Question

[whatchamean?]

Do you really, honestly think we have not considered the possibility that God is real?

There's no doubt you haven't truly considered the possibility. If you honestly did, then you'd know. 

"If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself." Jn.7:17

That's just a flat out statement which is either true or false. It doesn't rely on fossils or light travel or all the other bullshit we talk about. All it requires is honesty on the part of anyone who wants to know. There's no way to fake yourself around it.

[velkyn]

Do you really, honestly think we have not considered the possibility that God is real?

There's no doubt you haven't truly considered the possibility. If you honestly did, then you'd know. 

"If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself." Jn.7:17

That's just a flat out statement which is either true or false. It doesn't rely on fossils or light travel or all the other bullshit we talk about. All it requires is honesty on the part of anyone who wants to know. There's no way to fake yourself around it.

ooooh, the bible says so!   Considering that it is indeed false, you've failed. 

16 Jesus answered, “My teaching is not my own. It comes from the one who sent me. 17 Anyone who chooses to do the will of God will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own. 18 Whoever speaks on their own does so to gain personal glory, but he who seeks the glory of the one who sent him is a man of truth; there is nothing false about him. 19 Has not Moses given you the law? Yet not one of you keeps the law. Why are you trying to kill me?”

 

There is no reason to beleive that JC existed as some man/god, nor is there any reason to beleive that what is attributed to him is true in anyway.  We see in these verses that the "will of God" comes into play.  Just what is the "will of God", whatcha?  Every Christian of every stripe claims that they and only they know what this will "really" is, and not suprisingly, God's will always matches up to the desires and hatreds of each Christian.  You all claim to speak for this god, and funny how you all have the same lack of evidence that this is true.  None of you can do what was promised as followers of Jesus so indeed, the bible itself speaks against believing you at all.  And gee, right here we see JC saying that you should follow the laws of Moses?  How many workers who dare to work on the "sabbath(and when it that exactly, whatcha?) have you killed recently, whatcha?

Now, we have you claiming that atheists "really don't want to know".  Well, whatcha, that's a lie on your part since you don't know me and how, when I was losing my faith, I really really prayed and really really wanted to know this god.  But I got no response at all.  Now, please do cue the Christian whine "But you didn't do it "right".  If so, then tell me how to do it right.  I'll put your claims into action and then we'll see how much your god does.

[whatchamean?]

   Might help if you actually linked the video... and... uh... I'm assuming you copy/pasted some of those lines: The word is "speechless". I'm assuming. Because, after all, I can't view the video without links - so maybe he is being speeless.

Too much trouble to type in "Richard Dawkins speechless" then. That's fine. I wouldn't expect you to look anyway Avatar. I've gotten the same silence from everyone here I've asked about it.

If you want to show them as lying, you will have to actually dig up the subversion that you think most of the world's biologists are partaking in (because after all, it isn't just Dawkins).

The interviewer was asking Dawkins for proof of evolution at the molecular level. After his wires started to smoke, Dawkins completely ignored him.

Or can we assume that your habit of ignoring posts means that you are lying to us?

You can assume I'm one person answering 20 people on 3 different threads.

[whatchamean?]

Now, we have you claiming that atheists "really don't want to know".  Well, whatcha, that's a lie on your part since you don't know me and how, when I was losing my faith, I really really prayed and really really wanted to know this god.  But I got no response at all. 

What happened to you?

[screwtape]

There's no doubt you haven't truly considered the possibility. If you honestly did, then you'd know. 

Well, at least that's an honest response.  I have two follow up questions:

How attached are you to that belief?
What would it take to change your mind?

You see, I strongly disagree with your position on this.  You are saying you know our minds, but you've not really talked with anyone.  You are coming to a rather judgmental conclusion solely based on the outcome, which really does not address whether we have seriously considered the possibilities. 

In your opinion, the ONLY conclusion any thinking person could possibly come to is the one you have arrived at.  That shows conviction, but is really not a humble or modest approach.  It is dismissive and arrogant.  It says we are some kind of idiots for disagreeing.

That's just a flat out statement which is either true or false.

So the truth of the quote is up in the air?  How do we determine which it is?

It doesn't rely on fossils or light travel or all the other bullshit we talk about.

Actually, it kind of does.  You see, jesus H believed literally in noah, eden, exodus and all that other bullshit.  So, if noah, eden exodus and all that other bullshit is wrong, then jesus H was wrong.  And if jesus H was talking out his ass, then he probably wasn't son/avatar of a Canaanite god called yhwh. 

This is how I came to the conclusion the xian god is not real.  My faith was built on the NT.  The NT was built on the OT.  But when the OT was shown to be malarkey - because of fossils and light travel and a myriad of other facts about how the universe works - then rug was pulled out from under all of it. 

All it requires is honesty on the part of anyone who wants to know. There's no way to fake yourself around it.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.  Maybe you could reword it to clarify.

[Brakeman]

Whachamean,

I know that many of you christians speak in tongues, but can you type in tongues too?

1st Corinthians 14: something  - says that speaking in tongues is the spirit talking to god without the mind understanding. Do you really think your soul does things without your conscious mind knowing it?

Care to explain how that works?

[velkyn]

Now, we have you claiming that atheists "really don't want to know".  Well, whatcha, that's a lie on your part since you don't know me and how, when I was losing my faith, I really really prayed and really really wanted to know this god.  But I got no response at all. 

What happened to you?

Hmmm?  what happened to me when?  If you are asking what happened to me to make me lose my faith, that was a bunch of things.  Reading the entire bible, which is a great way to become an atheist; realizing that the bible is no better than any other religion with its mistakes, unfulfilled promises, claims that one group of people is better than the rest;  realizing that people make up their own god to fit what they want;  seeing a universe that shows no evidence for a god of any kind at all.

Now, as always, you can't answer any questions put to you, whatch.  Answer mine if you can.  And you also can't show that biology or geology or anything else supports your mythical nonsense.  It's just more vague claims and nothing to back them up, just like every other creationist.   Same with claims about Dawkins, vague claims and nothing more, with you evidently too lazy to actually show people what you claim.  You use fallacy after fallacy, trying to support your nonsense, and try to corrupt science at every turn, just like creationists.  Happily, it's so easy to show your claims to be the garbage that they are, and that you can't support them at all. 

EDIT: and here's a refutation of your lies about Dawkins and a lovely example on how Christians must rely on lying to advance their nonsense: http://www.skeptics.com.au/publications/articles/the-information-challenge/

People who are honest and who have a leg to stand on shouldn't need to try to edit film and lie about other people.  That's called bearing false witness, lying about others whatcha, which your supposed savior said not to do.  When Christians repeatedly do this, it makes me wonder just how much they really believe, in that they would put their supposed immortal souls on teh line for something so petty as trying to make a man say what he doesn't say at all.

[whatchamean?]

Bah. Watchamean is doing the normal Christian troll thing of only answering the weakest rhetoric.

Add, give me your one best argument for your belief that mankind evolved from a lower life form. Don't hop around from fossils to dna, etc. Just pick one subject that you think best proves we are products of evolution. 

[pianodwarf]

Add, give me your one best argument for your belief that mankind evolved from a lower life form. Don't hop around from fossils to dna, etc. Just pick one subject that you think best proves we are products of evolution.

You know, you don't really even need to hop from subject to subject.

Francis Collins is the head of the NIH, which is one of the largest, if not the largest, medical research institutes in the world.  Collins is an evangelical Christian, and he has said that even if we had no fossils of any kind anywhere, just the DNA evidence alone overwhelmingly proves that evolution is true.

EDIT:  Corrected per Gnu Ordure's note (below).

[Avatar Of Belial]

Too much trouble to type in "Richard Dawkins speechless" then. That's fine. I wouldn't expect you to look anyway Avatar. I've gotten the same silence from everyone here I've asked about it.

Yes, it is too much trouble when I go out of my way to provide links if I want to show a source or a video but the other person (you) chooses not to extend the same courtesy. I'm not here to do your reasearch for you, nor should I be required to go hunting for it no matter how easy it is. Lastly; even ignoring those two conditions I would prefer you give it so there is no question we are looking at the same video. If you think no-one is going to look, then why are you bothering in the first place?

If you link it; I will look at it. If the relevant part starts more than a minute in, please specify the time index. I will look at it when I get home (as I browse these forums at work, where streaming media is blocked).

The interviewer was asking Dawkins for proof of evolution at the molecular level. After his wires started to smoke, Dawkins completely ignored him.

Proof of evolution at the "molecular level" is itself nonsensical, so I'm already not surprised Dawkins was "speechless". May as well ask for proof of chocolate at the planetary level. Evolution doesn't rely on the individual molecules, you need to be up at at least the genetic/chemical level to see the effects.

That said, perhaps context will make the question seem less stupid, so please provide the link.

Or can we assume that your habit of ignoring posts means that you are lying to us?

You can assume I'm one person answering 20 people on 3 different threads.

I could also assume mars is made out of monkeys. As this is the most fun of the choices, I shall do so.

As for you ignoring people, may I recommend, if you are feeling overwhelmed here; you can challenge someone with a tad more time than myself to a debate thread. That way you can take it mano-a-mano (or more if you're feeling cocky) and we'll generally ease off of you for not responding over on the general boards in the hopes that your opponent will bring up the same issues. Keep in mind, however, that both sides are held to higher standards there in regards to their responsiveness towards each other.

[Gnu Ordure]

Francis Crick is the head of the NIH, which is one of the largest, if not the largest, medical research institutes in the world.  Crick is an evangelical Christian, and he has said that even if we had no fossils of any kind anywhere, just the DNA evidence alone overwhelmingly proves that evolution is true.

Brainfart, PD  .

I'm pretty sure the NIH isn't headed by a dead person.

You mean Francis Collins^Wiki , not Francis Crick ^Wiki (who was an agnostic atheist).

[Emergence]

WCM, could you please outline the reasons you think the majority of the bioscience-community has for lying?
(If you already did so, please point me to the post where i can look that up. Thanks.)

I've been outlining it Emergence, but it's always ignored, or sidestepped like it is here:

Videos of richard dawkins speeless
Discover videos of richard dawkins speeless with Bing Video Search

Click to view videoRichard

(Please notice how after having a brain fart, your hero simply ignores the qestion and restates his unfounded belief.)

How, pray tell, does this answer my question? Please outline the reasons me and my colleagues - including Dawkin's whose books i haven't come around to reading [yet] - have for lying. Where's the gain?

[velkyn]

Proof of evolution at the "molecular level" is itself nonsensical, so I'm already not surprised Dawkins was "speechless". May as well ask for proof of chocolate at the planetary level. Evolution doesn't rely on the individual molecules, you need to be up at at least the genetic/chemical level to see the effects.

You may be wrong with your claim or how you phrased it.  Might want to check this out  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_evolution 

[pianodwarf]

Francis Crick is the head of the NIH, which is one of the largest, if not the largest, medical research institutes in the world.  Crick is an evangelical Christian, and he has said that even if we had no fossils of any kind anywhere, just the DNA evidence alone overwhelmingly proves that evolution is true.

Brainfart, PD  .

I'm pretty sure the NIH isn't headed by a dead person.

You mean Francis Collins^Wiki , not Francis Crick ^Wiki (who was an agnostic atheist).

Err, right, I knew that.  Just testing you.  Glad you passed.  *cough cough*

Sorry.  It's been a rough day.  I've just been moved into a new position where I'm going to be taking on all kinds of different responsibilities that I've never had in any other position before, plus there's a lot of confusion due to the contract change, so my brain is a little fuzzy today.

[Avatar Of Belial]

Proof of evolution at the "molecular level" is itself nonsensical, so I'm already not surprised Dawkins was "speechless". May as well ask for proof of chocolate at the planetary level. Evolution doesn't rely on the individual molecules, you need to be up at at least the genetic/chemical level to see the effects.

You may be wrong with your claim or how you phrased it.  Might want to check this out  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_evolution

Ah, good catch. My actual statement is somewhat incorrect. Everything is usually understood in terms of RNA/DNA/Proteins/etc. which is usually interpretted through genetics, but some things are not.

A major part that lends to the confusion is that DNA, RNA, and proteins are themselves entire molecules (and macromolecules), which is not normally what I (and I'd imagine I'm not alone) think of them as. So, technically, evolution does rely on single molecules. Entirely my mistake there.

Thanks for catching that, Velkyn.

[whatchamean?]

Whachamean,

I know that many of you christians speak in tongues, but can you type in tongues too?

1st Corinthians 14: something  - says that speaking in tongues is the spirit talking to god without the mind understanding.

The mind of the hearer, not the speaker.

[Brakeman]

Whachamean,

I know that many of you christians speak in tongues, but can you type in tongues too?

1st Corinthians 14: something  - says that speaking in tongues is the spirit talking to god without the mind understanding.

The mind of the hearer, not the speaker.

Nope not the Listener, the one doing the praying - were you trying to be dishonest there, or is this new to you?

14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.

Does your soul ever pray without you? Personally?

[violatedsmurf80]

Add, give me your one best argument for your belief that mankind evolved from a lower life form. Don't hop around from fossils to dna, etc. Just pick one subject that you think best proves we are products of evolution.

It does not matter about evolution or creation or any of the theories that try to explain anything.  The simple fact that if GoD was real and a part of our lives he would honor his word regardless if we are new or old believers he would treat us all equally and he does not.  He picks and chooses who he wants to have what. Would you pick and choose if you had two sons that want the same thing, give one what he wanted and not the other? GoD does this all the time, give people who are starving shit even if they are believer and give the nonbelievers everything.  It is BS, the simple fact that you would rather live a lie then face the truth is your problem, because the vast majority of us that did believed, HE cast us to the wayside by not following his word!!!

[JeffPT]

There's no doubt you haven't truly considered the possibility. If you honestly did, then you'd know.

So reading the bible from cover to cover with the total intention of discovering whether or not God is real isn't truly considering it?  How about reading books written by apologists?  How about visiting several Christian websites and interacting directly with people as deluded as you are over the past 4 or so years of my life?  Honestly, fuck you for even insinuating that I haven't considered it.  That's probably the dumbest thing you could say.

No whatchamean.  I have truly considered the possibility that God is real.  I did for quite some time, until it proved foolish to continue to do so.  I STILL consider the possibility that there is some sort of deity out there.  I come here in part to hear the arguments in favor of, and against the notion that god is real, and you know what?  It's a landslide loss for your side.  You lose.  The Christian God is fake.  Any thinking person knows it.

"If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself." Jn.7:17

That's just a flat out statement which is either true or false.

Bolded by me to show you that you really could be wrong here.  Under careful consideration, it's undoubtedly false. 

It doesn't rely on fossils or light travel or all the other bullshit we talk about. All it requires is honesty on the part of anyone who wants to know. There's no way to fake yourself around it.

If I said that all it took was honesty on your part to believe that Zeus was real, what would you tell me?

Yeah, forget all that evidence stuff.  Forget about analyzing what people say and just swallow what's written down in some really old book written by ignorant fools.  It's in the bible so it MUST be true, right?  Whatever... You go ahead and just keep trying to bull your way through, ignoring what everyone else is trying to tell you.  If you say it enough, we might start believing it right?  Well, just because that worked on you, doesn't mean we're as stupid as you are. 

Add, give me your one best argument for your belief that mankind evolved from a lower life form. Don't hop around from fossils to dna, etc. Just pick one subject that you think best proves we are products of evolution. 

It's against my better judgement to even argue with you on this because you have an agenda against evolution, but animal breeding is the one that really sealed it for me.  DNA is good, old earth science is good, fossils are good, but the animal breeding thing was the one that made me do that... "OH I GET IT" thing. 

Say you have 100 cows in your field.  If you wanted to make a line of really big cows, what would you do?  You would take the 2 biggest cows and mate them together, right?  Their offspring would tend to be big cows.  After you do that for a few years, you've got a whole field of big cows.  That's evolution in action.  Changes over time.  It happens. It's not in question.  Any dog breeder, pigeon breeder, plant breeder uses this principle every time they want to get something out of their breeding efforts.  In fact, humans have done this a lot and produced cows that are really, really big.  The process by which they do that is called evolution through ARTIFICIAL selection (humans making the choices of what traits get passed on).  Now imagine not just a few years, but a few hundred million years, coupled with ever changing environments with other predators and prey that are also changing over time.  That is evolution through NATURAL selection. Small changes over huge spans of time give rise to different species.   Whatever characteristics make the individual more likely to survive in its environment will tend to be passed on just by the sheer ability to live longer in that environment. It's really easy to see it then. 
 

[Brakeman]

Say you have 100 cows in your field.  If you wanted to make a line of really big cows, what would you do?  You would take the 2 biggest cows and mate them together, right? 

Yes Jeff, but if you wanted striped cows you HAVE to use colored sticks.. Whacha's got you there!!!

[Add Homonym]

Bah. Watchamean is doing the normal Christian troll thing of only answering the weakest rhetoric.

Add, give me your one best argument for your belief that mankind evolved from a lower life form. Don't hop around from fossils to dna, etc. Just pick one subject that you think best proves we are products of evolution.

<PEDANTIC MODE> And who will be the judge of whether I have beaten your argument? </PEDANTIC MODE>

<PEDANTIC MODE> I gave you some decent questions to answer, and you evaded them. </PEDANTIC MODE>

Basically, no answer to the rhetorical question you just posed above will satisfy you, because no matter what you find out, by researching evolution or listening to argument, your faith is apparently dependent on the Bible being literally true in its entirety. Christians who have another proof of God, that is what they claim direct experience are not particularly fussed about the story in Genesis, which can't be true anyway. Most Jews and Christians have abandoned it as a literal account, because it means something metaphorical to them.

I don't know whether you noticed, but in the creation story, God creates day and night, independent of the sun. The writer claims that a layer of water is above the sun and stars, and God created sun and stars as an afterthought, so that man could have "signs". The sun merely "rules the day", as if day is an inherent property without sun. (I know why they thought this.) He even creates the sun after plant life. If you demonstrate that evolution is false, then by your logic, we have to fall back on this joke as the only answer, do we?

Liberal Christians have a God who is smart enough to create a universe that can self-assemble life from amino acids; why is your God not smart enough to do this?

I have an explanation for you.

You want to defend Christianity on all fronts, whether they are contradictory, or not. I have seen Christians defend both ID and YEC at the same time. You don't want to explain the universe. You just want to use it as a bargaining chip in your snowstorm of misdirection.

Evolutionists did not invent evolution to thwart people like you. They invented it, because it best explains what we see out there. If you have nothing else to prove that Hebrew-God exists, besides the accuracy of the Genesis, then you are treading on zero ice. I hope you can walk on water, like Jesu.

[Add Homonym]

... by your logic, we have to fall back on this joke as the only answer, do we?

Of course, that was very low-brow of me. We don't just have the story in the bible to fall back on. We have the mountains of peer reviewed and tested scientific theory that creationists have published in Nature, as an alternative explanation.

[whatchamean?]

Nope not the Listener, the one doing the praying - were you trying to be dishonest there, or is this new to you?

14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.

If I speak, (pray, sing, etc.) in a language (French, Italian, etc.) that is foreign to you, my understanding is unfruitful (fruitless, bears no fruit, is useless, etc.)  because you don't know what I'm saying. Read the chapter:

4....He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself
9...except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken
16...seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest
17 ...the other is not edified.

And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance....And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
 Acts 2:4, 7-8

Tongues was speaking in foreign languages, not the silliness that goes on in Pentecostal circles today.

[whatchamean?]

How attached are you to that belief?

Very.

What would it take to change your mind?

Proof that I was wrong

You see, I strongly disgree with your position on this.

I strongly believe that every atheist who claims to have once been a believer was a pretender.

You are saying you know our minds, but you've not really talked with anyone. You are coming to a rather judgmental conclusion solely based on the outcome, which really does not address whether we have seriously considered the possibilities.

I already know you haven't seriously considered the possibilities.

In your opinion, the ONLY conclusion any thinking person could possibly come to is the one you have arrived at.  That shows conviction, but is really not a humble or modest approach.  It is dismissive and arrogant.  It says we are some kind of idiots for disagreeing.

Well stated.

So the truth of the quote is up in the air?

No.

How do we determine which it is?

You determine it.  The proof of what Jesus said is within your own self.

Actually, it kind of does.  You see, jesus H believed literally in noah, eden, exodus and all that other bullshit.  So, if noah, eden exodus and all that other bullshit is wrong, then jesus H was wrong.  And if jesus H was talking out his ass, then he probably wasn't son/avatar of a Canaanite god called yhwh.

And everyone has their own angle on Noah, Eden, etc. The only proof a person can't debate is the knowledge of self within his own mind. Be honest with yourself. 

This is how I came to the conclusion the xian god is not real.

I told you there are no current atheists who ever had a real past experience with God.

My faith was built on the NT.

No it wasn't. Your faith was based on playing church, like alot of other phonies.

The NT was built on the OT.

True.

But when the OT was shown to be malarkey - because of fossils and light travel and a myriad of other facts about how the universe works - then rug was pulled out from under all of it.

Fossils and light speed haven't disproved the Bible. Like C, you should visit more people than wiki. 

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.  Maybe you could reword it to clarify.

What you know about yourself isn't clear to most others, but it is to God and you'll never get around Him.

[Astreja]

I strongly believe that every atheist who claims to have once been a believer was a pretender.

"A pretender"?  Are you serious, Whatchamean?  Are you really so desperate to defend your beliefs that you have to dismiss the sincere efforts of anyone who no longer believes as you do?

I told you there are no current atheists who ever had a real past experience with God.

But how are we to determine if you have had a "real past experience with God," rather just imagining one?  If you're wrong about the sincerity of ex-believers, you could also be wrong about having a divine encounter.

[Brakeman]

Nope not the Listener, the one doing the praying - were you trying to be dishonest there, or is this new to you?

14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.

If I speak, (pray, sing, etc.) in a language (French, Italian, etc.) that is foreign to you, my understanding is unfruitful (fruitless, bears no fruit, is useless, etc.)  because you don't know what I'm saying.

***** I see what you did there! How totally dishonest. A prayer is a conversation with god The verse does NOT include some other person It does NOT include singing or preaching to other people. The other verses speak of talking in tongues with other people. BUT, When praying the conversation is supposed to be with some form of god. So the understanding that is fruitless can only be the prayee unless you're saying god couldn't understand either - which is equally stupid.

[Brakeman]

Similarly, {from http://www.rightlydividing.net/Speaking_In_Tongues.htm}

        * Acts 10:45,46a

          And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished ...because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
          46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God.

Tongues was the proof those skeptical Jews needed to believe that the Gentiles had really gotten saved. When Peter had problems explaining to the brethren back in Judea (Acts11:1-18) he pointed to that "sign" saying that the Gentiles had received the Holy Ghost in the same manner (with the tongues) as they themselves had. (v15)

If christians can show "Proof" of their connection with god through their abilities to speak "New" languages on a whim, I challenge you to speak to us in Quechua as I have an ex-mother in law that can verify it.

[jetson]

Its always the ex mother in law...always.   

[ungod]

 The proof of what Jesus said is within your own self.

Hey there, Whatchamean - I've been looking for a Bible believer. So, in accordance with

Give to him who asks of you, AND do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you." Jesus, Matthew 5:42

I'm asking you to give me all your savings, and lend me your car and computer. How about it?