the existence of leprechauns? Are you beginning to see how ridiculous people like me find the "It's can't be disproven" statement?")

    Only when something can be proven is a legit theory. And in order to prove something, it must be possibly to do so, starting with a hypothesis, then an experiment (with a control for comparison, otherwise it's meaningless) and then repeated.

    Only then, can it truly be legit, and proven. If not, the original hypothesis is "proven incorrect and debunked". (NOT "disproven".)

    There is no such thing as "disproven" with legitimate theories. You only "prove something is right" or "prove something is wrong".

    And until someone can prove the existence of a higher power, religion has no place in American politics or law. Period. The Bible is worthy of no more attention by this country's lawmakers than Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone.

  6. #81
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Hoenn
    Posts
    2,936

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maedar View Post
    As I said before, Ansem, saying that something "Can't be disproven" means squat. It is not a valid argument that it's legit.

    If I said that "it's possible that leprechauns are real because their existence can't be disproven", I technically wouldn't be lying. (Can you disprove the existence of leprechauns? Are you beginning to see how ridiculous people like me find the "It's can't be disproven" statement?")

    Only when something can be proven is a legit theory. And in order to prove something, it must be possibly to do so, starting with a hypothesis, then an experiment (with a control for comparison, otherwise it's meaningless) and then repeated.

    Only then, can it truly be legit, and proven. If not, the original hypothesis is "proven incorrect and debunked". (NOT "disproven".)

    There is no such thing as "disproven" with legitimate theories. You only "prove something is right" or "prove something is wrong".

    And until someone can prove the existence of a higher power, religion has no place in American politics or law. Period. The Bible is worthy of no more attention by this country's lawmakers than Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone.
    As I said before, the prophesies in the bible prove a supernatural plane. Why should we not trust it to be what it says it is?

    And the reasoning you use would work for my side too

    Abiogenesis and Evolution cannot be proven. Yet you speak of them like they are fact, when, in reality, it not only did not happen, its impossible.

    “Wherever he steps, whatever he touches, whatever he leaves, even unconsciously, will serve as a silent witness against him. Not only his fingerprints and his shoeprints, but also his hair, the fibers from his clothes, the glass he breaks, the tool mark he leaves, the paint he scratches, the blood or semen he deposits or collects. All these and more bear mute witness against him. This is evidence that does not forget. It is not confused by the excitement of the moment. It is not absent because human witnesses are. It is factual evidence. Physical evidence cannot be wrong, it cannot perjure itself, it cannot be wholly absent. Only human failure to find it, study and understand it can diminish its value.”
    That is a quote from Paul Kirk, it can just as easily apply to evolution. It would have left a trace if it did happen. But it didn't, so therefore, not having evidence of it happening, makes perfect sense.
    #PokemonUltraMoon #PokemonVGC2017


  7. #82
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    1,947

    Default

    Strange you mention the Theory of Evolution.

    http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/project...ticanview.html

    Seems that both Pope Pious XII and Pope John Paul II (who is very close to sainthood right now) are more willing to accept new ideas than you are.

    I should also mention that Pope Francis has decided to turn the church's attention away from the issue of homosexuality. (And it is hurting their reputation, so I can't blame them. Honestly, I stopped going to church after the priest read a letter from the bishop telling me who to vote for. Exactly why a jerk like Dolan qualifies to be a Cardinal is beyond me.)

  8. #83
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    ---
    Posts
    935

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ansem the wise View Post
    Well, I thought so too, but part of my "job description" involves discussing the bible, and honestly those are the ones that I have come across the most.
    If that's true, I am willing to be that they haven't done any research and recently left the faith in the past year. Most people with those reasons just want their doubts alleviated, even if doing so takes no real evidence and only convincing on the explainer's part.

    1: not easily convinced; having doubts or reservations.
    2: relating to the theory that certain knowledge is impossible.
    They're a little simplistic, but I can accept those definitions. I'm not a radical skeptic, though; I'm a foundationalist.

    Especially if you are referring to the latter definition, then you hardly have a skeptical world view seeing as you are fighting hard AGAINST the existence of god when, having a skeptical view, you would simply accept that there are things that you don't know.
    You misunderstand the definitions you have. The first, I would say, is every day layman skepticism, which I can accept, but the second is philosophical skepticism, which only crazies accept. Fighting against an idea because it hasn't met its BoP is not "anti-skeptical".

    How exactly could "another god" fake being another god when an event occurred. And once again, even if it is POSSIBLE that the god of the bible is being "impersonated", what reason do we have to think that that is what happened?
    I don't know what you mean by the first sentence, but as you say, we don't know a god's nature, and as such, we don't know a creator isn't just a trickster god via Greek and Norse mythology. We have the same reasons to believe this is true as we do your own God exists, because we'll never know whether this suggestion is true. It's an unfalsifiable hypothesis, just like the Xtian Yahweh.

    there are over 2000 prophesies that came true in the bible, that article that you posted earlier didn't even disprove 5% of those. And most of them it didn't even disprove them, it just said in effect that Archaeology has not specifically found something that corresponded with that exact event yet. It has happened before where archaeology has backed up the bible, it will continue to happen, and so far, nothing has been found to DISprove the bible record.
    The Bible record? Do you mean to say its historical accuracy? Because we know much of that is false.

    Here's why we can't accept prophesy:
    The Forer Effect. People will see causal connections where there are none. This can also be called "cherry picking". If you are saying that the Bible actually has prophesies that have yet to come true, you should be able to tell me when and where these events will occur, but most people can't and the number of failures to predict the end times is staggering. Add in the translation issues, too, and you really see the effects of bias.

    Speaking of bias, I also suggested the NT writers could have fulfilled the different prophesies by writing them in, then later church organizations did the same thing, and the whole time people actively tried to fulfill those prophesies. Prophesy must be cherry-picked to have any appearance of reality at all.

    You get on me about being ignorant. Yet this very principle is ignorance. Simple because a 1 in a trillion (being reasonable) event happened, then we shouldn't see it as odd? ......Ok then. Whatever you say.

    This very principle appears to have been created as a "we shouldn't question evolution".
    So you're giving me points 1-8?

    The anthropic principal was created in an attempt to understand why humans are so inclined to believe the universe was fine-tuned, when there's no evidence at all suggesting it was or that it could have been. Like my analogy with leaves, a 1 in a trillion chance isn't rare, it's just as common as any other result in that scenario. Because we can sit and wonder the rarity of the event means that the event occurred, not that the universe was fine-tuned.

    I will respect your decision. But honestly, when debating something as large as the origin of life and the fate of the universe, I don't think that 42 minutes is much to ask. Just know that the link is still there if you change your mind.
    If I gave you several hour long documentaries, you wouldn't watch them. Regardless, a debate isn't about making your opponent watch documentaries. You make your own points from the information you yourself have compiled.

    Just out of curiosity, where does it say that he was ignorant?
    It actually says it a few times.

    Genesis 3:4, 5, 22

    1) The bible says that God created humans with "Free will" or the choice to do what they wanted, and while yes god is all knowing, other scriptures suggest that god uses his foreknowledge WHEN he wants to. Because he respects the fact that we have the choice to make our own decisions, and if he "saw the future" 100% of the time, he would not be giving us free will would he? He would be setting the future into stone. So he uses his foreknowledge when he wishes to.
    It only matters if it was used during the creation of the universe. If he created the universe with divine foreknowledge or has the quality of omnipresence, my argument stands.

    2) It WAS wrong for Eve to eat the fruit, because that was the one command that was given them. And One bible scholar pointed out to me (I'll have to find his article eventually) the bible never says anything about animals having eternal life, so Adam and Eve had seen death, they knew what it was, yet they still disobeyed.
    They didn't have knowledge of morality. How can they be expected to know the divine differentiation between good and evil when they themselves lack it? Knowing the consequences is part of forming a moral structure, and since they lacked the ability to do so, they cannot be held accountable.

    3) As I said before, she knew full well the consequences of what would happen, yet she chose her own path.
    Yes, the consequences. Knowing them makes no difference, because she didn't have knowledge of good and evil, making any act, in her mind, morally equivocal. This answer doesn't account for the trickery of Satan in the narrative, however. Extremely ignorant people are expected to see through trickery of the highest possible degree? This coming from a "moral" God, who should have simply forgiven them in the first place.

    I will get more into this later, but as I said before, it was completely in their own hands.
    In their trembling, ignorant, easily fooled hands. And you neglected to explain why it's moral to punish a whole species for two individual's mistakes. That would be like killing all fish because one day one bit you.

    Humans define things according to what they perceive is correct. That doesn't guarantee 100% accuracy, and again, they can be applied to things that are not 100% correct for the definition.
    That is the HUMAN definition of omnipotence, whether or not that is 100% true of god......
    Sure, if you want to argue that the nature of God is unknown and potentially unknowable, that's fine. However, you can't claim anything about his nature, that he's good, that he's capable of creation, that he knows everything, etc, because you yourself said human definitions are flawed.

    What is illogical about granting your creation free will?

    Think about this for a minute:
    If you created a robot, and programmed it to have free will, have emotion, make its own choices etc. but you were all knowing, so the robot really couldn't make its own choices as they were already set in stone. If you could simply not view the future if you didn't want to, would you do it in a situation like that? Simply to see the robots interaction?
    That would be like randomly programming a robot, not knowing if you set it on a killing spree or a charity run. It's immoral, first of all. Secondly, if you "turned off" your ability to see the future, you still have already seen the future. You would have to suggest that God cannot see the future at all, if you want to claim this.



    No it does not, this is what I was talking about in my earlier posts, most of Christianity does not actually follow what the bible says, it is mostly tradition that was founded after the bible was completed. In fact a good chunk of doctrines that people will quickly associate with Christianity are simply not found in the bible.
    Your first link literally says "we have to look at the bible's use of the world, 'fire'". Really? I could argue that the way "fire" is used here and how it's used in Revelations, for example, are completely different, but I won't. It neglects to resolve 2 Peter 2:4, Matthew 10:28, James 3:6, and Mark 9:43-48. This furthers the many, many contradictions in the bible and even contradictions of interpretations.

    Our lives have become more CONVENIENT, not happier, and no sane person will tell you he doesn't live without fear that something bad could happen to him.
    And no one is content with what they have, they always want the "Next big thing".
    That's completely unfalsifiable, as well as absurd. How do you know nobody is like that? What if I said I was like that? I can say I don't live in fear, and that most people who don't have clinical paranoia don't either. I can't say if anyone is satisfied with what they have, but I'll bet in over 7 billion people there's a few thousand at least.

    Now, who was the one who commit the fist sin or "crime"? It was the Devil, not God, when he lied to Eve saying that she could eat the fruit and live.
    So just because I wouldn't be the first to kill someone, it justifies me doing it?

    Let me put it to you this way. Say you lived in a kingdom that had several laws, but everyone was happy and no one ever died or got sick. And then you have a second kingdom that has far fewer laws, but there was constant crime, people died and no one was happy. Which kingdom would you want to live in?
    The first kingdom has invulnerable slaves, wand the second has moral men? I'm going with the ability to live over the ability to never die, all the time, every time.

    ...humans cannot rule one another, and that Gods way of rule (even if it has a few laws) will be best.
    No, government works. As a whole, humanity has greatly benefitted from government. Again, I would take my free will over freedom from death and disease any day.

    Say you are a mountain guide, and you are helping a family on a hike. Along the way, you do many things to help the family and prove that you are trustworthy. Now, you stop to rest and eat. You go looking for food with the family when you see some berries and you say "Be careful, if you eat those berries then it will give you a disease that will cut short your life, give you intense pain, and many other problems and it will spread to anyone you come into contact with." Now, they ignore you despite you having given them reason to trust you. If they eat it are you at fault? Of course not!
    Once again, let me edit this to make it representative of the actual text.

    You are a mountain guide, taking two kids who haven't yet developed morals and only have a menial grasp on consequence. You look for food and a sly fox, worlds more crafty than the kids, tricks them into eating berries that were planted by the guide, knowing their danger and the fact that kids are far more likely to disobey than people who grasp the situation. The guide, knowing this would happen, has more or less condemned the kids and their children and their children's children to hellish punishment. To create beings and then enact laws that go directly against their nature is disgusting, really.

    And If you could bring them back to life would you? You most likely would.
    No, I would completely re-create the scenario to give people lives of freedom while also living forever and lacking disease, etc. That's what an ordinarily moral human would do, and it's infinitely more moral than the God proposed.

    The supernatural events contained in the bible(including prophesies) prove that there are "things" out there. And what reason do we have to think that it was not Yaweh? And Evolution simply is impossible as has been stated.
    I have already refuted your claims on evolution, more than once, in more than one way. I also refuted the "supernatural event" claim, and even went on to refute the claim that supernatural events prove a biblical God (even if they were proven!).

    Aye. At the very least it proves the supernatural, and then as I have stated before(many times) We have no reason not to trust that Yahweh(Jehovah) is who he says he is.
    We have as much reason to trust the bible as to distrust it in this case. The devil is described as a trickster or the like, so what's to say he didn't fabricate the story for a laugh? After all, it has caused war, genocide, rape, and much more.

    This is what is called "being in harmony" or "being unable to contradict". Science has not been able to disprove these, simply because they are true. To chalk extremely unlikely events to chance is just plain ignorance.
    An inability to disprove something doesn't mean it's true. That a fallacy of ignorance. To pretend that you have the answers from an ancient, bronze age book is pure ignorance. The only reason science can't disprove these claims is because they are interpretive. It's also called "cherry-picking" by people who know what they're talking about.
    FC: 2234 - 8515 - 1161
    IGN: Nick

  9. #84
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Hoenn
    Posts
    2,936

    Default

    Ok, I need to arganize my posts better, my OCD is kicking in XD

    1. Life as it exists is too improbable to have occurred naturally.
    The supernatural events contained in the bible(including prophesies) prove that there are "things" out there. And what reason do we have to think that it was not Yaweh? And Evolution simply is impossible as has been stated. [souce1] [source2] [source3] [source4] [source5] [source6] [source7] [source8] [source9] [source10]

    2. Prophesied events in the bible have come true; this proves God.
    Aye. At the very least it proves the supernatural, and then as I have stated before(many times) We have no reason not to trust that Yahweh(Jehovah) is who he says he is.
    Now, I would like to spesifically mention some of the prophesies in the bible[This was taken from the book "What does the Bible really teach" which you can get a PDF of on this site]:
        Spoiler:


    And I would also like to reference another prophesy, which can be explained better than I ever can in the published book "Revelation: Its Grand Climax at Hand" which I managed to find a PDF of online herehttp://jwsurvey.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/revelation-1988.pdf Sorry, there are no illustrations but oh well. The chapters I am referencing are 33 and 34.

    [extra source1] [extra source2] [extra source3] [Documentary]

    I can go on.

    3. The bible was divinely inspired because it supports odd views for the time that were true.
    This is what is called "being in harmony" or "being unable to contradict". Science has not been able to disprove these, simply because they are true. To chalk extremely unlikely events to chance is just plain ignorance.

    Ignoring a true statement and saying that "it can be looked at as true" Is ignorant, no ifs ands or buts about it.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    Sure, if you want to argue that the nature of God is unknown and potentially unknowable, that's fine. However, you can't claim anything about his nature, that he's good, that he's capable of creation, that he knows everything, etc, because you yourself said human definitions are flawed.
    No, I was merely stating that we don't know EVERYTHING there is to know about god.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    It actually says it a few times.

    Genesis 3:4, 5, 22
    ?
    4 At this the serpent said to the woman: “You certainly will not die.5 For God knows that in the very day you eat from it, your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and bad.
    Not seeing ignorance here.

    22 Jehovah God then said: “Here the man has become like one of us in knowing good and bad Now in order that he may not put his hand out and take fruit also from the tree of life and eat and live forever.

    Still not seeing ignorance here.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    In their trembling, ignorant, easily fooled hands. And you neglected to explain why it's moral to punish a whole species for two individual's mistakes. That would be like killing all fish because one day one bit you.
    I did say why. It was to show that mankind could not rule itself. And once that becomes obvious, then god will grant the humans who had to live through that eternal life on Earth, without sickness, war, famine, and Death.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    Your first link literally says "we have to look at the bible's use of the world, 'fire'". Really? I could argue that the way "fire" is used here and how it's used in Revelations, for example, are completely different, but I won't. It neglects to resolve 2 Peter 2:4, Matthew 10:28, James 3:6, and Mark 9:43-48. This furthers the many, many contradictions in the bible and even contradictions of interpretations.
    I admit I did think that was stupid. But they did have a small point, and that was that the bible often uses the word fire to symbolize destruction. So the "lake of fire and sulfur" mentioned in Revalation, symbolizes everlasting DESTRUCTION. I would like to mention that what most people confuse hell with, is a word that is used in the original text called Gehenna. It was a place where they through bodies that were not fit for burial, but nothing was ever thrown in there ALIVE. So it couldn't be a place of torment if you're already DEAD. This is literally how the bible describes death:

    “His spirit goes out, he returns to the ground; on that very day his thoughts perish.”
    Psalm 146:4

    “The living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing at all . . .Whatever your hand finds to do, do with all your might, for there is no work nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom in the Grave, where you are going.”
    Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10

    “[Jesus] added: ‘Lazarus our friend has fallen asleep, but I am traveling there to awaken him.’Jesus, however, had spoken about his death. But they imagined he was speaking about taking rest in sleep. Then Jesus said to them plainly: ‘Lazarus has died.’”
    John 11:11, 13, 14


    The Bible describes death as a Sleep-like state where the dead wait for god to bring them back to earth.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    The first kingdom has invulnerable slaves, wand the second has moral men? I'm going with the ability to live over the ability to never die, all the time, every time.
    Moral Men? Don't make me laugh.
    i can't make yoou chose but I cant say that I think its the smart one, most of what the Bible tells us not to do, most people who try to be good people will do anyways, like not steal, murder etc. But when it comes to things like homosexuality people throw their chance at eternal life out the door just to be happy in the moment. Id like to present from the book mentioned above "what does the bible really teach" a list of what the bible mainly tells us NOT to do.


    SHUN WHAT JEHOVAH HATES

    Manslaughter.—Exodus 20:
    13; 21:22, 23.

    Sexual immorality.
    —Leviticus 20:10, 13, 15, 16;
    Romans 1:24, 26, 27, 32;
    1 Corinthians 6:9, 10.


    Spiritism.—Deuteronomy 18:
    9-13; 1 Corinthians 10:21, 22;
    Galatians 5:20, 21.

    Idolatry.
    —1 Corinthians 10:14.

    Drunkenness.
    —1 Corinthians 5:11.

    Stealing.—Leviticus 6:2, 4;
    Ephesians 4:28.

    Lying.—Proverbs 6:16, 19;
    Colossians 3:9; Revelation 22:15.

    Greed.—1 Corinthians 5:11.

    Violence.—Psalm 11:5;
    Proverbs 22:24, 25; Malachi 2:16;
    Galatians 5:20, 21.

    Improper speech.
    —Leviticus 19:16; Ephesians 5:4;
    Colossians 3:8.

    Refusal to provide for
    one’s family.—1 Timothy 5:8.


    Use of tobacco or
    so-called recreational
    drugs.—Mark 15:23;
    2 Corinthians 7:1.

    Misuse of blood.
    —Genesis 9:4; Acts 15:20, 28, 29.

    ....Well, If all it takes for me to live forever in a world without war, crime, sickness, famine and death, is not to do these things, it would be stupid not to.




    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    No, government works. As a whole, humanity has greatly benefitted from government.
    Keep telling yourself that.
    I still see war, famine, crime, unhappiness, discontentment, and biggest of all Death.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    You are a mountain guide, taking two kids who haven't yet developed morals and only have a menial grasp on consequence. You look for food and a sly fox, worlds more crafty than the kids, tricks them into eating berries that were planted by the guide, knowing their danger and the fact that kids are far more likely to disobey than people who grasp the situation. The guide, knowing this would happen, has more or less condemned the kids and their children and their children's children to hellish punishment. To create beings and then enact laws that go directly against their nature is disgusting, really.
    But remember the children would have had reason to trust the Mountain guide, and no reason to trust the fox other than "he said so." They would have at least had that much morality if not more.
    #PokemonUltraMoon #PokemonVGC2017


  10. #85
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    ---
    Posts
    935

    Default

    Let's restart, here since this is organized and contains all of your points.

    I'll begin with a framework for discussion: All points, negative or affirmative, are to be backed with suitable evidence. If the claim is scientific in nature, it must have scientific evidence to back it. If religious, it must also be backed with suitable evidence. Providing videos over 10-15 minutes is unacceptable, and I personally won't watch/listen. Responses to each individual point made by either you or I must be accounted for, or they have been forfeited.

    Quote Originally Posted by ansem the wise View Post
    1. Life as it exists is too improbable to have occurred naturally.
    The supernatural events contained in the bible(including prophesies) prove that there are "things" out there. And what reason do we have to think that it was not Yaweh? And Evolution simply is impossible as has been stated.
    Life isn't too improbable to have occurred naturally. We know intermediate stages in development of abiogenesis have been documented and are now well understood, we even know from the Urey-Miller experiment that organic matter can arise from inorganic matter under the correct conditions. This by no means proves abiogenesis, however. Abiogenesis is by far the most likely explanation. Before I move on I wanted to point out that none of your links are acceptable as evidence, as none of them come from accredited sources. Your final link on abiogenesis actually calls it an "evolutionist theory", which is profoundly ignorant and inaccurate, exemplifying why it's important to have credible sources.

    The supernatural events in the bible are unproven and potentially unknowable in many cases. "Things", meaning the supernatural, is an idea not further by biblical dogma. We can assume it wasn't the Xtian God because of the infinite other existent gods, as well as the unknowability of gods.

    Evolution is scientific fact, and to argue otherwise demonstrates a profound ignorance of the field of biology and science in general. We have behavioral evidence, evidence of ocean-to-land transference, evidence of speciation, fossil evidence, and phylogenetic evidence, all of which can be found in accredited, peer-reviewed journals and in the libraries of any higher education facility.

    Just so you have it, I'll link you to the "29+ proofs" article from Talk Origins: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ Be warned, it's a bit high level in some places.

    2. Prophesied events in the bible have come true; this proves God.
    They actually haven't, and there's no evidence to suggest that they did.

    Aye. At the very least it proves the supernatural, and then as I have stated before(many times) We have no reason not to trust that Yahweh(Jehovah) is who he says he is.
    I'll repeat myself, too, then. It proves no such thing, and the reason we wouldn't trust a deity if we accepted the supernatural claims is that we don't know the deity's nature. If we don't know the fundamental nature of a god, we can't know how it might act, therefore there's no reason to assume these prophesies would lead to one specific god.


    Now, I would like to spesifically mention some of the prophesies in the bible...
    I feel this blog entry will resonate with you: http://debunkingchristianity.blogspo...challenge.html

    And I would also like to reference another prophesy, which can be explained better than I ever can in the published book "Revelation: Its Grand Climax at Hand"...
    If you can't explain better than that, I'm shocked. I read it twice and still don't understand half the crap that was said. Just for reference, are you a Jehovah's Witness?

    Now, the majority of your links provided prophesy that was created in the OT and fulfilled in the NT. This means there could have easily been corroboration on the part of the writers, and a bias on the individual level, to fulfill these prophesies. Many of the prophesies that were made in the NT are simple and easy to fulfill, like "nation x will be trampled" or "a great devil will do unspecified event y and evil shalt go downeth".

    Give me a specific prophesy (or as many as you can) that fulfills these requirements:
    It must be a highly specific prophesy. It must be a prophesy that had no chance of being fulfilled by man, either past or present. It must be extraordinarily unlikely. It must be made in a manner that couldn't have been predicted naturally.

    Start providing some of those, and I might accept the "prophesy" claim.

    Ignoring a true statement and saying that "it can be looked at as true" Is ignorant, no ifs ands or buts about it.
    Like what? There's been no statement, no proof, no anything that I haven't already refuted. There's nothing in the bible we shouldn't expect to see there.

    No, I was merely stating that we don't know EVERYTHING there is to know about god.
    What do we know, then?

    Still not seeing ignorance here.
        Spoiler:- Genesis 3:5, 22:


    The Bible describes death as a Sleep-like state where the dead wait for god to bring them back to earth.
    So heaven and hell don't really exist, if everyone just sleeps after death? In what way is "sleep" different from death, anyway? We're looking at the same outcome, here, but you bring to the table the baseless belief that you'll be reborn, when no such evidence for such a claim exists.

    Id like to present from the book mentioned above "what does the bible really teach" a list of what the bible mainly tells us NOT to do.
    And here's some other things the bible teaches against:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1327701.html
    Now, compare homosexuality to some of the things your bible condones:
    http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm

    ....Well, If all it takes for me to live forever in a world without war, crime, sickness, famine and death, is not to do these things, it would be stupid not to.
    Better to discriminate now than ask questions, yeah? But in all seriousness, if your God chose to do what he did a couple thousand years ago, by your bible's account, the amount of death, plague, and suffering would skyrocket. Why try to spend eternity with a being whose only lasting impression on this world has been to destroy human and command maximal war and suffering?

    Keep telling yourself that.
    I still see war, famine, crime, unhappiness, discontentment, and biggest of all Death.
    If you believe there's a cure for death, your not only wrong, but completely misguided. Government's invention lead mankind, which has existed for thousands of years, to where it is now. We literally were rubbing sticks together for fire a few steps back on the historical timeline, and now we have magic communication boxes that instantly transfer information at the press of a button. We went from living in shacks and dying at the age of twenty to living in well-ventilated homes and dying at around seventy-five.

    But remember the children would have had reason to trust the Mountain guide, and no reason to trust the fox other than "he said so." They would have at least had that much morality if not more.
    Trust isn't a standalone moral issue. It has nothing to do with what act is good or evil. If they were breaking the trust of God, it might be different, but God betrayed their trust in the end. Out of all the evils in that scenario, your own God sits at the top.
    FC: 2234 - 8515 - 1161
    IGN: Nick

  11. #86
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Hoenn
    Posts
    2,936

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    I'll begin with a framework for discussion: All points, negative or affirmative, are to be backed with suitable evidence. If the claim is scientific in nature, it must have scientific evidence to back it. If religious, it must also be backed with suitable evidence. Providing videos over 10-15 minutes is unacceptable, and I personally won't watch/listen. Responses to each individual point made by either you or I must be accounted for, or they have been forfeited.
    Fair enough.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    Life isn't too improbable to have occurred naturally. We know intermediate stages in development of abiogenesis have been documented and are now well understood, we even know from the Urey-Miller experiment that organic matter can arise from inorganic matter under the correct conditions.
    All this proves is that one of the amino acids nedded to create a DNA/RNA strand could be created under the "theorized" scenario of ancient Earth. And not to mention that the article itself has arguments against it. For example:
    Another objection is that this experiment required a tremendous amount of energy. While it is believed lightning storms were extremely common on the primitive Earth, they were not continuous as the Miller/Urey experiment portrayed. Thus it has been argued that while amino acids and other organic compounds may have been formed, they would not have been formed in the amounts which this experiment produced.
    Now, how they know what ancient earth was like, beats me, but it seems to me that the objection AND the assumption that the earth had intense lightning storm in the first place, seem to be merely speculation.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    This by no means proves abiogenesis, however. Abiogenesis is by far the most likely explanation.
    That remains to be seen.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    Before I move on I wanted to point out that none of your links are acceptable as evidence, as none of them come from accredited sources.
    1) One of them was from a scientific university
    2) All that matters is the information contained, the only reason that "Accredited sources" matters in the first place is that it gives you a reason to trust it. But, really when in a situation like this, the best course of action is to examine each side of the argument and see which one makes the most sense, regardless of "who-said-what"

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    Your final link on abiogenesis actually calls it an "evolutionist theory", which is profoundly ignorant and inaccurate, exemplifying why it's important to have credible sources.
    I'm sure you are familiar with the scientific method:
    Observe what happens; based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true; test the theory by further observations and by experiments; and watch to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled.
    At this stage, it is still just a theory. And it was thought up, to help "Prove" evolution.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    The supernatural events in the bible are unproven and potentially unknowable in many cases.
    Many;Agreed, All;Untrue

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    Evolution is scientific fact
    Don't get me started.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    and to argue otherwise demonstrates a profound ignorance of the field of biology and science in general.
    Physicist H. S. Lipson said: “The only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.”

    According to New Scientist: “An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . . argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all. . . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials."

    Evolutionist Loren Eiseley acknowledged: “After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.”—The Immense Journey

    The scientific magazine Discover said: “Evolution . . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent.”


    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    What is this supposed to prove exactly? It just documents human behavior, there is no evidence of evolution. Yes technology has advanced, but the only thing I can see here.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    You know, the thing that really gets me. This shows that there are "creatures" that appear to be "half-aquatic and half-land" yet we see amphibians today. And no one believes that they are completing an evolutionary process between water dwelling to land dwelling or vice-versa. And another thing, evolution supposedly took millions of years, and that would mean billions of fossils, human, fish and everything in between. Yes millions of fossils have been found as Smithsonian Institution scientist Porter Kier says: “There are a hundred million fossils, all cataloged and identified, in museums around the world.” Yet, they don't show the "steady progression from fish(or whatever) to human"

    [source1][source2]


    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    Seriously?
    One can "Speculate" all they want but that'll never prove anything. Plus natural selection is a flawed method of proving evolution as well.

    [source1] [source2]

    Also, mutations are almost always damaging to an organism, so getting a billions of "helpful" mutations in order to create higher life forms, is not only, un-documented, it is scientifically impossible.


    The Encyclopedia Americana acknowledges: “The fact that most mutations are damaging to the organism seems hard to reconcile with the view that mutation is the source of raw materials for evolution. Indeed, mutants illustrated in biology textbooks are a collection of freaks and monstrosities and mutation seems to be a destructive rather than a constructive process.”


    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    I already addressed this.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    This just shows that some animals have similarities. There are over a billion organisms on this planet, odds are that some of them will have things in common. Like eyes, ears, etc.



    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    Just so you have it, I'll link you to the "29+ proofs" article from Talk Origins: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ Be warned, it's a bit high level in some places.
    I'll take a look at this in the next day or so.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    and all of which can be found in accredited, peer-reviewed journals and in the libraries of any higher education facility.
    That in itself is a bias. I have commented on this before, that people don't WANT god to exist and as such will accept and half-jacked theory in order to give themselves a reason not to and promptly ignore anything that suggests otherwise.



    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    They actually haven't, and there's no evidence to suggest that they did.

    I'll repeat myself, too, then. It proves no such thing, and the reason we wouldn't trust a deity if we accepted the supernatural claims is that we don't know the deity's nature. If we don't know the fundamental nature of a god, we can't know how it might act, therefore there's no reason to assume these prophesies would lead to one specific god.
    Will touch on these later in my post.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    I feel this blog entry will resonate with you: http://debunkingchristianity.blogspo...challenge.html
    I have actually already read that, believe it or not. This once again focus's on prophesies that HE thinks were not MEANT to be prophesies. And also, there are several prophesies in the bible, which are called "dual fulfillment" which means, they have a first fulfillment AND a second one. Just because one thing appeared to fulfill a prophesy, does not mean another thing was not ALSO meant to be a fulfillment of that.



    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    If you can't explain better than that, I'm shocked. I read it twice and still don't understand half the crap that was said.
    Yeah, sorry, most of it is referencing the rest of the book, but here it is in a nutshell:
    In revelation there was a prophesy about a "wild beast" and a "harlot" obviously these are meant to be symbolic of something else. We figured out that the Wild beast was the governments of the earth, more specifically, the League of Nations. According to the prophesy, the wild beast vanished for a while then re-appeared. And Jehovah's Witnesses were saying after the league disappeared that it would come back. And what do we have now? The United Nations. Now this is the part you may like,
    the harlot symbolizes religion, (religions other than ones that follow exactly what the bible says to be exact). And the wild beast will eventually destroy the harlot. Meaning the UN will soon turn on religion.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    Just for reference, are you a Jehovah's Witness?
    Yes

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    Now, the majority of your links provided prophesy that was created in the OT and fulfilled in the NT.
    Specifics?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    This means there could have easily been corroboration on the part of the writers, and a bias on the individual level, to fulfill these prophesies.
    The books of the Bible were recorded by some 40 men as different as king, prophet, herdsman, tax collector, and physician. They did the writing over a period of 1,610 years; so there was no opportunity for collusion.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    Many of the prophesies that were made in the NT are simple and easy to fulfill, like "nation x will be trampled" or "a great devil will do unspecified event y and evil shalt go downeth".
    Maybe so, but does that change the fact that they actually happened?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    Give me a specific prophesy (or as many as you can) that fulfills these requirements:
    I'll provide 3 for now.

    1)
    Prophecy: Isa. 44:24, 27, 28; 45:1-4: “Jehovah . . . the One saying to the watery deep, ‘Be evaporated; and all your rivers I shall dry up’; the One saying of Cyrus, ‘He is my shepherd, and all that I delight in he will completely carry out’; even in my saying of Jerusalem, ‘She will be rebuilt,’ and of the temple, ‘You will have your foundation laid.’ This is what Jehovah has said to his anointed one, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have taken hold of, to subdue before him nations, so that I may ungird even the hips of kings; to open before him the two-leaved doors, so that even the gates will not be shut: ‘Before you I myself shall go, and the swells of land I shall straighten out. The copper doors I shall break in pieces, and the iron bars I shall cut down. . . . For the sake of my servant Jacob and of Israel my chosen one, I even proceeded to call you by your name.’” (Writing by Isaiah was completed by about 732 B.C.E.)

    Fulfillment: Cyrus had not been born when the prophecy was written. The Jews were not taken into exile to Babylon until 617-607 B.C.E., and Jerusalem and its temple were not destroyed until 607 B.C.E. In detail the prophecy was fulfilled starting in 539 B.C.E. Cyrus diverted the waters of the Euphrates River into an artificial lake, the river gates of Babylon were carelessly left open during feasting in the city, and Babylon fell to the Medes and Persians under Cyrus. Thereafter, Cyrus liberated the Jewish exiles and sent them back to Jerusalem with instructions to rebuild Jehovah’s temple there.—The Encyclopedia Americana

    2)
    Prophecy: Jer. 49:17, 18: “‘Edom must become an object of astonishment. Everyone passing along by her will stare in astonishment and whistle on account of all her plagues. Just as in the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah and her neighbor towns,’ Jehovah has said, ‘no man will dwell there.’” (Jeremiah’s recording of prophecies was completed by 580 B.C.E.)

    Fulfillment: “They [the Edomites] were driven from Palestine in the 2nd century B.C. by Judas Maccabćus, and in 109 B.C. John Hyrcanus, Maccabćan leader, extended the kingdom of Judah to include the w. part of Edomitic lands. In the 1st century B.C. Roman expansion swept away the last vestige of Edomitic independence . . . After the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 A.D. . . . the name Idumća [Edom] disappeared from history.” (The New Funk & Wagnalls Encyclopedia) Notice that the fulfillment extends down to our day. In no way can it be argued that this prophecy was written after the events had taken place.

    3)
    Prophecy: Luke 19:41-44; 21:20, 21: “He [Jesus Christ] viewed the city [Jerusalem] and wept over it, saying: . . . ‘The days will come upon you when your enemies will build around you a fortification with pointed stakes and will encircle you and distress you from every side, and they will dash you and your children within you to the ground, and they will not leave a stone upon a stone in you, because you did not discern the time of your being inspected.’” Two days later, he counseled his disciples: “When you see Jerusalem surrounded by encamped armies, then know that the desolating of her has drawn near. Then let those in Judea begin fleeing to the mountains, and let those in the midst of her withdraw.” (Prophecy spoken by Jesus Christ in 33 C.E.)

    Fulfillment: Jerusalem revolted against Rome, and in 66 C.E. the Roman army under Cestius Gallus attacked the city. But, as Jewish historian Josephus reports, the Roman commander “suddenly called off his men, abandoned hope though he had suffered no reverse, and flying in the face of all reason retired from the City.” (Josephus, the Jewish War, Penguin Classics, 1969, p. 167) This provided opportunity for Christians to flee from the city, which they did, moving to Pella, beyond the Jordan, according to Eusebius Pamphilus in his Ecclesiastical History. (Translated by C. F. Crusé, London, 1894, p. 75) Then around Passover time of the year 70 C.E. General Titus besieged the city, an encircling fence 4.5 miles (7.2 km) long was erected in just three days, and after five months Jerusalem fell. “Jerusalem itself was systematically destroyed and the Temple left in ruins. Archaeological work shows us today just how effective was the destruction of Jewish buildings all over the land.”—The Bible and Archaeology

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    Like what? There's been no statement, no proof, no anything that I haven't already refuted. There's nothing in the bible we shouldn't expect to see there.
    Shape of Planet Earth: Isa. 40:22: “There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth.” In ancient times the general opinion was that the earth was flat. It was not until over 200 years after this Bible text had been written that a school of Greek philosophers reasoned that the earth likely was spherical, and in about another 300 years a Greek astronomer calculated the approximate radius of the earth. But the idea of a spherical earth was not the general view even then. Only in the 20th century has it been possible for humans to travel by airplane, and later into outer space and even to the moon, thus giving them a clear view of “the circle” of earth’s horizon.

    Animal Life: Lev. 11:6: “The hare . . . is a chewer of the cud.” Though this was long attacked by some critics, the rabbit’s cud chewing was finally observed by Englishman William Cowper in the 18th century. The unusual way in which it is done was described in 1940 in Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London

    Water Cycle:Ecclesiastes 1:7
    All the streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is not full. To the place from which the streams flow, there they return so as to flow again.

    Earth in space:
    Job 26:7 He stretches out the northern sky over empty space, suspending the earth upon nothing.

    Etc.

    You can say that these things being in an ancient document isn't odd, but quite honestly, it is.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    What do we know, then?
    A) His name (Yaweh/Jehovah). Which is actually a description of him. the name Jehovah, literally means, "to Become" or "He causes to Become" and that is referring to Him and what he can do with his creation. He can make anything, become anything.

    B) Certain facets of his personality:

    Power
    Isaiah 40:26 Raise YOUR eyes high up and see. Who has created these things?+ It is the One who is bringing forth the army of them even by number, all of whom he calls even by name. Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one [of them] is missing.

    Justice
    Psalms 37:28 For Jehovah is a lover of justice, And he will not leave his loyal ones. To time indefinite they will certainly be guarded; But as for the offspring of the wicked ones, they will indeed be cut off.

    Wisdom
    Job 9:4 He is wise in heart and strong in power. Who can show stubbornness to him and come off uninjured?

    Love
    1 John 4:8 He that does not love has not come to know God, because God is love.

    C) What he has done. Which is recorded throughout the Bible.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    3:5
    "For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
    3:22
    And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."
    So? Still not seeing your point.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    So heaven and hell don't really exist, if everyone just sleeps after death?
    Hell doesn't exist as I have already mentioned. Now heaven, according to the Bible DOES exist, but it is not a place for every good person who dies to go to. It is a place for God, Jesus, the Angels etc. to rule over the Earth from.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    In what way is "sleep" different from death, anyway?
    Not very different. The only thing different is that one cannot "wake" from death by human means.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    We're looking at the same outcome, here, but you bring to the table the baseless belief that you'll be reborn, when no such evidence for such a claim exists.
    This is taken from this published book.

    Genesis 2:8 states: “Jehovah God planted a garden [“park,” Mo; “paradise,” Dy; paˇra′deiˇson, LXX] in Eden, toward the east, and there he put the man [Adam] whom he had formed.” There was an abundance of varied and fascinating plant and animal life. Jehovah blessed the first human pair and said to them: “Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth and subdue it, and have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and every living creature that is moving upon the earth.” (Gen. 1:28) God’s original purpose for all the earth to be a paradise populated by those who appreciatively obey his laws will not go unfulfilled. (Isa. 45:18; 55:10, 11) That is why Jesus said: “Happy are the mild-tempered ones, since they will inherit the earth.” That is also why he taught his disciples to pray: “Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified. Let your kingdom come. Let your will take place, as in heaven, also upon earth.” (Matt. 5:5; 6:9, 10) In harmony with that, Ephesians 1:9-11 explains God’s purpose “to gather all things together again in the Christ, the things in the heavens and the things on the earth.” Hebrews 2:5 refers to “the inhabited earth to come.” Revelation 5:10 mentions those who, as joint heirs with Christ, are to “rule as kings over the earth.” Revelation 21:1-5 and Re 22:1, 2 add delightful descriptions of conditions that will exist in the “new earth” and that remind one of the original Paradise in Eden with its tree of life.—Gen. 2:9.
    Baseless eh?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    And here's some other things the bible teaches against:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1327701.html
    I already mentioned some of these already, but ill go through the list anyways.
    1) This no longer applies to us, as stated in #10
    2) Forgot to mention that one originally but yes, it does.
    3) see #10
    4) See #10
    5) Pretty sure this falls under the category of spiritism that I mentioned earlier.
    6) This was said, because it can be harmful at times. It in itself is not condemned, when it is used to harm someone else, that is what is considered wrong.
    7) Ok, one theme that is mentioned many times throughout the bible is "Life is sacred" doing that would be a disrespect to life, being as that is how god gave us the ability to create life.
    8) yep
    9) There is one reason god allows for remarriage and that is adultery. Aka, if a woman's husband as cheater on her she has a valid reason to be re-married.
    10) There are 2 covenants (or "set of laws") given in the bible, one by Moses, the other by Jesus. When Jesus came to Earth to die for our sins, the laws had to be adjusted, and one of those adjustments was, not needing to keep the sabbath.
    11) Um, ok. This is referring to PUBLIC speaking, not "I can't have a conversation in here." God created man first, and the woman "as a helper" so he expected for men to take the lead when it was needed.
    12) see #10
    13) I had already mentioned this.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    Now, compare homosexuality to some of the things your bible condones:
    http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm
    ok, I'll say this: Rape is not tolerated in the bible, these sources never say that women were raped, they are just "assuming they were." remember that that society had arranged marriages mostly, so there is a difference between, being forced to marry someone to whom the do not wish and to force sex on someone who does not want it. Looking at the first example alone it is clear that whoever wrote this is just trying to discredit the bible anyway they can and they are grasping at straws.

    Lets take a look at the first example:
    Ok, first thing I noticed, they intentionally found a bible translation that the wording was very difficult to understand, lets fix that. Here.
    Now remember what I said about arranged marriages? They say that they took the women as wives, not that they raped them. If they had intercourse that was unwanted, that would not have been tolerated. I would also like to point out the last verse of that chapter:
    Judges 21:25 In those days there was no king in Israel. Each one was doing what was right in his own eyes.
    Oh well, gee that explains a lot now doesn't it?


    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    if your God chose to do what he did a couple thousand years ago, by your bible's account, the amount of death, plague, and suffering would skyrocket. Why try to spend eternity with a being whose only lasting impression on this world has been to destroy human and command maximal war and suffering?
    Not exactly sure the point you are trying to make here. I have already outlines what the god of the bible is, and that it was the devil to blame for our suffering. God plans on wiping out the devil, and restoring the earth to what he intended for Adam and Eve.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    If you believe there's a cure for death, your not only wrong, but completely misguided.
    I don't think mankind can ever do that, no.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    Government's invention lead mankind, which has existed for thousands of years, to where it is now. We literally were rubbing sticks together for fire a few steps back on the historical timeline, and now we have magic communication boxes that instantly transfer information at the press of a button. We went from living in shacks and dying at the age of twenty to living in well-ventilated homes and dying at around seventy-five.
    As I have said before, I do think mankind has made some great achievements, but for everything they manage to do, there are dozens of things they can't fix and, a good chunk of the time, make worse.
    As I've said before, I still see crime, disease, famine, discontentment, fear, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    Trust isn't a standalone moral issue. It has nothing to do with what act is good or evil. If they were breaking the trust of God, it might be different, but God betrayed their trust in the end. Out of all the evils in that scenario, your own God sits at the top.
    How exactly did god betray their trust? He said they would die if they ate from the tree...do you see Adam and Eve on earth today? No, they died, just as he said they would.

    EDIT:
    To no one in particular

    This is a rule from the Tangent Topic thread:
    Things we see in here might become full-fledged debates, or they might just get talked about and then get replaced by new tangential topics. So, in order to promote both of those outcomes, the limit for a single topic in this thread will be two pages of Serebii default (specifically, 40 posts). After that, the topic will be changed or closed, whatever suits our needs.
    Seeing as that limit is about to be up, I will work on getting a separate thread to put this debate in, and it may take a while for the mods to approve it so I'll get on that right away.
    Last edited by Steampunk; 22nd October 2013 at 10:42 PM.
    #PokemonUltraMoon #PokemonVGC2017


  12. #87
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    ---
    Posts
    935

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ansem the wise View Post
    All this proves is that one of the amino acids nedded to create a DNA/RNA strand could be created under the "theorized" scenario of ancient Earth. And not to mention that the article itself has arguments against it.
    Yep, abiogenesis is nothing but an unproven hypothesis. This doesn't mean it's wrong, or right for that matter. It's simply an idea. I don't believe it, nor do I disbelieve it. That's how it should be for everyone, with the current evidence.

    Now, how they know what ancient earth was like, beats me, but it seems to me that the objection AND the assumption that the earth had intense lightning storm in the first place, seem to be merely speculation.
    If you had read the article or were knowledgeable on the subject, you would know they concede the fact that these conditions were unlikely and/or impossible. This just shows organic matter can arise from inorganic.


    1) One of them was from a scientific university
    2) All that matters is the information contained, the only reason that "Accredited sources" matters in the first place is that it gives you a reason to trust it. But, really when in a situation like this, the best course of action is to examine each side of the argument and see which one makes the most sense, regardless of "who-said-what"
    Creationist universities aren't "scientific universities". If you meant something else, tell me, but I didn't see source worthy of lending any scientific consideration to. And no, all that matters isn't the information. Any idiot can and will post whatever stupid jibber jabber they want because they just don't like biological evolution. This is the sad fact in the cross section of our scientifically undereducated world and the "anything goes" internet.



    Observe what happens; based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true; test the theory by further observations and by experiments; and watch to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled.
    At this stage, it is still just a theory. And it was thought up, to help "Prove" evolution.
    *Facepalm
    No, this isn't at all... what... how? Look, my point was that abiogenesis is its own hypothesis. It's not a theory, not supported by the abundance of evidence. Evolution, however, is a theory.

    Many;Agreed, All;Untrue
    No, there is literally no mysticism the bible could possibly prove. Historical evidence doesn't have the clout to prove materialistic interactions that are beyond our current scope of understanding.

    Don't get me started.
    In a world where people happily accept gravity, we still have people who don't want to believe evolutionary theory. In reality, there's more evidence for evolution.

    Physicist H. S. Lipson said: “The only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.”

    According to New Scientist: “An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . . argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all. . . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials."

    Evolutionist Loren Eiseley acknowledged: “After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.”—The Immense Journey

    The scientific magazine Discover said: “Evolution . . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent.”
    You can find cooks who want to disagree all you want, but it doesn't prove that it isn't the accepted theory of the majority. The dissent right now is about specific tenets of evolutionary theory, some big, some small. Most of it isn't really questioned, of course. So, other than cooks who don't understand or don't want to understand what they're talking about and scientists who still mostly accept the theory, yes, it's still the theory of our time.

    What is this supposed to prove exactly? It just documents human behavior, there is no evidence of evolution. Yes technology has advanced, but the only thing I can see here.
    It's behavioral... It shows the similarities in behavior and needs and wants, psychologically, between us and our ancestors. We have similar tendencies, including existential affirmations like art.

    You know, the thing that really gets me. This shows that there are "creatures" that appear to be "half-aquatic and half-land" yet we see amphibians today. And no one believes that they are completing an evolutionary process between water dwelling to land dwelling or vice-versa. And another thing, evolution supposedly took millions of years, and that would mean billions of fossils, human, fish and everything in between. Yes millions of fossils have been found as Smithsonian Institution scientist Porter Kier says: “There are a hundred million fossils, all cataloged and identified, in museums around the world.” Yet, they don't show the "steady progression from fish(or whatever) to human"
    No, they really don't. It's a good thing fossil evidence isn't actually essential to the theory, yeah? It just backs it. If you are looking only to fossils for proof, you won't find it. The thing about reptiles made me laugh. It reminded me of the banana thing Ray Comfort said, and the oh-so-common "why don't we see monkeys evolving into humans right now? It's as if you thing there's an ultimate goal in evolution.

    Seriously?
    One can "Speculate" all they want but that'll never prove anything. Plus natural selection is a flawed method of proving evolution as well.
    Speculate? What are you talking about? Natural selection is the method, the crane of evolution. It gives it it's ability to actually occur. You don't so must "prove" evolution with natural selection as examine it with the understand of natural selection.

    First link, heredity of traits can be affected by your circumstances in life. Agreed. This is new science, but it in no way invalidates evolution. Epigenetics might actually support the theory further. Second link, a blog entry whose writer doesn't understand that increased variety, material, and specific material can all easily arise from mutations.
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

    Also, mutations are almost always damaging to an organism, so getting a billions of "helpful" mutations in order to create higher life forms, is not only, un-documented, it is scientifically impossible.
    The thing you call "scientifically impossible" is something the majority of biologists would laugh at you for claiming. This is where natural selection comes in. Damaging mutations kill or weaken the organism, lowering its chance of heredity and occurrence. What's best for the organism is what's kept, not what hurts it.

    The Encyclopedia Americana acknowledges: “The fact that most mutations are damaging to the organism seems hard to reconcile with the view that mutation is the source of raw materials for evolution. Indeed, mutants illustrated in biology textbooks are a collection of freaks and monstrosities and mutation seems to be a destructive rather than a constructive process.”
    Sounds like some vague apologetic you had pounded into you. This quote, you fail to mention, is about forty years old.

    I already addressed this.
    You were wrong then and you're wrong now. It doesn't matter if there's not a specific trail from protist to human in the fossil record. In fact, if there was, we might have cause to doubt the theory as it stands.

    This just shows that some animals have similarities. There are over a billion organisms on this planet, odds are that some of them will have things in common. Like eyes, ears, etc.
    The way they form is specific to the evolutionary narrative. Vestigial bone structures like some seen in whales didn't need to be there, suggesting that they were land based and became a water mammal later. Shape and form determines function in life.

    That in itself is a bias. I have commented on this before, that people don't WANT god to exist and as such will accept and half-jacked theory in order to give themselves a reason not to and promptly ignore anything that suggests otherwise.
    This is how people delude themselves into thinking that the people who actually understand what is being espoused are simply biased fools, thousands and thousands of them. The few that dare to go against it are the truth tellers, the real scientists. If I made a similar comment about auto technicians, you would rightfully call me insane.

    I have actually already read that, believe it or not. This once again focus's on prophesies that HE thinks were not MEANT to be prophesies.
    Yeah, only your specific analysis of scripture is the correct analysis. The malleability of Christian dogma is what allows it to persist.

    the harlot symbolizes religion, (religions other than ones that follow exactly what the bible says to be exact). And the wild beast will eventually destroy the harlot. Meaning the UN will soon turn on religion.
    We can only hope. On a serious note, thanks for the analysis, but the interpretation can be perverted to mean anything you want it to mean.

    The books of the Bible were recorded by some 40 men as different as king, prophet, herdsman, tax collector, and physician. They did the writing over a period of 1,610 years; so there was no opportunity for collusion.
    I don't know if those you are colluding with have to be alive to share information. After all, these writings were recorded in such a long period.

    Maybe so, but does that change the fact that they actually happened?
    No, but I'm no god if I make prophesies that can easily predict. For example: "Tomorrow, the sun shalt cometh upon the land, Lutz shalt bashesh Obama, and I shant garnish thine body with pants in the morning."

    Fulfillment: Cyrus had not been born when the prophecy was written. The Jews were not taken into exile to Babylon until 617-607 B.C.E., and Jerusalem and its temple were not destroyed until 607 B.C.E. In detail the prophecy was fulfilled starting in 539 B.C.E. Cyrus diverted the waters of the Euphrates River into an artificial lake, the river gates of Babylon were carelessly left open during feasting in the city, and Babylon fell to the Medes and Persians under Cyrus. Thereafter, Cyrus liberated the Jewish exiles and sent them back to Jerusalem with instructions to rebuild Jehovah’s temple there.—The Encyclopedia Americana
    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Failed_...onquer_Babylon
    I already linked to this page. This is such a popular prophesy, it's been long debunked.

    Fulfillment: “They [the Edomites] were driven from Palestine in the 2nd century B.C. by Judas Maccabćus, and in 109 B.C. John Hyrcanus, Maccabćan leader, extended the kingdom of Judah to include the w. part of Edomitic lands. In the 1st century B.C. Roman expansion swept away the last vestige of Edomitic independence . . . After the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 A.D. . . . the name Idumća [Edom] disappeared from history.” (The New Funk & Wagnalls Encyclopedia) Notice that the fulfillment extends down to our day. In no way can it be argued that this prophecy was written after the events had taken place.
    Oh no, it's the end-times thing again... Why is it so astounding to you that a land the Christians hated and bears much hate in the bible was destroyed? In a time where lands rose and fell quite quickly, I'm not too impressed.

    Fulfillment: Jerusalem revolted against Rome, and in 66 C.E. the Roman army under Cestius Gallus attacked the city. But, as Jewish historian Josephus reports, the Roman commander “suddenly called off his men, abandoned hope though he had suffered no reverse, and flying in the face of all reason retired from the City.” (Josephus, the Jewish War, Penguin Classics, 1969, p. 167) This provided opportunity for Christians to flee from the city, which they did, moving to Pella, beyond the Jordan, according to Eusebius Pamphilus in his Ecclesiastical History. (Translated by C. F. Crusé, London, 1894, p. 75) Then around Passover time of the year 70 C.E. General Titus besieged the city, an encircling fence 4.5 miles (7.2 km) long was erected in just three days, and after five months Jerusalem fell. “Jerusalem itself was systematically destroyed and the Temple left in ruins. Archaeological work shows us today just how effective was the destruction of Jewish buildings all over the land.”—The Bible and Archaeology
    Didn't David tell the king of Judah that he wouldn't be harmed by his enemies? Isiah 7:1? Regardless, you're going to have to prove that this was recorded before the event


    Shape of Planet Earth: Isa. 40:22: “There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth.”
    You know why people thought the Earth was flat? Because the bible reported it was a "circle". This was the reason Aristotle was killed, was because the church would have liked to believe the "four corners" meant the world was flat.

    Animal Life: Lev. 11:6: “The hare . . . is a chewer of the cud.”
    Hares don't chew cud... They use refection, meaning the passage likely just refers to what a rabbit seems to be doing when it chew. Wow, what a revelation.

    Water Cycle:Ecclesiastes 1:7
    All the streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is not full. To the place from which the streams flow, there they return so as to flow again.
    This is one of the biggest cherry-picks I have ever seen. It doesn't say water turns into its particulate/gas form, travels to the atmosphere, accumulates, and comes down as a precipitant, or anything remotely close. This is an extremely obscure reference, and it isn't even talking about the water cycle.


    Earth in space:
    Job 26:7 He stretches out the northern sky over empty space, suspending the earth upon nothing.
    North was used interchangeably with firmament, so the suggestion isn't that it was free-floating, but unattached to the free-floating "dome" that the firmament represented. Now, Job was still wrong in this passage because it does hang on something, namely gravitational fields.

    A) His name (Yaweh/Jehovah). Which is actually a description of him. the name Jehovah, literally means, "to Become" or "He causes to Become" and that is referring to Him and what he can do with his creation. He can make anything, become anything.
    B) Certain facets of his personality:
    Power
    Isaiah 40:26 Raise YOUR eyes high up and see. Who has created these things?+ It is the One who is bringing forth the army of them even by number, all of whom he calls even by name. Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one [of them] is missing.
    Justice
    Psalms 37:28 For Jehovah is a lover of justice, And he will not leave his loyal ones. To time indefinite they will certainly be guarded; But as for the offspring of the wicked ones, they will indeed be cut off.
    Wisdom
    Job 9:4 He is wise in heart and strong in power. Who can show stubbornness to him and come off uninjured?
    Love
    1 John 4:8 He that does not love has not come to know God, because God is love.
    So he has a name and human traits. Great. Almost anyone can fulfill these requirements, except the creation of the world, which we know is scientifically a gibberish statement.

    C) What he has done. Which is recorded throughout the Bible.
    Are you one of those who thinks the flood was real, and all that? I hope not. If you think everything in the bible happened, you have a lot to answer for along the lines of God's endorsement of murder, rape, and slavery.

    So? Still not seeing your point.
    Um, that's called "being ignorant" of morality.

    Hell doesn't exist as I have already mentioned. Now heaven, according to the Bible DOES exist, but it is not a place for every good person who dies to go to. It is a place for God, Jesus, the Angels etc. to rule over the Earth from.
    So, I'll go to heaven then? I'm a generally good person who does the best I can for others. Does this mean I'll go to the same place when I die as you do?

    Baseless eh?
    Um, yeah. Still baseless.

    I already mentioned some of these already, but ill go through the list anyways.
    I didn't really expect an answer. Most of the things in the bible are reprehensible, tbh. I love how the laws you personally don't want to follow can be explained away by saying "no, this isn't mosaic law anymore", even though Jesus specifically said he didn't come to change the law.

    ok, I'll say this: Rape is not tolerated in the bible, these sources never say that women were raped, they are just "assuming they were." remember that that society had arranged marriages mostly, so there is a difference between, being forced to marry someone to whom the do not wish and to force sex on someone who does not want it. Looking at the first example alone it is clear that whoever wrote this is just trying to discredit the bible anyway they can and they are grasping at straws.
    What do you think they were doing to the virgins afterwards? Do you really believe a pillaging army came in, killing man, woman and child, saving only virgins, so they could let them go free for no other reason? Moses was angry that some army let the women live, mad at their mercy. He ordered them killed with the children. I like how you say rape isn't ok, but God ordering the killing of entire villages sits well with you. "God is love".

    Now remember what I said about arranged marriages? They say that they took the women as wives, not that they raped them. If they had intercourse that was unwanted, that would not have been tolerated. I would also like to point out the last verse of that chapter:
    Judges 21:25 In those days there was no king in Israel. Each one was doing what was right in his own eyes.
    Oh well, gee that explains a lot now doesn't it?
    Do you think women had a choice? How many arranged marriages do you think women want to be in? How often do you think they would have spoken out? The whole era was ruled by misogyny, it was a true patriarchy. I don't see a single woman wanted to have sex with a man that they were forcibly married to, and I am all but certain that they were forced into sexual relations. That's rape. That's disgusting.

    Not exactly sure the point you are trying to make here. I have already outlines what the god of the bible is, and that it was the devil to blame for our suffering. God plans on wiping out the devil, and restoring the earth to what he intended for Adam and Eve.
    God created the devil. It's immoral for a God to create something that will hurt himself or others within his creation. If I or you were God, we would have never created something that brought suffering.

    How exactly did god betray their trust? He said they would die if they ate from the tree...do you see Adam and Eve on earth today? No, they died, just as he said they would.
    He created the scenario where they would be tricked into a legacy of death and suffering.
    FC: 2234 - 8515 - 1161
    IGN: Nick

  13. #88
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Hoenn
    Posts
    2,936

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    Yep, abiogenesis is nothing but an unproven hypothesis. This doesn't mean it's wrong, or right for that matter. It's simply an idea. I don't believe it, nor do I disbelieve it. That's how it should be for everyone, with the current evidence.
    I suppose I can accept that stance. But the thing is, "the current evidence" also has, at very least, the "Possibility" of something else, which you seem to be completely unwilling to even think about.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    If you had read the article or were knowledgeable on the subject, you would know they concede the fact that these conditions were unlikely and/or impossible. This just shows organic matter can arise from inorganic.
    Ok, I can accept that, but there are still a few things:
    1) There is no evidence that shows that that actually is what happened
    2) Possible it may be, extremely unlikely it still is (excuse my yoda-speak)
    3) You still have not offered a hypothesis about where the non-living matter came from

    Now about the non-living matter. Say you were walking down the street and a cluster of iron(Fe) atoms suddenly materialized in front of you. Would you go "Pfft, nothing odd about that" or would you go "Was someone running a test or something? How the heck did this happen?"

    I don't know about you, but I'd definitely have the second reaction.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    Creationist universities aren't "scientific universities". If you meant something else, tell me, but I didn't see source worthy of lending any scientific consideration to.
    See, that's the attitude that really gets under my skin in this world. People are so unwilling to entertain the fact that they MAY be wrong, so they will ignore anything that contradicts them. For the record, yes that was the one I was referring to, and If you bothered to check you would see that the math done in the article was accurate, I checked it myself.

    Anyways, the gist of the article was this:
    Helpful mutations are extremely rare.
    The exact odds of 200 helpful mutations happening in a row without it going backwards was 1 in 10^21.(10 with 21 zeros after it)(and this is assuming that every mutation had a 50-50 chance of being positive, which it by no means is in reality)(Also, there is the fact that most mutations in a lab setting were induced by drugs, radiation etc. So they happen much more frequently in the lab then they ever would naturally)(And finally the fact that almost 100% of recorded mutations are physical. ie, not affecting the genetic code of the organism(think a broken leg, it doesn't affect the DNA of the person)) Now, lets replace that 200 with the amount of mutations roughly needed to complete every working part of the human anatomy, lets say 1 mutation for every working part (In reality it would need many more than this, but whatever) and according to this site, that number is approximately 7500. So the odds that a human came about by random mutations would be (rounded down) about 10^2000. Come on, how many coincidences can you get before one thinks "hey something is odd about this." Heck, I start to get suspicious when I hit shuffle and the same song plays 4 times in a row.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    And no, all that matters isn't the information. Any idiot can and will post whatever stupid jibber jabber they want because they just don't like biological evolution.
    *chuckles* That is my point exactly. Anyone can post WHATEVER they want, so its up to us to read the information and see what makes logical sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    This is the sad fact in the cross section of our scientifically undereducated world and the "anything goes" internet.
    Couldn't agree more.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    Look, my point was that abiogenesis is its own hypothesis.
    I understand what your point was. MY point was that the need for this hypothesis arose when people began to think "How did evolution start?"

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    No, there is literally no mysticism the bible could possibly prove.
    *chuckes* prove is a relative term. A person can be explained the evidence of a murder and choose to accept it as the truth or not, if he denies the evidence, was it proven to him individually?
    Look at the official definition of PROVE:
    demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument.
    Nothing in there that says the evidence had to be accepted by the person.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    Historical evidence doesn't have the clout to prove materialistic interactions that are beyond our current scope of understanding.
    Really?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    In a world where people happily accept gravity, we still have people who don't want to believe evolutionary theory. In reality, there's more evidence for evolution.
    Circumsantial, Cherry-picked evidence.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    You can find cooks who want to disagree all you want, but it doesn't prove that it isn't the accepted theory of the majority.
    Peer Pressure
    influence from members of one's peer group.
    Just because it is "accepted" does not mean it is "Factual".


    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    The dissent right now is about specific tenets of evolutionary theory, some big, some small. Most of it isn't really questioned, of course.
    Now, I wonder why that is, when there is quite a bit of reason TO question it.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    So, other than cooks who don't understand or don't want to understand what they're talking about and scientists who still mostly accept the theory, yes, it's still the theory of our time.
    Sounds like my words as much as yours.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    It's behavioral... It shows the similarities in behavior and needs and wants, psychologically, between us and our ancestors. We have similar tendencies, including existential affirmations like art.
    Now, see that's interesting. Seeing as things like art and the like existed from the very beginning of human existence, suggests a point from which intelligence began, and it hasn't changed much since then.

    Now I would like to summarize an article I read (I'll try to find it when I get the chance).
    The article was on the human brain. In a nutshell it said, that the way the brain worked was the more it learned the greater its CAPACITY for learning.


    So if you say that human intelligence has evolved, it really hasn't. What has happened is that we have gradually made discoveries and those discoveries have had a domino effect that makes more discoveries easier, not that we are necessarily smarter that the first humans.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    No, they really don't. It's a good thing fossil evidence isn't actually essential to the theory, yeah? It just backs it.
    As I said before, there have been millions, maybe billions of fossils found, and if we really made the change from single celled organisms to human being then we would see that reflected in the millions of fossils found. But it isn't there... Odd.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    Speculate? What are you talking about? Natural selection is the method, the crane of evolution. It gives it it's ability to actually occur. You don't so must "prove" evolution with natural selection as examine it with the understand of natural selection.
    In theory. Once again, if the strong survived and the weak died, then that would make the strong any more strong, just a greater quantity of them would be strong.
    Example:
    Say there are 2 types of beetles in a specific section of forest, Black and White. Now, say a fire burns down the forest. Birds can easily spot the white beetles so they gradually die out in that area, and the black beetles thrive. Yet the black beetles don't suddenly become some other kind of creature, they are still, black beetles.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    First link, heredity of traits can be affected by your circumstances in life. Agreed. This is new science, but it in no way invalidates evolution. Epigenetics might actually support the theory further.
    It is possible, yes. Likely......eh, not so much imo.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    Second link, a blog entry whose writer doesn't understand that increased variety, material, and specific material can all easily arise from mutations.
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html
    And as I specified earlier, the odds of mutations happening that way is so improbable, its crazy to think it happened that way.

    Actually no, insane is a better word. "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein
    So, one believing that a random sequence can in a 1 in a 10^2000 chance become something more, would be defined as ....Insane.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    This is where natural selection comes in. Damaging mutations kill or weaken the organism, lowering its chance of heredity and occurrence. What's best for the organism is what's kept, not what hurts it.
    *chuckles*
    so suddenly the organisms are immune to negative effects, that sure sounds logical and likely.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    It doesn't matter if there's not a specific trail from protist to human in the fossil record. In fact, if there was, we might have cause to doubt the theory as it stands.
    Why not exactly? By what scientists claim, it should be completely obvious. There should be no holes. Yet there are. Why?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    The way they form is specific to the evolutionary narrative. Vestigial bone structures like some seen in whales didn't need to be there, suggesting that they were land based and became a water mammal later. Shape and form determines function in life.
    *chuckles* you get on me for cherry-picking.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    This is how people delude themselves into thinking that the people who actually understand what is being espoused are simply biased fools, thousands and thousands of them. The few that dare to go against it are the truth tellers, the real scientists.
    Maybe, maybe not. But just because an idea is not accepted by the majority by no means should be considered incorrect.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    Yeah, only your specific analysis of scripture is the correct analysis. The malleability of Christian dogma is what allows it to persist.
    There are no variations of the truth - Ian Malcolm (...)
    Now, I have researched for 10 years and have came to the conclusion of what I deem most likely to be the truth. Whether that actually is true or not....Well, the evidence speaks for itself.
    And yet we have this guy who just appears to be spouting opinions with no real evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    We can only hope.
    Oh, believe me I do.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    but the interpretation can be perverted to mean anything you want it to mean.
    True, tis the problem with symbolism.
    But we said that the beast was the League of Nations, and when it ended, we were saying it would come back. And what do we see? the UN. How many coincidences are you willing to stare in the face before thinking "this many coincidences is weird, unatural etc."

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    No, but I'm no god if I make prophesies that can easily predict. For example: "Tomorrow, the sun shalt cometh upon the land, Lutz shalt bashesh Obama, and I shant garnish thine body with pants in the morning."
    *Chuckles* Nice illustration.
    But wouldn't you think that the fall of an entire nation would be slightly harder to predict that the sun rising every day?


    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Failed_...onquer_Babylon
    I already linked to this page. This is such a popular prophesy, it's been long debunked.
    A wiki that has no sources, and very little basis.
    there 3 basis's are:

    1) it was actually written much later than they said = No evidence to assume this
    2) It was meant to be figurative = well, that sure coincided quite nicely to what actually happened. I think its safe to assume that it was meant literally.
    3) I called Cyrus "the Anointed". the word anoint literally means: nominate or choose (someone) as successor to or leading candidate for a position. That could apply to both Jesus AND Cyrus.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    Oh no, it's the end-times thing again... Why is it so astounding to you that a land the Christians hated and bears much hate in the bible was destroyed? In a time where lands rose and fell quite quickly, I'm not too impressed.
    Remember what I said before about "only so many coincidences?"

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    Didn't David tell the king of Judah that he wouldn't be harmed by his enemies? Isiah 7:1? Regardless, you're going to have to prove that this was recorded before the event.
    http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bi...ooks/isaiah/7/
    Not sure what you meant there, but moving on.

    http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101990103
    We know when the book of Luke was written, and it was before the destruction of jerusalem.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    You know why people thought the Earth was flat? Because the bible reported it was a "circle". This was the reason Aristotle was killed, was because the church would have liked to believe the "four corners" meant the world was flat.
    1) Do you have a source to back that up?
    2) as I said before, does a true statement, misinterpreted by a fool, make it any less true?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    This is one of the biggest cherry-picks I have ever seen. It doesn't say water turns into its particulate/gas form, travels to the atmosphere, accumulates, and comes down as a precipitant, or anything remotely close. This is an extremely obscure reference, and it isn't even talking about the water cycle.
    It quite obviously alludes to the water cycle, maybe not in great detail, but more than was known at the time.
    And I find it funny that you call it a cherry-pick. Can you name a scientific fact in the bible that is untrue, mysticism aside?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    North was used interchangeably with firmament, so the suggestion isn't that it was free-floating, but unattached to the free-floating "dome" that the firmament represented.
    Now, you're just grasping at straws.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    Now, Job was still wrong in this passage because it does hang on something, namely gravitational fields.
    *facepalm* does it hang on anything physical?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    Almost anyone can fulfill these requirements,
    So remind me again why we should think it wasn't Jehovah/Yahweh?


    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    except the creation of the world, which we know is scientifically a gibberish statement.
    Since when? We know that creating the universe must have taken an immense amount of energy, and god would have that power.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    Are you one of those who thinks the flood was real, and all that? I hope not.
    I believe what I have reason to believe.
    http://science.howstuffworks.com/nat...reat-flood.htm

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    If you think everything in the bible happened, you have a lot to answer for along the lines of God's allowance of murder, rape, and slavery.
    Fixed that for you.
    Now, the big thing is that he did not agree with these, yet he allowed them to happen, to prove that mans way of ruling is pointless. And when that becomes completely obvious, he will put things back to the way they were in Eden.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    Um, that's called "being ignorant" of morality.
    I don't see it that way, but whatever.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    So, I'll go to heaven then? I'm a generally good person who does the best I can for others. Does this mean I'll go to the same place when I die as you do?
    I thought i made my stance clear. I will not go to heaven when I die. You will not go to heaven when you die. Heaven is not a place for good people to go when they die.

    We, will be in a sleep-like state and the only one who has the power to wake either of us is god.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    Um, yeah. Still baseless.
    “The righteous will possess the earth, and they will live
    forever on it.”
    Psalm 37:29

    “The earth remains forever.”
    Ecclesiastes 1:4

    “He will swallow up death forever, and the Sovereign
    Lord Jehovah will wipe away the tears from all faces.”
    Isaiah 25:8

    “At that time the eyes of the blind will be opened, and
    the ears of the deaf will be unstopped. At that time
    the lame will leap like the deer, and the tongue of the
    speechless will shout for joy. For waters will burst forth
    in the wilderness, and streams in the desert plain.”
    Isaiah 35:5, 6

    “He will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death
    will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor
    pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.”
    Revelation 21:4

    “They will build houses and live
    in them, and they will plant
    vineyards and eat their fruitage.
    They will not build for someone
    else to inhabit, nor will they
    plant for others to eat. For the
    days of my people will be like the
    days of a tree, and the work of
    their hands my chosen ones will
    enjoy to the full.”
    Isaiah 65:21, 22

    I can go on.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    What do you think they were doing to the virgins afterwards? Do you really believe a pillaging army came in, killing man, woman and child, saving only virgins, so they could let them go free for no other reason? Moses was angry that some army let the women live, mad at their mercy. He ordered them killed with the children. I like how you say rape isn't ok, but God ordering the killing of entire villages sits well with you. "God is love".
    Where is that said? Remember, there was no king at this time. The people were acting on "what they saw to be right".
    And the reasons they took only the virgins was if they were not a virgin, there were either married, of had commited the sin of having sex before marriage. And as to them killing the entire town. I am taking a law class right now and there is a class of homicide called "Non-criminal homicide" not saying this totally describes the situation but it is the part of the law that allows soldiers to kill in war, and it is not considered manslaughter. No one would accuse a king of murder when he commands an army to what is best for his kingdom.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    I don't see a single woman wanted to have sex with a man that they were forcibly married to, and I am all but certain that they were forced into sexual relations.
    Opinions with no evidence. You don't know this to be a fact.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    God created the devil. It's immoral for a God to create something that will hurt himself or others within his creation. If I or you were God, we would have never created something that brought suffering.
    http://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings...ate-the-devil/

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    He created the scenario where they would be tricked into a legacy of death and suffering.
    He created a scenario where it was POSSIBLE for them to be tricked.
    I don't suppose you have seen the movie Men in Black 3? In it there is an alien who can see every possible outcome of every possible decision, yet he doesn't make the decisions, other people do. That is basically what god does, he knows what may happen, but he allows us to actually make the choice that decides out fate.

    Edit:
    Quote Originally Posted by ansem the wise View Post
    EDIT:
    To no one in particular

    This is a rule from the Tangent Topic thread:

    Seeing as that limit is about to be up, I will work on getting a separate thread to put this debate in, and it may take a while for the mods to approve it so I'll get on that right away.
    Screw this earlier edit.
    Last edited by Steampunk; 25th October 2013 at 1:17 AM.
    #PokemonUltraMoon #PokemonVGC2017


  14. #89
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    7,832

    Default

    I'm not going to read anything in this thread up to this point. Opinion-stating time:

    The idea that homosexuality is a sin is a misinterpretation by immature, ignorant individuals. Said individuals did not (do not?) grasp the importance of context when reading verses of scripture. Within context lies true meaning--this is why taking words out of context so often causes the meaning to be warped. It's no wonder that when you translate a line of text repeatedly across the years, and THEN take that line of text out of it's context with the paragraphs surrounding it, that you're able to gain an unintended meaning out of it.

    Think about it: The Bible was originally written in Hebrew, and the New Testament originally in Greek. This was translated and retranslated many times, and as far as historians know, the earliest English bibles didn't exist until at some point during the Middle Ages. During these times, since the printing press did not exist, words that were mistranslated or accidentally omitted were added as notes on the sides and bottoms of the pages. When those books--often incorrectly-written--were then taken to translate or input into printing presses, it wasn't clear which notes were necessary to edit in and which were not. This problem was expounded when bibles were heavily-used and worn down; text wasn't always entirely legible. Other biblical texts, such as the Psalms, weren't translated into English until the 16th century. Since then, the Bible was undergone intense revision to become the Bible many of us know today.

    Somewhere along the line, the line regarding that man shall not lie with another man as he would a woman (paraphrased) was found to originally refer to children. This is due to the differing translation options between the word in Hebrew for child, which could be translated into Latin as a word referring to men. If I remember correctly, the original context of that god-forsaken line of text actually was warning against child molestation, not homosexuality. A mistranslation and ignorant religious folks popularized the latter.


  15. #90
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    ---
    Posts
    935

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ansem the wise View Post
    I suppose I can accept that stance. But the thing is, "the current evidence" also has, at very least, the "Possibility" of something else, which you seem to be completely unwilling to even think about.
    It's the best hypothesis we have explaining the phenomena... Of course I consider other things, I'm even entertaining your magic transcendent creature theory.

    Ok, I can accept that, but there are still a few things:
    1) There is no evidence that shows that that actually is what happened
    2) Possible it may be, extremely unlikely it still is (excuse my yoda-speak)
    3) You still have not offered a hypothesis about where the non-living matter came from
    Yes, read the article again, organic matter really was created under perfect conditions. It doesn't matter how likely it is, anthropic principal/argument from ignorance. About non-living matter, what if I said I don't know? I don't understand big-bang cosmology to the degree that physicists do, and it doesn't matter. It's the theist's burden to prove their creation myth.

    See, that's the attitude that really gets under my skin in this world. People are so unwilling to entertain the fact that they MAY be wrong, so they will ignore anything that contradicts them. For the record, yes that was the one I was referring to, and If you bothered to check you would see that the math done in the article was accurate, I checked it myself.
    The math isn't what bothers me, well, not that much, anyway. It's the flawed understanding of evolutionary theory and how it works that makes me recoil. And, for the record, if I cited a flat-earth university I beg you to tell me you wouldn't have dismissed its scientific authority on that basis alone. It wouldn't surprise me, just confirm a suspicion.

    Anyways, the gist of the article was this:
    Helpful mutations are extremely rare.
    So what. This means absolutely nothing. We aren't talking about a single organism, we're talking about a species interacting with every other species and inorganic factor in existence. That means millions of chances, millions of failures, and some successes that advance the genetic future of a given creature.

    The exact odds of 200 helpful mutations happening in a row without it going backwards was 1 in 10^21.
    Find me a single scientist that claims 200 helpful mutations in a row need to occur for evolution to be viable. Just one. A real one, please.
    So the odds that a human came about by random mutations would be (rounded down) about 10^2000.
    Want to know what's cool about evolution? It doesn't occur by random chance. You are criticizing a theory that you know nothing about, other than whatever creationist dogma you've had fed to you over the years.

    *chuckles* That is my point exactly. Anyone can post WHATEVER they want, so its up to us to read the information and see what makes logical sense.
    Science is the opposite of pure rationalism. It's a philosophically empirical endeavor by nature, therefore you can't logic your way to truth if you want to be conclusively backed by science. On top of that, any idiot can blog about something they know nothing about and pretend it's real, but that gives them approximately zero extra credibility on the topic. This is especially important when speaking about topics that need authoritative validation, like this.

    I understand what your point was. MY point was that the need for this hypothesis arose when people began to think "How did evolution start?"
    I'm not quite sure, but I think the idea of "where did life come from" came far, far before "how did life develop through a biologically driven, constantly changing genetic pattern".

    *chuckes* prove is a relative term. A person can be explained the evidence of a murder and choose to accept it as the truth or not, if he denies the evidence, was it proven to him individually?
    What are you talking about? "Proof" is objective, something that, by nature, explains something. It can be proven to be incorrect, of course, which makes it lose its status as a proof, but that doesn't change the nature of the word. Just because someone can deny the sun is a gas masses undergoing a fusion process and gaining mass density doesn't mean that's not the truth. A word is objective if it describes reality.

    Circumsantial, Cherry-picked evidence.
    How can evidence for a scientific theory possibly be "circumstantial"? That made me laugh.

    Just because it is "accepted" does not mean it is "Factual".
    No, it certainly doesn't, but tell me with a straight face that all the scientists in the world would rather avoid fame and fortune instead of criticizing evolution. Especially after all these years.

    Now, see that's interesting. Seeing as things like art and the like existed from the very beginning of human existence, suggests a point from which intelligence began, and it hasn't changed much since then.
    You realize I had to struggle not to make a joke out of this, right? Nothing about the above quote has any basis in reality. Well, other than that you were interested.

    So if you say that human intelligence has evolved, it really hasn't. What has happened is that we have gradually made discoveries and those discoveries have had a domino effect that makes more discoveries easier, not that we are necessarily smarter that the first humans.
    Humans before use had physically larger brains. That doesn't make them more intelligent. Developing language was a step, a huge one. It allowed use to progress. It really has little to do with how we were back in the Neolithic period, only barely capable of keeping ourselves alive.

    As I said before, there have been millions, maybe billions of fossils found, and if we really made the change from single celled organisms to human being then we would see that reflected in the millions of fossils found. But it isn't there... Odd.
    Except that the fact it's there, only fragmented like expected, supports the theory... So, not so odd.

    In theory. Once again, if the strong survived and the weak died, then that would make the strong any more strong, just a greater quantity of them would be strong.
    *Gasps - Did you... just get it?

    Example:
    Say there are 2 types of beetles in a specific section of forest, Black and White. Now, say a fire burns down the forest. Birds can easily spot the white beetles so they gradually die out in that area, and the black beetles thrive. Yet the black beetles don't suddenly become some other kind of creature, they are still, black beetles.
    Never mind, you didn't get it. Here's ho it would work: the new population of black beetles are presented with a new predator that has trouble seeing greys, but not blacks and whites, while a food source arises that only long-legged beetles can get to. This mean beetles will most likely adapt to become gray, long legged beetles. The remaining black beetles adapt when most die, but some need to consume much less and survive. This goes on, as the beetles expand down the coast, and you eventually get a species of black beetles and a species of speckled, green-winged beetles twice as large. This is speciation. After millions of years, this is also called macro-evolution.

    Cool, huh?

    And as I specified earlier, the odds of mutations happening that way is so improbable, its crazy to think it happened that way.
    As I specified earlier, the creationist you cited has about as much understanding of the theory as you do, which probably isn't good for a supposed authority on the subject. You can't use a layman's work to prove an authority wrong.

    So, one believing that a random sequence can in a 1 in a 10^2000 chance become something more, would be defined as ....Insane.
    Now just find me one individual in the world who thinks that, besides your creationist friends, and we'll call them "insane" together, ok?

    so suddenly the organisms are immune to negative effects, that sure sounds logical and likely.
    Did you even read what you quoted? I didn't say that. I said organisms who have negative traits die and the better suited survive. If none are best suited, they die. That's why 99% of all species have died off.

    Why not exactly? By what scientists claim, it should be completely obvious. There should be no holes. Yet there are. Why?
    Because fossils are immensely rare? Because their formation is radically more uncommon than most phenomena? Probably something like that.

    *chuckles* you get on me for cherry-picking.
    Umm, but vestigial organs and structures are perfectly valid proofs of a theory that explicitly states they should be there. Not a cherry-pick, because it's something we should expect to see that we do.


    Now, I have researched for 10 years and have came to the conclusion of what I deem most likely to be the truth. Whether that actually is true or not....Well, the evidence speaks for itself.
    And yet we have this guy who just appears to be spouting opinions with no real evidence.

    True, tis the problem with symbolism.
    But we said that the beast was the League of Nations, and when it ended, we were saying it would come back. And what do we see? the UN. How many coincidences are you willing to stare in the face before thinking "this many coincidences is weird, unatural etc."
    The thing is, I don't know that your group correctly predicted this at all. I'm willing to wager that you didn't but took credit for it anyway because it serves the case best. If there was a real prediction, it would have made the news. Do you have a link to someone stating those exact words pre-dissolution and reformation of the UN?

    But wouldn't you think that the fall of an entire nation would be slightly harder to predict that the sun rising every day?
    Not really, given all of the factors that contributed to its downfall. Was it specific? Was it written before the fact? These are things you need to prove.

    1) it was actually written much later than they said = No evidence to assume this
    The use of language is different that it ought to be, sometimes integrating anachronisms. You still haven't proven that it occurred before the fact and you can't because the original version of Isaiah's work doesn't exist. That's why the prophesy can't hold water.

    http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bi...ooks/isaiah/7/
    Not sure what you meant there, but moving on.

    http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101990103
    We know when the book of Luke was written, and it was before the destruction of jerusalem.
    I don't believe the prophesy specifies the specific time it would happen. It only occurred 33 years after it was said, so the chances it was imminent were pretty high in all likelihood. Prophesy can't be something that has a high chance of happening anyway.

    1) Do you have a source to back that up?
    2) as I said before, does a true statement, misinterpreted by a fool, make it any less true?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Ea...ristian_Church
    Just do a Google search, come on. The trees in the middle of the Earth, the devil showing Jesus everything from a mountain, of course, the tower to heaven, none of those are real, but the few verses that have even the slightest possibility of being interpreted to depict a spherical Earth are totally real? The difference between a fool and a genius interpretation is that one guy sounds smart spewing his crap, and that's it. It has no correct interpretation because it's mythical.

    It quite obviously alludes to the water cycle, maybe not in great detail, but more than was known at the time.
    And I find it funny that you call it a cherry-pick. Can you name a scientific fact in the bible that is untrue, mysticism aside?
    Earth is flat. Bat/bird thing in Genesis. The magma in kings being incorrectly measured. The firmament being a "roof", which couldn't be true. The claim that the formation of the world happened as it was stated in Genesis.

    Now, you're just grasping at straws.
    So, no rebuttal? That's fine.

    *facepalm* does it hang on anything physical?
    If it explicitly said physical you would call it a parable. Because it doesn't specify, you want to pretend it's real. Sorry, no can do. If Job had said it hangs on something, would you not now be telling me it was gravitational fields? You would.

    So remind me again why we should think it wasn't Jehovah/Yahweh?
    Because there's no evidence to suggest he exists, much less causes anything? And, why would we assume something so radical rather than something much simpler?

    Since when? We know that creating the universe must have taken an immense amount of energy, and god would have that power.
    You know who else has that power? The Flying Spaghetti Monster. Totally reasonable.

    I believe what I have reason to believe.
    http://science.howstuffworks.com/nat...reat-flood.htm
    ...
    You can't be serious. You're one of those people...
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

    Now, the big thing is that he did not agree with these, yet he allowed them to happen, to prove that mans way of ruling is pointless. And when that becomes completely obvious, he will put things back to the way they were in Eden.
    How moral, right? Watching as his creation destroys itself while he could easily stop it at any time, end all of the suffering and death, choosing instead to ignore it due to spite? And that doesn't even include the things he explicitly orders and condones.

    I don't see it that way, but whatever.
    Not understanding the difference between right and wrong isn't the same as being ignorant of morality to you? Huh.

    I can go on.
    If I quoted Harry Potter to you and told you you were the chosen one who will defeat Voldemort, would you for a second consider my ramblings worthwhile of consideration in the slightest? Now, Let's take a 3000BC Harry Potter novel and apply the same concept...

    And the reasons they took only the virgins was if they were not a virgin, there were either married, of had commited the sin of having sex before marriage. And as to them killing the entire town. I am taking a law class right now and there is a class of homicide called "Non-criminal homicide" not saying this totally describes the situation but it is the part of the law that allows soldiers to kill in war, and it is not considered manslaughter. No one would accuse a king of murder when he commands an army to what is best for his kingdom.
    What are you talking about? YES THEY WOULD! Remember Hitler? He thought the best thing for his country was to kill the Jews and anyone else considered "impure". In your law class have you read about war crimes? Killing women and children who are defenseless to protect themselves is unbelievably disgusting, and the fact that you defend it... is terrible.

    Opinions with no evidence. You don't know this to be a fact.
    Ask a woman if she would want to have sex with a man that she was forcibly married to and has complete power over her all the time. Ask any girl.


    That is basically what god does, he knows what may happen, but he allows us to actually make the choice that decides out fate.
    Except God can actually change anything he wants at any time. There's a moral obligation in there somewhere. Lets just say that if I was a god, I wouldn't sit around and watch people die tortuous deaths, be oppressed, enslaved, worked to physical immobility, and I'm not even a perfectly moral being.
    FC: 2234 - 8515 - 1161
    IGN: Nick

  16. #91
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Dimension hopping
    Posts
    1,522

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grei View Post
    I'm not going to read anything in this thread up to this point. Opinion-stating time:

    The idea that homosexuality is a sin is a misinterpretation by immature, ignorant individuals. Said individuals did not (do not?) grasp the importance of context when reading verses of scripture. Within context lies true meaning--this is why taking words out of context so often causes the meaning to be warped. It's no wonder that when you translate a line of text repeatedly across the years, and THEN take that line of text out of it's context with the paragraphs surrounding it, that you're able to gain an unintended meaning out of it.

    Think about it: The Bible was originally written in Hebrew, and the New Testament originally in Greek. This was translated and retranslated many times, and as far as historians know, the earliest English bibles didn't exist until at some point during the Middle Ages. During these times, since the printing press did not exist, words that were mistranslated or accidentally omitted were added as notes on the sides and bottoms of the pages. When those books--often incorrectly-written--were then taken to translate or input into printing presses, it wasn't clear which notes were necessary to edit in and which were not. This problem was expounded when bibles were heavily-used and worn down; text wasn't always entirely legible. Other biblical texts, such as the Psalms, weren't translated into English until the 16th century. Since then, the Bible was undergone intense revision to become the Bible many of us know today.

    Somewhere along the line, the line regarding that man shall not lie with another man as he would a woman (paraphrased) was found to originally refer to children. This is due to the differing translation options between the word in Hebrew for child, which could be translated into Latin as a word referring to men. If I remember correctly, the original context of that god-forsaken line of text actually was warning against child molestation, not homosexuality. A mistranslation and ignorant religious folks popularized the latter.


    Disclaimer: I am addressing this argument in order to debate what the biblical texts say. I am not arguing that this proves that the United States government must make laws on this basis.


    Okay, there are two problems with your opinion. First, you provided no sources for your account of how the Bible got to the state it is in today. In fact, a quick Wikipedia search would have shown you that there are still in existence manuscript copies of the Greek and Hebrew texts of every biblical book. Not only can we translate from these today, but the process of translating from a translation has nowhere near the impact on the English Bible as you indicate. It is entirely true that a few English versions were translated out of Latin (such as the one made by John Wycliffe and his followers in the late 1300s). But other Bibles after that were translated out of the original languages, as was, most famously, the King James Version (despite the fact that it, too, could have been better).

    Second, you should have provided some source for your claim about that text in Leviticus. And I mean you should post an actual scholarly source as opposed to, say, a blog that presents a conspiracy theory about anti-homosexual passages being added only starting with the King James Bible. King James was in fact involved in some homosexual relationships (as some of his biographers point out), so such a theory is is not credible, especially not without some kind of source.







    Uhh...and I guess I'd better edit my post:
    Quote Originally Posted by Maedar View Post
    In other words, Ansem, the actual man you quoted, ironically, was some who, much like the fundamentalists of today was someone who thought he could pick and choose what parts of the Bible applied, and which ones did not. Just like the anti-gay marriage crowd keeps trying to cram that dumb passage from Leviticus down our throats but quickly goes silent when we mention the parts of the Good Book that say slavery is okay and working on Sunday is a sin punishable by death.

    Dude, we've seriously been through this. The Sabbath is not Sunday, and I can address more of the problems with your post if and when you acknowledge this.
    Last edited by TheFightingPikachu; 4th November 2013 at 12:20 AM.

    Sprites ripped by Yoshi Clone of spritersresource.com. Banner by my brother ShinySandshrew.

  17. #92
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    7,832

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheFightingPikachu View Post
    Disclaimer: I am addressing this argument in order to debate what the biblical texts say. I am not arguing that this proves that the United States government must make laws on this basis.


    Okay, there are two problems with your opinion. First, you provided no sources for your account of how the Bible got to the state it is in today. In fact, a quick Wikipedia search would have shown you that there are still in existence manuscript copies of the Greek and Hebrew texts of every biblical book. Not only can we translate from these today, but the process of translating from a translation has nowhere near the impact on the English Bible as you indicate. It is entirely true that a few English versions were translated out of Latin (such as the one made by John Wycliffe and his followers in the late 1300s). But other Bibles after that were translated out of the original languages, as was, most famously, the King James Version (despite the fact that it, too, could have been better).

    Second, you should have provided some source for your claim about that text in Leviticus. And I mean you should post an actual scholarly source as opposed to, say, a blog that presents a conspiracy theory about anti-homosexual passages being added only starting with the King James Bible. King James was in fact involved in some homosexual relationships (as some of his biographers point out), so such a theory is is not credible, especially not without some kind of source.
    Sassy response: In formalized discussions, sources need not be cited when one is discussing public knowledge.
    Real response: My main rebuttal for your two points is that I'm not really invested enough to provide sources. In my mind and community, homosexuality is such a non-issue at this point that I feel like I could debate about it for hours, and even if I debated horribly, in the end we'll see homosexuality becoming normalized and the government will stop seeing it as something they need to control and/or condemn.

    If you're interested, I can try and find the source I read that claimed that Leviticus passage was about children and not homosexuals.
    As far as the point regarding translations not being an issue, I can only try to appeal to common sense and say that a Bible is not going to suddenly start translating that particular line of Leviticus as "thou shalt not sleep with a little boy" after the mainstream translation has been so well-known. Or, if it did publish such a translation, it would either be ignored or people would speak against it. Bible-making is still a business that must consider its target audience. The translations we see generally hearken back to translations made centuries ago when these ideas were first popularized into mainstream perception of Christianity. It's this same principle of long-lasting thought that allows us to see Puritan ideals still alive in today's culture. Radicalism is frowned upon in religion, so even if scholars agreed that the line should be "thou shalt not sleep with a little boy," I'm not sure it's likely that idea would catch on; people would stick to the translation they knew previously and may still insist the line was actually talking about homosexuals.


  18. #93
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Creeping on your boyfriend
    Posts
    1,779

    Default

    So someone asked for clarification as to what the discussion in this thread is all about. The title currently says "Homosexuality and Religion".

    I've just skimmed over the past few posts. The entire point of this thread is to have worthwhile discussion on concepts that aren't touched upon in actual debate threads. Since we don't have a bible interpretation thread (nor do I personally think it warrants a new thread in general. You're free to message me if you disagree and we might be able to work something out), I don't see any harm with this thread being used as a catch-all for religious debates. This can include interpretation in the bible regarding homosexuality, interpretation of passages itself, and the role of religion in the modern world, as are just a few examples.

    Hope that clears things up.

    Star-Lord

  19. #94
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    ---
    Posts
    935

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheFightingPikachu View Post
    [SIZE=3]
    Second, you should have provided some source for your claim about that text in Leviticus. And I mean you should post an actual scholarly source as opposed to, say, a blog that presents a conspiracy theory about anti-homosexual passages being added only starting with the King James Bible. King James was in fact involved in some homosexual relationships (as some of his biographers point out), so such a theory is is not credible, especially not without some kind of source.
    How does the actions taken by King James influence how a bible would be translated at all? This is something that was likely delegated to a subordinate. Regardless of any of that, why does it matter whether or not homosexual-hating verses originated now, then, or back in the Bronze Age when it was written? It's still just as disgusting as it will ever be.

    Leviticus also advises you not to eat shellfish, not to plant different crops in the same plot, and wear clothing with different fibers, calling them "abominations". Why should any of that, found in the same book, hold so much less weight than the exact same condemnation of homosexuality in the same terms?

    Quote Originally Posted by Moogles
    So someone asked for clarification as to what the discussion in this thread is all about. The title currently says "Homosexuality and Religion".
    Hmm, not to be rude, but why not just PM him, or add it to the OP? Would've been more effective.
    FC: 2234 - 8515 - 1161
    IGN: Nick

  20. #95
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Dimension hopping
    Posts
    1,522

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grei View Post
    Sassy response: In formalized discussions, sources need not be cited when one is discussing public knowledge.
    Real response: My main rebuttal for your two points is that I'm not really invested enough to provide sources. In my mind and community, homosexuality is such a non-issue at this point that I feel like I could debate about it for hours, and even if I debated horribly, in the end we'll see homosexuality becoming normalized and the government will stop seeing it as something they need to control and/or condemn.
    Serious response to your sassy one: What you claimed is simply not public knowledge, and, in fact, contradicts data that is public knowledge to everyone aside from highly skeptical, conspiracy theorist communities.

    Serious response to your real response: To cite the important politics/religion point for a different purpose, what the government decides about homosexuality is irrelevant to the issue of what a given ancient source actually says. For that reason, it does matter whether anybody debates horribly. I take it that you want to persuade me that my belief about the translation of that verse is wrong, and that my views on homosexuality and religion are wrong. For that purpose, you really should present good sources.


    Quote Originally Posted by Grei View Post
    If you're interested, I can try and find the source I read that claimed that Leviticus passage was about children and not homosexuals.
    As far as the point regarding translations not being an issue, I can only try to appeal to common sense and say that a Bible is not going to suddenly start translating that particular line of Leviticus as "thou shalt not sleep with a little boy" after the mainstream translation has been so well-known. Or, if it did publish such a translation, it would either be ignored or people would speak against it. Bible-making is still a business that must consider its target audience. The translations we see generally hearken back to translations made centuries ago when these ideas were first popularized into mainstream perception of Christianity. It's this same principle of long-lasting thought that allows us to see Puritan ideals still alive in today's culture. Radicalism is frowned upon in religion, so even if scholars agreed that the line should be "thou shalt not sleep with a little boy," I'm not sure it's likely that idea would catch on; people would stick to the translation they knew previously and may still insist the line was actually talking about homosexuals.
    First, on Leviticus, I'll go ahead and volunteer this: your claim about the proper translation of that verse in Leviticus is entirely at odds with what appears to be the most common gay-Christian argument (though my experience may not be quite representative), as found on numerous websites that don't list any actual scholarly linguistic sources. There is no point in me citing the pro-gay sources here, because (1) I've already (earlier in this thread) countered the linguistic claims of several such sites, and (2) like I said, these sites don't list linguistic resources. (To clarify, though, I think I did see one that did cite a popular Bible concordance, though in a highly selective manner and in order to dismiss the source from serious consideration.)


    You do make several good points about translation. It is common knowledge that when the Revised Standard Version was released, it had a handful of renderings in it that led quite a few conservative Christians to denounce that version. But at the same time, a very conservative version has in its footnotes one of the same renderings for which the RSV became infamous. New translations are being made, some of which do have readings which challenge translations found in older versions. Some readers may reject a whole translation or the translation of a verse, phrase, or word, but translators of the Bible, even some of the more conservative ones, have been more and more willing to keep careful track of the scholarly sources on the linguistic data.

    As it is, you need good, scholarly sources to show (1) that modern translations are taking other translations over versions in the original languages and (2) that this has any impact on the verse in question.






    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    How does the actions taken by King James influence how a bible would be translated at all? This is something that was likely delegated to a subordinate. Regardless of any of that, why does it matter whether or not homosexual-hating verses originated now, then, or back in the Bronze Age when it was written? It's still just as disgusting as it will ever be.
    King James merely commissioned the translation. The people who did the actual translation were only his subordinates in the sense of being his subjects. They were not "official royal scholars," or any such thing. However, it is possible that in a few cases, the translators chose renderings that would in some way be more in line with what the king would want. This means that of the various conspiracy theories from pro-gay websites claiming that the Bible was altered to make it...not pro-gay...the theory of King James inserting anti gay verses when he himself engaged in homosexual actions is one of the most ludicrous. That was why I cited that link.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    Leviticus also advises you not to eat shellfish, not to plant different crops in the same plot, and wear clothing with different fibers, calling them "abominations". Why should any of that, found in the same book, hold so much less weight than the exact same condemnation of homosexuality in the same terms?
    I'm debating whether the source says what people have long believed it says, not whether you believe you should follow it. Did you miss the part where I said I'm not making this into a claim that the U.S. government must take any action based on what these sources say?

    Sprites ripped by Yoshi Clone of spritersresource.com. Banner by my brother ShinySandshrew.

  21. #96
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    ---
    Posts
    935

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheFightingPikachu View Post
    However, it is possible that in a few cases, the translators chose renderings that would in some way be more in line with what the king would want. This means that of the various conspiracy theories from pro-gay websites claiming that the Bible was altered to make it...not pro-gay...the theory of King James inserting anti gay verses when he himself engaged in homosexual actions is one of the most ludicrous.
    Oh, I see. I thought you were saying that, because King James leaned towards the gay side, it meant nothing in his bibles could have been anti-gay. I agree that the conspiracies against these specific copies of the bible stating they were purposefully anti-gay are silly, but most versions of the bible are anti-gay without trying. I mean, there's no real need to "insert" anti-homosexual literature into a book that already includes it, scarcely as it does.

    I'm debating whether the source says what people have long believed it says, not whether you believe you should follow it. Did you miss the part where I said I'm not making this into a claim that the U.S. government must take any action based on what these sources say?
    I guess I did miss that part. I don't have a vested interest in bible interpretation, so I usually just fiat whatever someone wants to say on the subject. I'll defer to you here for that reason, now that I realize I was wrong about your original intent.
    FC: 2234 - 8515 - 1161
    IGN: Nick

  22. #97
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Hoenn
    Posts
    2,936

    Default

    Ok, I do not have the time for a long reply at the current time, but seeing as, since I have told people here about my being a Jehovah's Witnesses, some questions have arisen and I thought Id post some info here on the subject. (just a side note, this is focused at basically anyone, not at anyone in particular)

    [Link1] [Link2]
    Ok, in these 2 links we have our answers to many Bible based questions that people have. Take a look at these and compare them to what other religions teach people, and see which one most accurately reflects what the actual texts say.

    [Link]
    This is contains many FAQ's about our Religion itself, like "Why do we go door to door?" "Why are we called Jehovah's Witnesses?" etc.

    [Link]
    This contains a bit of information on The New World Translation, the Bible translation produced by Jehovah's Witnesses.

    [Link1] [Link2]
    These contain some extra information on the preservation and translation of the Bible.

    Hope to be able to post a longer reply soon.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    It's the best hypothesis we have explaining the phenomena... Of course I consider other things, I'm even entertaining your magic transcendent creature theory.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    Yes, read the article again, organic matter really was created under perfect conditions. It doesn't matter how likely it is, anthropic principal/argument from ignorance. About non-living matter, what if I said I don't know? I don't understand big-bang cosmology to the degree that physicists do, and it doesn't matter. It's the theist's burden to prove their creation myth.
    Ok, here is the thing with the anthropic principle. I agree with it in part. But you must have evidence to back it up. Let me give an example:
    Say I were to say: "This guy won the lottery 100 times in a row!"
    Now, someone else could say one of 2 things in reply to that:
    1) "According to the anthropic principle, yes its possible, even though its extremely unlikely."
    2) "According to the anthropic principle, yes its possible, and not only is it possible, it actually happened that way."(and remember this is going off of what I said, not any actual evidence that someone actually won the lottery 100 times)

    Do you see the problem here? Most of the times you have been using the anthropic principle, you seem as if you are saying "not only is it possible, it actually happened that way" when really there is no proof that that is what happened.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    The math isn't what bothers me, well, not that much, anyway. It's the flawed understanding of evolutionary theory and how it works that makes me recoil. And, for the record, if I cited a flat-earth university I beg you to tell me you wouldn't have dismissed its scientific authority on that basis alone. It wouldn't surprise me, just confirm a suspicion.
    True, but here's the ringer, a spherical earth, has gone through all the necessary steps to make it a fact, evolution has not. [Evolution] [Creation]

    [QUOTE=The Federation;16606170]So what. This means absolutely nothing. We aren't talking about a single organism, we're talking about a species interacting with every other species and inorganic factor in existence. That means millions of chances, millions of failures, and some successes that advance the genetic future of a given creature.[QUOTE]
    So....what you are telling me is that the next-to-impossible abiogenesis happened more than once all over the earth to make may single-celled organsism that could then "evolve"? Because if not, then this is an incorrect statement, there was only one hypothetical abiogeneses and it then (somehow) evolved and (again, somehow) evolved.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    Find me a single scientist that claims 200 helpful mutations in a row need to occur for evolution to be viable. Just one. A real one, please.
    Probably wouldn't be that hard, seeing as that would have had to happen when both male and female reproductive organs first "popped up". If the male and female organs did not appear at the same time, the species would have died out, and both reproductive organs together have more that 200 working parts.

    But here's the thing, everyone wants to believe in evolution, so they'll automatically go "yep its possible" without any evidence, basis, or observations.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    Want to know what's cool about evolution? It doesn't occur by random chance. You are criticizing a theory that you know nothing about, other than whatever creationist dogma you've had fed to you over the years.
    Then by all means, enlighten me. Because I'm willing to bet, that you don't fully understand it either, and do you know why? Because its hard to understand that which cannot happen.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    Science is the opposite of pure rationalism. It's a philosophically empirical endeavor by nature, therefore you can't logic your way to truth if you want to be conclusively backed by science. On top of that, any idiot can blog about something they know nothing about and pretend it's real, but that gives them approximately zero extra credibility on the topic. This is especially important when speaking about topics that need authoritative validation, like this.
    Kinnda hard when the "authoritative figures" just nod and agree with each other, treating whatever comes out of the others mouth as divine.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    What are you talking about? "Proof" is objective, something that, by nature, explains something. It can be proven to be incorrect, of course, which makes it lose its status as a proof, but that doesn't change the nature of the word. Just because someone can deny the sun is a gas masses undergoing a fusion process and gaining mass density doesn't mean that's not the truth. A word is objective if it describes reality.
    Sorry, I should have elaborated more. My point was, you said "there is no mysticism the bible could prove". My point was that things can be proof and be used to prove something else. But that does not mean that it was proven in the eyes of whomever examined the evidence.
    For example. You are using evidence to prove evolution, yet if I don't acknowledge it, was it proven to me? Likewise, if I present evidence for the Bible, and you scoff at it, was it proven to you? So, no, maybe there is nothing in the Bible that can prove mysticism to YOU, but that does not downgrade the fact that yes it is proof.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    How can evidence for a scientific theory possibly be "circumstantial"? That made me laugh.
    tsk, tsk, tsk. Laughing other than an actually making a defense. Very interesting.

    Now, I will say this: As far as scientific theory's go, evolution is a well, thought out one. But that does not make a theory "factual." And quite frankly, a fossil here or there, that have similar shape in one spot, is not enough to prove this theory factual.

    Now, here is where the fun part comes in. We have 2 pieces of evidence in direct opposition to each other. The relatively small, portion of the fossil record that "proves" evolution. And the prophesies of the Bible. Now, how to choose? Well, which is more likely to be coincidental, or circumstantial? I'd have to give my vote to the fossils, that have been, majorly exaggerated in importance.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    No, it certainly doesn't, but tell me with a straight face that all the scientists in the world would rather avoid fame and fortune instead of criticizing evolution. Especially after all these years.
    ...
    I don't know if you made a typo here or what, but I have no clue what you're trying to say here.
    Meanwhile I'll post a few other references.
    [Races of Mankind] [Adam and Eve]

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    You realize I had to struggle not to make a joke out of this, right? Nothing about the above quote has any basis in reality. Well, other than that you were interested.
    Again, with laughing other than an actual rebuttal.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    Humans before use had physically larger brains. That doesn't make them more intelligent. Developing language was a step, a huge one. It allowed use to progress. It really has little to do with how we were back in the Neolithic period, only barely capable of keeping ourselves alive.
    [Language]


    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    Never mind, you didn't get it. Here's ho it would work: the new population of black beetles are presented with a new predator that has trouble seeing greys, but not blacks and whites, while a food source arises that only long-legged beetles can get to. This mean beetles will most likely adapt to become gray, long legged beetles. The remaining black beetles adapt when most die, but some need to consume much less and survive. This goes on, as the beetles expand down the coast, and you eventually get a species of black beetles and a species of speckled, green-winged beetles twice as large. This is speciation. After millions of years, this is also called macro-evolution.

    Cool, huh?
    Would be, if 1) it could be observed today and/or 2) There is a buttload of evidence for it happening in the past.
    There is a tiny bit of evidence for both of those, not enough to make this theory fact.


    Also. Take a look at dogs today. Yes they have differences, but you don't see them growing horns, greater intelligence, and other things that would help them survive. They still have all the same characteristics of a dog, 4 legs, 2 eyes, sharp teeth, a tail etc. It shows that while yes organisms can vary a bit, there are limitations.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    Did you even read what you quoted? I didn't say that. I said organisms who have negative traits die and the better suited survive. If none are best suited, they die. That's why 99% of all species have died off.
    Okay, yes the strong live and the weak die, that much has been observed and confirmed. But there is no evidence that the strong get much more stronger. This is a question of quantity of the stronger organisms, not quality.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    Because fossils are immensely rare? Because their formation is radically more uncommon than most phenomena? Probably something like that.
    Well, that's awfully convenient.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    Umm, but vestigial organs and structures are perfectly valid proofs of a theory that explicitly states they should be there. Not a cherry-pick, because it's something we should expect to see that we do.
    True, and like I said before, it is a well thought out theory, but it is still just that, a theory. Not a fact. Don't try to shove it down my gullet that it is.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    The thing is, I don't know that your group correctly predicted this at all. I'm willing to wager that you didn't but took credit for it anyway because it serves the case best. If there was a real prediction, it would have made the news. Do you have a link to someone stating those exact words pre-dissolution and reformation of the UN?
    Yes it would have made the news, but you know what. That would have let everyone know that we were right, can't have that can we?

    In this discourse, Knorr applied Revelation 17:8 to the failed League of Nations and asked rhetorically, "Will the League remain in the pit?" His answer: "The association of worldly nations will rise again." (cf. Revelation - It's Grand Climax Now At Hand p. 248)
    Those words were spoken during the Peace - Can It Last given talk given the at the New World Theocratic Assembly, on September 20 of 1942.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    The use of language is different that it ought to be, sometimes integrating anachronisms. You still haven't proven that it occurred before the fact and you can't because the original version of Isaiah's work doesn't exist. That's why the prophesy can't hold water.
    [Appendix]

    Also, ever heard of the Isaiah scroll? [scource]
    It contains the book of Isaiah(duh) which contains prophesies about Jesus. And guess what, it is over 100 years older than Jesus. As in it came before him.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    I don't believe the prophesy specifies the specific time it would happen. It only occurred 33 years after it was said, so the chances it was imminent were pretty high in all likelihood. Prophesy can't be something that has a high chance of happening anyway.
    Fine, prove it to me that it was imminent, because the source i posted says that it was not.

    Also, a few more prophesies for you to scoff at [Last Days]

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    It has no correct interpretation because it's mythical.
    That is what we call an opinion. And seeing as you have not in any way proved it correct, it is a very premature statement.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    Earth is flat. Bat/bird thing in Genesis. The magma in kings being incorrectly measured. The firmament being a "roof", which couldn't be true. The claim that the formation of the world happened as it was stated in Genesis.
    Could you reference these for me? And I said mysticism aside.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    If it explicitly said physical you would call it a parable. Because it doesn't specify, you want to pretend it's real. Sorry, no can do. If Job had said it hangs on something, would you not now be telling me it was gravitational fields? You would.
    touche, but here's the thing. It doesn't say that. So that is not a rebuttal. Try again.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    And, why would we assume something so radical rather than something much simpler?
    *blinks* I might have to get my laptop fixed, because I must be reading this wrong. In no way shape or form, is the so called "scientific way" simpler.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    You know who else has that power? The Flying Spaghetti Monster. Totally reasonable.
    You know what really annoys me about this? People can't/don't put 2 and 2 together. I give evidence there is a god, you say "it can be any god", then I give evidence that says that the god is the christian one and you say "doesn't matter because there isn't god", to which I give evidence that there is, and you say (once again) "it could be any god". Seriously people.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    How moral, right? Watching as his creation destroys itself while he could easily stop it at any time, end all of the suffering and death, choosing instead to ignore it due to spite? And that doesn't even include the things he explicitly orders and condones.

    Except God can actually change anything he wants at any time. There's a moral obligation in there somewhere. Lets just say that if I was a god, I wouldn't sit around and watch people die tortuous deaths, be oppressed, enslaved, worked to physical immobility, and I'm not even a perfectly moral being
    [Suffering] [Wickedness]

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    Not understanding the difference between right and wrong isn't the same as being ignorant of morality to you? Huh.
    They knew what was right at that time, which was solely don't ear from the tree. They know the consequences. And actually it mentions that Eve was deceived by the serpent, but Adam was not.[Independence]

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    If I quoted Harry Potter to you and told you you were the chosen one who will defeat Voldemort, would you for a second consider my ramblings worthwhile of consideration in the slightest? Now, Let's take a 3000BC Harry Potter novel and apply the same concept...
    I would under a few conditions:
    1) it was written before I existed
    2) It had foreknowledge about some things about me, like when and where I would be born, what I would do in life etc, etc.

    And that is the difference between Harry Potter and the Bible.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    What are you talking about? YES THEY WOULD! Remember Hitler? He thought the best thing for his country was to kill the Jews and anyone else considered "impure". In your law class have you read about war crimes? Killing women and children who are defenseless to protect themselves is unbelievably disgusting, and the fact that you defend it... is terrible.
    You're right, bad wording on my part. And just for the record, what Hitler did was not what was best for his country.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    Ask a woman if she would want to have sex with a man that she was forcibly married to and has complete power over her all the time. Ask any girl.
    You are forgetting that, back in that time, 99% of marriages were Pre-arrainged. Now, that is not specifically a Godly command, he only arrainged marriages here or there. Now, the women (and men sometimes) often had no say in who they married. Now, if one member did not want to be married, and thus did not want to have sex, then it would be wrong to force it on him/her. But seeing as that was the norm at that time, it was a rarity, because they knew that they probably would have no say in who they married. (remember, this is a statement, of the facts, not of what me or the bible condones)
    [Women]
    Last edited by Steampunk; 3rd December 2013 at 9:42 PM.
    #PokemonUltraMoon #PokemonVGC2017


  23. #98
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    ---
    Posts
    935

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ansem the wise View Post
    Ok, here is the thing with the anthropic principle. I agree with it in part. But you must have evidence to back it up. Let me give an example:
    Say I were to say: "This guy won the lottery 100 times in a row!"
    Now, someone else could say one of 2 things in reply to that:
    1) "According to the anthropic principle, yes its possible, even though its extremely unlikely."
    2) "According to the anthropic principle, yes its possible, and not only is it possible, it actually happened that way."(and remember this is going off of what I said, not any actual evidence that someone actually won the lottery 100 times)
    You still egregiously misstate the truth of the principal. You still lack understanding. In the real scenario, the proof would be self-evident but how it came about could (and most often is) an unknown. The fact that we consciously observe the universe proves that the universe is capable of producing being that are in turn capable of observing the universe. How likely this was or how it happened is irrelevant. So, in your analogy, instead of the AP suggesting that an unproven assertion with no inherent basis (winning the lottery), it would be more accurate to offer a man who was ignorant of having won 100 times but his bank account reflected it to the penny. Hope that clears that up.

    Do you see the problem here? Most of the times you have been using the anthropic principle, you seem as if you are saying "not only is it possible, it actually happened that way" when really there is no proof that that is what happened.
    Naturalistic explanations always take intellectual priority over myths and fairytales. It almost certainly happened naturalistically because that scenario is millions of times more likely than a force that isn't provable at all.

    True, but here's the ringer, a spherical earth, has gone through all the necessary steps to make it a fact, evolution has not.
    The world's school systems disagree. Peer review journals disagree. Modern biologists disagree. You link to age-old references to scientists who fail to understand that underlying principals of their field. I ask you now, why is that even provided as evidence? Why would you accept that as evidence? For me, a skeptic and a critical thinker, I won't take the word of others if it isn't either highly specialized or already supported elsewhere.

    So....what you are telling me is that the next-to-impossible abiogenesis happened more than once all over the earth to make may single-celled organsism that could then "evolve"?
    Now I'm just sitting here, reading and re-reading what I wrote, and realizing how the JW can come to institutions and leave unscathed in their beliefs. How in the world did you get this from what I wrote?? Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis! It works independently as a complete system. You really, really need to read up on the actual facts of biological evolution instead of referring to your infallible website for all the answers.

    Probably wouldn't be that hard, seeing as that would have had to happen when both male and female reproductive organs first "popped up". If the male and female organs did not appear at the same time, the species would have died out, and both reproductive organs together have more that 200 working parts.
    First of all, if it wasn't hard, you would have posted one. Second off, reproductive organs aren't irreducibly complex. Not for this to be the refutation, but what other process than biological evolution would place the urinary tract so close to the reproductive organs? The branch off from asexual cloning to sexual reproduction wasn't an overnight process. The intermediate process likely didn't need much or any encouragement or help from any specialized organ. You don't get to the level of sophistication in sexual reproduction overnight, and you absolutely don't need a spontaneous growth of modern "tools" like so many creationists think.

    But here's the thing, everyone wants to believe in evolution, so they'll automatically go "yep its possible" without any evidence, basis, or observations.
    This theory is anything but intuitive. They accept it because it's evidenced, not because "they want to".

    Then by all means, enlighten me. Because I'm willing to bet, that you don't fully understand it either, and do you know why? Because its hard to understand that which cannot happen.
    Some people understand the Twilight universe better than reality- but that's neither here nor there. The truth is, I won't bother reciting to you facts that you'll only label opinion in the long run. Just read The Origin of Species.

    Kinnda hard when the "authoritative figures" just nod and agree with each other, treating whatever comes out of the others mouth as divine.
    You mean the same figures that would gain everything from a scientific discovery eliminating evolution from the scientific landscape? The ones that would be immortalized in the collective human intelligence after proving it false? Yeah, let's stop listening to the most educated among us and instead go by the word of the inerrant bloggers, or the clergymen that have done so well to suppress knowledge for the majority of our existence.


    tsk, tsk, tsk. Laughing other than an actually making a defense. Very interesting.
    You really want me to rebut four words? The day I spend time refuting a four word argument is the day I laugh and make fun of said argument. Which was that day, apparently.

    Now, I will say this: As far as scientific theory's go, evolution is a well, thought out one. But that does not make a theory "factual." And quite frankly, a fossil here or there, that have similar shape in one spot, is not enough to prove this theory factual.
    There's a lot more to it, as I've listed, but you don't want to stare reality in the face. I can't help that. Evolution is basically, and this is about as simple as I can make it, the process of speciation we witness now dragged out over millions of years. Micro and macro evolution are the same in the sense that they both use the same mechanisms, and you support microevo.

    Now, here is where the fun part comes in. We have 2 pieces of evidence in direct opposition to each other. The relatively small, portion of the fossil record that "proves" evolution. And the prophesies of the Bible. Now, how to choose?
    1) Every prophesy you've offered I've refuted.
    2) Prophesy =/= proof for other claims. Even if it's all true, the claims themselves need to be verified. I don't see how you miss this step.
    3) Evolution is so much more than fossils. This is indoctrination at it's best. At least you didn't say it was lighting striking a mud puddle.
    4) You don't measure a theory by its possibility, you measure it by whether or not it stands up to scrutiny. By the way, it does and has since its creation.

    ...
    I don't know if you made a typo here or what, but I have no clue what you're trying to say here.
    To put it simply, why would a scientist avoid the worldwide uproar and fame the would come with his discovery that evolution is a falsity? Why would you avoid being immortalized with such an amazing discovery?

    Again, with laughing other than an actual rebuttal.
    OK, tell me how you would respond to someone who looked at cave paintings and commented, "Man, they must have been at least as smart as us!", commencing to post just that to his Facebook from his iPhone, then got in his car and got a coffee from Starbucks.

    I love how this is somehow more likely in your mind that an evolution that preferred those who could communicate, which offered a huge advantage. And if you want to call me our for "laughing" at you instead of responding, don't post links to your website as if they prove anything, especially when you don't comment about what proves me wrong first. Links are meant to be offered to prove a statement, and as it stands the JW website has less credibility than a blog.

    Would be, if 1) it could be observed today and/or 2) There is a buttload of evidence for it happening in the past.
    There is a tiny bit of evidence for both of those, not enough to make this theory fact.
    It's observed today AND happened in the past. The huge amount of evidence I've offered in the past proves this. I'm starting to think you don't read any of it.

    Also. Take a look at dogs today. Yes they have differences, but you don't see them growing horns, greater intelligence, and other things that would help them survive.
    They aren't under any evolutionary pressures. Think dingo's. They are pack mammals and hunt at night, if I remember. These traits developed from a lack of food, difficult to catch prey alone during the day, etc. You just don't understand the theory at all, and I can't take the time to teach you every single facet of it.

    Okay, yes the strong live and the weak die, that much has been observed and confirmed. But there is no evidence that the strong get much more stronger. This is a question of quantity of the stronger organisms, not quality.
    There is no "strong" and "weak", only "most adapted" and "least adapted". The organism that survives is the one that can adapt the fastest, making bacteria a dominant species to humanity in that regard. Nobody offered as evidence that the strong get stronger, I don't know where that came from.

    Well, that's awfully convenient.
    Sometimes reality really sticks it to creationist talking points.

    True, and like I said before, it is a well thought out theory, but it is still just that, a theory. Not a fact. Don't try to shove it down my gullet that it is.
    This whole post is so scientifically illiterate it makes me cringe. I obviously can't force you- the pope couldn't sway your beliefs -but I will tell you that it's a fact, a theory, regardless of what you think. To be very clear, a theory is a set of facts that collectively prove a hypothesis.

    It contains the book of Isaiah(duh) which contains prophesies about Jesus. And guess what, it is over 100 years older than Jesus. As in it came before him.
    You're link doesn't prove this to be the case...

    Fine, prove it to me that it was imminent, because the source i posted says that it was not.
    You're link, if I remember, used biblical narrative as it's source. Of course it won't try to frame itself as a self-fulfilling prophesy.

    Also, a few more prophesies for you to scoff at [Last Days]
    The best part about "last days" prophesies is that they have been part of the religion since Jesus died.

    That is what we call an opinion. And seeing as you have not in any way proved it correct, it is a very premature statement.
    You don't prove something is mythical. If it's not real, it's a myth. You don't believe in Horus because it has no backing in reality, but when it comes to Xtainity you embrace it because you have developed an attachment to it.

    Could you reference these for me? And I said mysticism aside.
    I can't, "mysticism aside", because I have to use the bible. But here they are: Isaiah 40:22, Lev. 11: 13-19, the entire Genesis account. There's plenty in the Skeptic's annotated Bible.
    http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html

    touche, but here's the thing. It doesn't say that. So that is not a rebuttal. Try again.
    Um, the "if it was then" argument is meant to prove that either way you would defend it as true, therefore proving the actual substance has no basis.

    *blinks* I might have to get my laptop fixed, because I must be reading this wrong. In no way shape or form, is the so called "scientific way" simpler.
    If you understood it, it might seem less complex. I remember when I didn't know how cars worked... Occham's razor dictates the hypothesis with the least and less drastic leaps in logic is preferred. You have an unrestricted negative and I have natural science, soooo...

    You know what really annoys me about this? People can't/don't put 2 and 2 together. I give evidence there is a god, you say "it can be any god", then I give evidence that says that the god is the christian one and you say "doesn't matter because there isn't god", to which I give evidence that there is, and you say (once again) "it could be any god". Seriously people.
    ONE of my arguments was that it could be any God. It still stands, you having never refuted it. But that's not all- I even denied it was evidence at all, having dismantled your prophesies as I did. I never once said "It doesn't matter because you're wrong neahhh", so you're second caricature is a strawman.

    They knew what was right at that time, which was solely don't ear from the tree.
    Wrong. They knew some being didn't want them to do it, threatening to kill them if they did. That's not morality, that's cause and effect. If the "tree of knowledge" brought them morality, then they literally couldn't have had it before.

    And that is the difference between Harry Potter and the Bible.
    So really the only proof you offer are prophesies, which come from a book trying it's best to fulfill those prophesies? Some of them were even written in clearly.

    Please read enough about evolution to have an educated conversation about it before you post again, because saying "it's fossils!" and "evolution isn't a fact, it's a theory!" is nonsense.
    FC: 2234 - 8515 - 1161
    IGN: Nick

  24. #99
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    883

    Default

    Even in the odd chance that God existed, Christianity would be false. The reason is that Christianity is a religion: it is about blind faith into God's existence, not about rational belief through evidence. Therefore, if you had legitimate proof about God's existence and believed in his existence based solely on the evidence, you would by definition not be a Christian.

    Secondly, even if God existed, nothing would make him a genuine moral authority. Whether an action is right or wrong can only be determined through rational argumentation, not relying on a figure of authority. If murder is wrong, it is not wrong because God says so, but because it is against moral laws determined through rational thought.

  25. #100
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Philadelphia,PA,USA
    Posts
    1,992

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aegiscalibur View Post
    Even in the odd chance that God existed, Christianity would be false. The reason is that Christianity is a religion: it is about blind faith into God's existence, not about rational belief through evidence. Therefore, if you had legitimate proof about God's existence and believed in his existence based solely on the evidence, you would by definition not be a Christian.

    Secondly, even if God existed, nothing would make him a genuine moral authority. Whether an action is right or wrong can only be determined through rational argumentation, not relying on a figure of authority. If murder is wrong, it is not wrong because God says so, but because it is against moral laws determined through rational thought.
    If you're going to call out a specific religion, then read up on it so you at least sound like you know what you're talking about.

    Christianity was founded by Jesus' Apostles(St Peter being the leader after Jesus' crucifixion) who were told to spread the Word, which are the teachings of Jesus. It was these teachings that got Jesus killed because He disliked how the Pharisees and Saducces practiced the Jewish faith and called them out on it on numerous occasions. They were basically the versions of modern hypocritical Christians but they were Jewish and it was about 2000 years ago.

    I don't even understand how it was blind faith when the Church first started considering how St Paul converted. He had actually killed and persecuted Christians before along with the Romans. Getting into the tough details of the God and religion debate needs more than paragraphs because it's a complicated thing to talk about. Despite what you hear, Christians actually have reasons for believing certain things and have had philosophical debates.

    Although some explanations for little traditions are different depending if you're talking to a Catholic, a Greek Orthodox, a Protestant, a Lutheran, etc. They still share the same core.

    Back to philosophy, that's why hard scientific evidence is not an answer for the possible existence of God. Religion and Science tell two completely different things but are actually able to work together despite popular belief. Science is how, the physical. Religion is the why, the beyond physical.

    In conclusion, you can believe whatever you want. But to make either side of religion or science out to be a joke, then that's just ignorant


    3DS FC: 4382-2456-8353

    Nintendo Network ID: TheFonzPart

    Platinum FC: 2924 5508 7388

    HeartGold FC: 5372 2982 5997

    White 1 FC: 3396 3135 0386

Page 4 of 13 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •