Author Topic: Question  (Read 12150 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Question
« Reply #232 on: November 14, 2011, 11:32:58 AM »
I think you desperately hope this is the case. However, you cannot show that it is true in the least.  All you are doing is attempting to bear false witness to support your claims.  Why should we believe someone who lies so badly about what they think they know about others?  This makes all of your claims suspect and you didn’t even have to go there. Then we have many baseless attempts to claim that atheists aren’t “being honest” with themselves.
I desperately hope that you never really sought after God? That's funny. Truthfully, the only thing I desperately hope is that you aren't past the point of being real with yourself and from your statement above it's obvious you're well on the way.   
Yes, I belive that you do, when you claimed this "
Quote
I told you there are no current atheists who ever had a real past experience with God."
Because if you dared to acknowledge that Christians just like you can lose their faith and realize that they aren't this imaginary god's special snowflakes, your position in the universe is in doubt and the validity of your experience is in doubt.  You aren't as special as you hope you are.   You still try to make believe that you can read people's minds and that's just too cute. 

However, that doesnt' make anything you've said true.  I am quite self-aware of myself aka "real with myself" in that I have done all that Christians claim to find this god. Nothing has worked, so you all have failed. I prayed and prayed when I still had a scrap of faith left and what did that get me? Nothing again.   
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3896
  • Darwins +259/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Question
« Reply #233 on: November 14, 2011, 01:29:26 PM »
Quote
I told you there are no current atheists who ever had a real past experience with God."
Because if you dared to acknowledge that Christians just like you can lose their faith and realize that they aren't this imaginary god's special snowflakes, your position in the universe is in doubt and the validity of your experience is in doubt.  You aren't as special as you hope you are.   You still try to make believe that you can read people's minds and that's just too cute. 
   

Actually no current atheist ever had a real experience with God, just like no theist had. No more than we've had no real experience with Santa Claus
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question
« Reply #234 on: November 14, 2011, 01:49:40 PM »
Screwtape:
Quote
he's just trolling.  Trying to push buttons.
Who, Riley? Or Watcha?

Riley seems to be thinking about things (see this post, for example).

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6726
  • Darwins +534/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Question
« Reply #235 on: November 14, 2011, 02:14:09 PM »
[...]What the water was above the sky in the beginning I really don't know. I don't think anyone Bible teacher does know.
Oooo! Oooo! I know!

Genesis 1:6-9
And God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters." And God made the firmament and separated the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament. And it was so.


The waters behind the sky are kept in place by the strength of the firmament. Openings (windows) in the firmament could be the source of the flood that wiped out humanity in the time of Noah.[1]

Heaven is very hard, it has windows in it. It has to be hard otherwise all the rain would come through at once and there's be another flood.

Genesis 7:11
In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventh day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth and the windows of the heavens were opened.

Genesis 8:2
the fountains of the deep and the windows of the heavens were closed, the rain from the heavens was restrained,


From this we can see that no rocket could penetrate the sky and satellites are just figments of the fevered and Satanic minds of NASA and other agencies in league with the Devil.
 1. There is far less confusion when it comes to the heavens. The sky covers the earth like a tent and we live under it. The is no mention of an atmosphere in the Bible, nor of the preferential scattering of blue light by nitrogen molecules (nor any mention neither of nitrogen nor of molecules). The sky protects us and keeps us safe not by filtering out ionizing radiation but by its sheer strength. The sky of the Bible is solid -- a firmament.
Job 22:14
Thick clouds enwrap him, so that he does not see, and he walks on the vault of heaven.
Job 37:18
Can you, like him, spread out the skies, hard as a molten mirror?
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12387
  • Darwins +685/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Question
« Reply #236 on: November 14, 2011, 03:14:08 PM »
Screwtape:
Quote
he's just trolling.  Trying to push buttons.
Who, Riley? Or Watcha?

Riley seems to be thinking about things

Whatcha.  I agree about riley, although my initial impression was that he was up to no good.  Whatcha is just repeating the same shit to get a rise, the twerp.   

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2729
  • Darwins +222/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: Question
« Reply #237 on: November 14, 2011, 07:45:19 PM »
You forgot the BWHAHAHAHAH!
I really like your upside down roo. I think it would be fun to have a drink with you.


Apology accepted. However, notionally I don't drink. Maybe because I'm upside down, and it would fall out.

Quote
Proof is what you know is true by reason of your own senses. Evidence is what may or may not lend credence to what is true and may or may not be correct, depending on unknown factors.

Oh. This is the same definition that the writer of the Bible had, when he decided that the day must be caused by heavenly light, and the sun merely ruled the day. Sounds fine, until you learn about atmospheric blue scattering. If it's the case that proof-for-you only requires an arbitrary dictum and ignorance of the user, then I have more than enough "proof" that your Bible narrative is either comedy or fire lighter material.

It can be shown very easily that what a person deduces is dependent on the correctness of their original information. In the case of evolution, geology and cosmology, all the jigsaw pieces are correct. It's up to the user to come to the conclusion about what they mean. Liberal Christians have decided that it adds up to the same thing as atheists; perhaps with a few tweaks for ID.

Creationists interpret geology, cosmology and paleontology incorrectly, because they start with an axiom that they have no evidence for: The Bible is inerrant, no matter which way you decide to interpret it. Liberal Christains have decided that Genesis is symbolic. This allows them to see the evidence of evolution, cosmoloy and geology the same way as atheists do.

Therefore, by your own definition of "proof", proof changes according to what you feel like on the day, and what your bias is. I suggest that there is only evidence, reason and better evidence, but not proof, unless you are a mathematician.

At least we know what your definition of proof is, now: personal bias.

What's the argument? If Christians want to pretend to be possessed by devils, and speak a load of gibberish that even their own church condemns, I say more power to them

http://www.letgodbetrue.com/bible/heresies/tongues-have-ceased.htm
Then again, you do believe that order comes from disorder, so nonsense is perfectly normal to you.

Trollin trollin trollin. I can assure you that nonsense is perfectly normal to any human, no matter what their belief system, and this is why you believe that the sun and stars were created in the Earth's upper atmosphere, one day after plant life; and that Noah distributed 900 species of eucalypts back to Australia, and put mistletoe on them, and re-established the mistoe bird ecosystem. Pot kettle white.

Fortunately we have the sun and geothermal energy as inputs. Although we don't know what the first chemical reaction was, that harnessed external energy and beat entropy within itself, it's perfectly obvious that this reaction is self sustaining, unless you want to claim that God is behind all life's chemical reactions. Therefore, evolution is a perfectly good deduction as to how this self propagating reaction further developed, unless you can show God helping at every point. Feel free to become a liberal Christain.

Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Question
« Reply #238 on: November 15, 2011, 09:05:21 AM »
Actually no current atheist ever had a real experience with God, just like no theist had. No more than we've had no real experience with Santa Claus

indeed, you are correct.  We all think we've had valid experiences but atheists realize that waht they thought was an supernatural experience was not.
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2729
  • Darwins +222/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: Question
« Reply #239 on: November 15, 2011, 07:33:43 PM »
Eternal hell may be like that in  religious circles. What the water was above the sky in the beginning I really don't know. I don't think anyone Bible teacher does know.

I'm interested in what type of hell you believe in. Is it aeonian? If so, how long is an aeon? I've noticed this word used in the Hebrew, but I don't know how long they thought it was, either. How do you reconcile your belief of a hell with a duration, vs. this woman, who says it's eternal, because she went there.



Would you just say she's a psychopath? Matthew says that the soul is consumed in hell, but Luke, when he does his copy-and-paste, removes duration. I think it's marvelous how one author gets that authority, without needing to show evidence. Is it a democratic process? If so, do I get a vote? Does Tamara get a vote? Would her votes count more, because her lie is so well-rehearsed?

How are you going with your own iota of proof that the sun was created 4 days after day and night? Got an iota yet?
I'm not the one with the problem of questions such as "Where did the light come from?" , or "How did plants live before there was a sun?" God is the giver and sustainer of all life, but to answer such a question for you would require knowledge of the source of the "light" that God created on the first day and how it was "separated" from the "darkness." There are some who believe the entirety of mankinds (and all of creations) existence from beginning to end is contained in the first chapter of Genesis.

The reason the mistakes in the creation story are important, is not that someone can show some symbolic parallel with the creation of light and dark, being good vs. evil. The problem [for a believer], is that it actually says "day" and "night": And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.. So, yes, there may be symbolism there, but overall, the mistake is consistent with a child who does not understand that sun causes daylight, and Earth's shadow caused night. You might think it's ridiculous that anyone could not be aware that the sun causes day, but there it is; the writer is as backward as those of his age.

This is re-iterated by saying: "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also." Notice he doesn't say that the sun causes the day, but simply rules in it, like the moon in night. God simply pastes in the sun, stars and moon on one day, as if they have no significance besides things on a backdrop of day and night. This is consistent with a writer of that age, who knows nothing of galaxies and planets, or that there is any space outside our Earth's firmament. It's not consistent with a being who created something entirely different.

The problem with the creation story is not how wrong it is, but how it is consistent with childish misconceptions, consistent with the era.

I've already provided as much evidence that God created the universe as you have for evolution, but you're right about one thing. The  existence of everything there is in the world causes silence for scientists.   

Do you mean me, personally, or the people who go around dating pollen in 11,000 yr layered varve deposits, or the people who go around correlating oxygen isotopes in stalactites with ice ages? When you say "evidence", are you saying that evolutionists can only supply poor quality evidence [in truckloads], but creationists always supply very good quality evidence. I'm not understanding why you think there is not much "evidence" for "uniformitarianism", whereas you think you've supplied evidence that your god played a hand, vs. someone elses god. Your Genesis story shows he didn't, unless you want to remove that book from the Bible, and go with something more Christian. I'm all for a little editing.

ED: inserted "it", in there it is.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2011, 08:22:58 PM by Add Homonym »
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline whatchamean?

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 181
  • Darwins +2/-34
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Question
« Reply #240 on: November 16, 2011, 05:05:50 PM »
Because if you dared to acknowledge that Christians just like you can lose their faith and realize that they aren't this imaginary god's special snowflakes, your position in the universe is in doubt and the validity of your experience is in doubt.  You aren't as special as you hope you are.   You still try to make believe that you can read people's minds and that's just too cute.
My point was that I see no reason why Christians would "lose their faith" and my point was based on Jesus' words (Jn.7:17). That's all I was saying. It has nothing to do with being able to "read peoples minds."   

However, that doesnt' make anything you've said true.  I am quite self-aware of myself aka "real with myself" in that I have done all that Christians claim to find this god. Nothing has worked, so you all have failed. I prayed and prayed when I still had a scrap of faith left and what did that get me? Nothing again.
I had the exact opposite result as you. I've found that God is true according to His word. What is it you were praying for?
« Last Edit: November 16, 2011, 05:11:33 PM by whatchamean? »

Offline whatchamean?

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 181
  • Darwins +2/-34
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Question
« Reply #241 on: November 16, 2011, 06:35:44 PM »
Apology accepted. However, notionally I don't drink. Maybe because I'm upside down, and it would fall out.
I wasn't offering an apology. I just liked your upsidedown kanga.

Oh. This is the same definition that the writer of the Bible had, when he decided that the day must be caused by heavenly light, and the sun merely ruled the day. Sounds fine, until you learn about atmospheric blue scattering. If it's the case that proof-for-you only requires an arbitrary dictum and ignorance of the user, then I have more than enough "proof" that your Bible narrative is either comedy or fire lighter material.
Of course you think you would. You don't believe in God, so why would you think anything else?

It can be shown very easily that what a person deduces is dependent on the correctness of their original information.
I agree that it should be that way, but it can also be very easily shown that people make conclusions based on the incorrectnees of their original information, in which case their conclusions are wrong.
 
In the case of evolution, geology and cosmology, all the jigsaw pieces are correct. It's up to the user to come to the conclusion about what they mean.

No it isn't. If the pieces of the puzzle are right they can only mean one thing and the user has no right to deny it.

Liberal Christians have decided that it adds up to the same thing as atheists; perhaps with a few tweaks for ID.
So, liberal Christians have made decisions based on the correct or incorrectness of what they've been told (as we all do.)

Creationists interpret geology, cosmology and paleontology incorrectly, because they start with an axiom that they have no evidence for....
Atheists do the same thing. Are you really going to tell me that geologists know how old rocks are? You seriously believe paleontologists know how old fossils are?

Therefore, by your own definition of "proof", proof changes according to what you feel like on the day, and what your bias is.
Oh no my friend. When Jesus showed Himself alive from the dead, what the Apostles felt like on another day didn't change that proof. Evidence can be misinterpreted, but proof can never be changed.

At least we know what your definition of proof is, now: personal bias.
Personal bias involves personal motive. I have none. Neither did the disciples.

What's the argument? If Christians want to pretend to be possessed by devils, and speak a load of gibberish that even their own church condemns, I say more power to them
Your position as one outside and having no interest in Gods church is understandable.

Trollin trollin trollin. I can assure you that nonsense is perfectly normal to any human, no matter what their belief system, and this is why you believe that the sun and stars were created in the Earth's upper atmosphere, one day after plant life; and that Noah distributed 900 species of eucalypts back to Australia, and put mistletoe on them, and re-established the mistoe bird ecosystem. Pot kettle white.
Well, it looks like you're into wonderful atheistic arguments for why the Bible is nonsense. What argument do you have for the nonsense that after the big bang, all those exploding gasses traveling at the speed of light somehow compressed themselves into stars? But on second thought nevermind, because I forgot about all that dark matter.

Fortunately we have the sun and geothermal energy as inputs. Although we don't know what the first chemical reaction was, that harnessed external energy and beat entropy within itself, it's perfectly obvious that this reaction is self sustaining, unless you want to claim that God is behind all life's chemical reactions.
Life doesn't come from chemical reactions. Life only comes from other life. Do you know what my scientific conclusion is from this fact? Life has always existed....and you know the Bible says God is life.

Therefore, evolution is a perfectly good deduction as to how this self propagating reaction further developed, unless you can show God helping at every point. Feel free to become a liberal Christain.
You haven't started with a self propagating reaction.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2011, 06:42:53 PM by whatchamean? »

Offline whatchamean?

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 181
  • Darwins +2/-34
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Question
« Reply #242 on: November 16, 2011, 06:46:15 PM »
We all think we've had valid experiences but atheists realize that waht they thought was an supernatural experience was not.
God doesn't answer prayer according to our will, but according to his own.

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2729
  • Darwins +222/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: Question
« Reply #243 on: November 16, 2011, 08:46:11 PM »
In the case of evolution, geology and cosmology, all the jigsaw pieces are correct. It's up to the user to come to the conclusion about what they mean.

No it isn't. If the pieces of the puzzle are right they can only mean one thing and the user has no right to deny it.

Interesting. You just denied that humans interpret data. You also skipped over the assumption I palmed onto you: that science had produced correct jigsaw pieces. Rather than attack that, you chose to say something incorrect. The quoting system must be getting to you.

You admitted before that you did not know much about the fossil record, or much about the sciences that have produced the jigsaw puzzle pieces. What you seem to be basing your deduction on, is meta-puzzle-pieces, provided by creationist critique of what you presume to be the actual puzzle pieces. For example, various creationists stunts, like sending Mt St Helens volcanic rock into a lab to produce a false dating on it. The jigsaw puzzle analogy is flawed, because science puzzle pieces overlap, and many bits are missing. With skill, a user who is missing [even more] pieces can deliberately assemble them in the wrong way.

I have the advantage of the consensus of scientists who know the subject and have been rigorously critiquing other's work. You do not have that advantage, because no creationist has ever produced a theory to be critiqued, so you cannot rely on a group consensus to assemble your puzzle for you; at least not a group that sticks to any single story. Because of this, you have no choice but to pursue the subject as an amateur sleuth with extreme prejudice. In other words, I contend that you do not look at the entirety of the original data, but are pointed to certain parts of it by a people who are already incredibly biased.

Therefore your puzzle pieces are a small subset of pieces that have been preselected to be misleading. You don't look at the puzzle, but the anti-puzzle. You would naturally refuse to do this for your own beliefs, and contend that I would do the same to yours. But, how would I go about doing this for your beliefs in Christianity? Exactly what proof would I be looking for, besides a personal experience of JC? Believing say-so stories about the resurrection does not quite cut it. The reason for this, is that no set of theologians believe in any interpretation which is consistent, and even the Bible stories do not match up. There is nothing for me to look at. You have a wealth of things in science to get busy looking at.

Quote
Atheists do the same thing. Are you really going to tell me that geologists know how old rocks are? You seriously believe paleontologists know how old fossils are?

No, but I can look at a volcanic plug myself. Take the caldera of a crater around where I live:


That's a massive volcano (55km across) that happened 22 million years ago, and then eroded over that course of time, and left a plug, called Mt Warning. The volcanic plug is made of harder material, which is slowly dropping around the base of the plug. By the rate the rocks drop down from the volcanic plug, and the composition of the rocks at its base, I can see that this erosion would have taken more than 10,000 years, [thanks], and that even if the caldera had been made by a flood, the plug would not have eroded in 6000 years. I can see this with my own eyes.

No matter how massive the evidence in favour of any particular theory, it only takes one inconvenient fact to screw it up. Your YEC belief can be screwed up by any number on inconvenient facts, but you choose instead, to spend your time looking for random faults in someone elses theory. The faults you find don't amount to anything. So, sometimes dating techniques mis-date rocks, but that doesn't mean that the world is 6000 years old.

Further, this volcano caused numerous igneous intrusions into coal seams which underly the region. This has coal seam gas companies salivating, because the volcano drove off water from the coal deposits. Coal deposits are very deep fossilized plants. If I were to believe you, then these plants got buried 2km deep in the flood, and then a volcano penetrated the region and boiled the water off, soon after the flood, and then in 6000 years the caldera eroded.

No, I don't think so.

We also have some interesting sandstone rock formations that have eroded very slowly by wind. You have the "Arizona wave". You can measure the rate this all happens, if you can be bothered.

Quote
Therefore, by your own definition of "proof", proof changes according to what you feel like on the day, and what your bias is.
Oh no my friend. When Jesus showed Himself alive from the dead, what the Apostles felt like on another day didn't change that proof. Evidence can be misinterpreted, but proof can never be changed.

Showed himself to you, did he? Or are you relying on the lies on 3 books?

Quote
At least we know what your definition of proof is, now: personal bias.
Personal bias involves personal motive. I have none. Neither did the disciples.

FFS. The gospel is a propaganda tirade, that ridicules/polemics anything that gets in its way.

Quote
What's the argument? If Christians want to pretend to be possessed by devils, and speak a load of gibberish that even their own church condemns, I say more power to them
Your position as one outside and having no interest in Gods church is understandable.

I quoted/linked to a Christian's opinion on the subject. Tongues is condemned by most(?) Christians.

Quote
Trollin trollin trollin. I can assure you that nonsense is perfectly normal to any human, no matter what their belief system, and this is why you believe that the sun and stars were created in the Earth's upper atmosphere, one day after plant life; and that Noah distributed 900 species of eucalypts back to Australia, and put mistletoe on them, and re-established the mistoe bird ecosystem. Pot kettle white.
Well, it looks like you're into wonderful atheistic arguments for why the Bible is nonsense. What argument do you have for the nonsense that after the big bang, all those exploding gasses traveling at the speed of light somehow compressed themselves into stars? But on second thought nevermind, because I forgot about all that dark matter.

So, your proof is that we have not got all the pieces, yet?

Quote
Fortunately we have the sun and geothermal energy as inputs. Although we don't know what the first chemical reaction was, that harnessed external energy and beat entropy within itself, it's perfectly obvious that this reaction is self sustaining, unless you want to claim that God is behind all life's chemical reactions.
Life doesn't come from chemical reactions. Life only comes from other life. Do you know what my scientific conclusion is from this fact? Life has always existed....and you know the Bible says God is life.

Yeah, but God is a sort of spiritual life, so your logic is not useful. DNA did not slip off God. God is not made of DNA. Even you would contend that God simply messed with amino acids. The amino acids were dead. How do viruses fit into your logic? They are dead, but still live. There is lots of life out there that doesn't qualify as "life". Once again, stop taking credit for a god's work.

ED: add [even more]
« Last Edit: November 16, 2011, 09:12:57 PM by Add Homonym »
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2729
  • Darwins +222/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: Question
« Reply #244 on: November 16, 2011, 08:54:53 PM »
BTW, pretty cool that the forum embeds google maps.
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2729
  • Darwins +222/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: Question
« Reply #245 on: November 16, 2011, 10:28:33 PM »
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/coal.html

Here's a gem I found on Talk Origins:

Quote
It is impossible to interpret these deposits as formed by a single event of short duration. The plants that form coal take time to grow, coal takes time to accumulate and decay, and trees take many years to grow. There are multiple coal seams and multiple tree and footprint horizons, and this is only in one short interval of the geologic record in one area. There are many other areas of similar coal deposits (e.g., Joggins, Nova Scotia). Rather than being a significant problem for conventional geology, coal is explained quite easily by analogy to modern peat environments. Coal deposits and associated sediments are an immense problem for any interpretation involving a "global flood".

I know in my area, the coal companies are after buried coal, in multiple seams up to 3km deep. Creationists, when they have time out of their busy schedule, have to explain how various stratas of footprints and erect trees got buried intact.

Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline whatchamean?

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 181
  • Darwins +2/-34
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Question
« Reply #246 on: November 16, 2011, 10:44:21 PM »
I'm interested in what type of hell you believe in. Is it aeonian? If so, how long is an aeon? I've noticed this word used in the Hebrew, but I don't know how long they thought it was, either.
I believe "hell" as it is taught in the Bible is the lake of fire, where rebellious souls will be thrown (weeping) and destroyed (immediately.) The idea of "for ever", everlasting" etc. are better off being defined by the surrounding text.

How do you reconcile your belief of a hell with a duration, vs. this woman, who says it's eternal, because she went there.
She also said when the EMT's arrived and looked at her condition, they asked her mom if she was even going to bother having her taken to the ER. No EMT would ask such a question where anyone had even the most remote possibility of survival. I didn't believe her story.

Would you just say she's a psychopath?
I don't know what motivated her to tell the story. All I can say is that I don't believe part of it.

Matthew says that the soul is consumed in hell, but Luke, when he does his copy-and-paste, removes duration.
Text?

The reason the mistakes in the creation story are important, is not that someone can show some symbolic parallel with the creation of light and dark, being good vs. evil. The problem [for a believer], is that it actually says "day" and "night": And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.. So, yes, there may be symbolism there, but overall, the mistake is consistent with a child who does not understand that sun causes daylight, and Earth's shadow caused night. You might think it's ridiculous that anyone could not be aware that the sun causes day, but there it is; the writer is as backward as those of his age. This is re-iterated by saying: "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also." Notice he doesn't say that the sun causes the day, but simply rules in it, like the moon in night. God simply pastes in the sun, stars and moon on one day, as if they have no significance besides things on a backdrop of day and night. This is consistent with a writer of that age, who knows nothing of galaxies and planets, or that there is any space outside our Earth's firmament. It's not consistent with a being who created something entirely different. The problem with the creation story is not how wrong it is, but how it is consistent with childish misconceptions, consistent with the era.
I like your deductive reasoning on this subject and it just caused me to see something I never really thought about before. I'll have to get back to you on this, but, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth and the earth was without form and void."
Could it be that God "created" everything on the first day and caused what He created to take shape on the other five days in various ways so that life could survive on earth? Could it be that God actually created the sun on the first day? I have to look at the text closer but I'm too tired now. I'll get the the rest later.
 


Offline ungod

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 580
  • Darwins +15/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Question
« Reply #247 on: November 17, 2011, 06:15:38 AM »

I believe "hell" as it is taught in the Bible is the lake of fire, where rebellious souls will be thrown (weeping) and destroyed (immediately.)

Heaven Is hotter than Hell!

http://www.cybercelebrations.com/Valentines/Heavens_hot.html
Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.
Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

"What good fortune for those in power that people do not think." - Hitler

Offline gonegolfing

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1224
  • Darwins +23/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • God ?...Don't even get me started !
Re: Question
« Reply #248 on: November 17, 2011, 09:16:52 AM »

Creationists interpret geology, cosmology and paleontology incorrectly, because they start with an axiom that they have no evidence for....
Atheists do the same thing. Are you really going to tell me that geologists know how old rocks are? You seriously believe paleontologists know how old fossils are?


Well...there you have it ladies and gentleman.

His questions give him away. Whatchamean obviously feels that these specific branches of the scientific method and the bodies of scientists within them, are completely wrong, knowingly wrong, and therefore they have formed a conspiracy so as to mislead the public.

Since he knows that it is basically the entire body of scientists within these branches that claim these facts, he does not believe then that just a few of the scientists are merely deluded, but that the entire group as a whole are intentionally plotting against humanity with this false information so as to discredit any religionist or supernaturalists claims about special or young earth creationism.

Whatchamean..your ignorance of and disrespect for the scientific method, and scientists, is appalling.
"I believe that there is no God. I'm beyond atheism"....Penn Jillette.

Offline whatchamean?

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 181
  • Darwins +2/-34
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Question
« Reply #249 on: November 17, 2011, 09:25:22 AM »
This is re-iterated by saying: "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also." Notice he doesn't say that the sun causes the day, but simply rules in it, like the moon in night. God simply pastes in the sun, stars and moon on one day, as if they have no significance besides things on a backdrop of day and night. This is consistent with a writer of that age, who knows nothing of galaxies and planets, or that there is any space outside our Earth's firmament. It's not consistent with a being who created something entirely different.
The bible clearly says the heavenly bodies are "for seasons and for days and for years." Gen.1:14 All are true, as the earth rotates and revolves around the sun. Also, the idea that Moses didn't know that plant life needs sunlight isn't true: "And for the precious fruits brought forth by the sun..." Deut.33:14. (Still looking at the text.)

The problem with the creation story is not how wrong it is, but how it is consistent with childish misconceptions, consistent with the era.
I'm pretty sure nobody during that era knew about this.
"...Hanging the earth upon nothing.." Job 26:7

Do you mean me, personally, or the people who go around dating pollen in 11,000 yr layered varve deposits, or the people who go around correlating oxygen isotopes in stalactites with ice ages?
I meant both.

When you say "evidence", are you saying that evolutionists can only supply poor quality evidence [in truckloads], but creationists always supply very good quality evidence.
Quantity of evidence is only important as far as it's quality. The evidence you think supports your beliefs is built on assumptions which can't be confirmed. Life from nonliving things, evolution as a process by which mankind came to be, the claim that strata is billions of years old....it's all unprovable. When you look at the "truckloads" of evidence, it proves none of it.

I'm not understanding why you think there is not much "evidence" for "uniformitarianism", whereas you think you've supplied evidence that your god played a hand, vs. someone elses god.
All I can do for the sake of your argument is take what the Bible says about how God created the universe to see if it stands up to good science. The alleged geologic column touted by science disproves sciences idea of uniformitarianism. Science also believes catastrophies had a hand in shaping the earth. So where does one end and the other begin? Nobody can answer this question, unless recorded history gives an indication of cataclysm.  That's why I told you that anyone who claims to be able to date the earth is lying to you. It can't be done through dating rocks. It can't be done by dating fossils. Fossils and rocks are used to date each other and even then they disagree. It makes no sense.

Your Genesis story shows he didn't, unless you want to remove that book from the Bible, and go with something more Christian. I'm all for a little editing.
Except for translation (even between ancient and modern Hebrew), I wouldn't edit anything from the Bible. Quantity of evidence is only important as far as it's quality, but your contention that "evening and morning" (Gen.1:4) wouldn't exist without the earth rotating around the sun is duly noted as I'm examinig the text further.

Offline whatchamean?

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 181
  • Darwins +2/-34
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Question
« Reply #250 on: November 17, 2011, 09:28:57 AM »
Whatchamean..your ignorance of and disrespect for the scientific method, and scientists, is appalling.
Yes I know it is, so you won't mind telling me why you believe you know how old rocks are.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Question
« Reply #251 on: November 17, 2011, 10:48:32 AM »
Because if you dared to acknowledge that Christians just like you can lose their faith and realize that they aren't this imaginary god's special snowflakes, your position in the universe is in doubt and the validity of your experience is in doubt.  You aren't as special as you hope you are.   You still try to make believe that you can read people's minds and that's just too cute.
My point was that I see no reason why Christians would "lose their faith" and my point was based on Jesus' words (Jn.7:17). That's all I was saying. It has nothing to do with being able to "read peoples minds."
You may see no reason but that doesn’t’ mean that you aren’t wrong.  The reason you see “no reason” is that it would make your claims false, which is does in spades.  You can’t accept that someone would find something you believe in false. 
and that verse is just more attempts to prove the bible with the bible, ignoring reality. 
Quote
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 way to find out if JC came from God or if the teaching does or if God exists in the first place.  No evidence supports this claim.  All of the supposed “evidence” that theists drag up is the same that all theists do, to support their various gods.  There’s nothing special about your particular bunch of myths at all.   
As for your reading minds, you’ve tried to claim you know what people are thinking and have thought, in your attempts to try to claim that no TrueChristiantm would ever ever lose their faith.  Considering your track record, you do have a habit of trying to ignore what you’ve posted, which I took the time to outline right here: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,20296.msg455345.html#msg455345 .  It’s rather funny in this written medium. 
Quote
I had the exact opposite result as you. I've found that God is true according to His word. What is it you were praying for?
Ah, and here we go with the Christian desperately attempting to claim that I prayed for the wrong thing and in the wrong way.  It’s so cute when you Christians do this, whatcha.  I was praying for god’s help in not losing my faith.  And guess what?  I had no response at all, no matter what forumula I used that I was given by other Christians and none to my own simply request “God, everything shows that you don’t exist, there’s no evidence that you do. Please show this doubting Thomas that you do.”  Now, we have a supposed precedent that God has no trouble in showing that he exists to those who doubt, right in the bible itself.  Why can’t this god help me if it does want all humans to come to it, as some Christians claim?  Now, other Christians are sure that it’s perfectly fine that I can’t believe since the Bible also says that there are some humans intended for nothing more than being damned, no choice possible on their part.  Then you’re stuck with quite a contradiction.  Which Christians have the correct story on what their god “really” meant? Which do you want to go for, whatcha?  We have a few options on what’s happening.  A god that is happy with what I am and who I am, either loving me for it or damning me for no good reason; a god that is totally random or not the god you think it is and even you have no idea if you’re doing it right; or a god that simply doesn’t exist.(there may be more, but these seem to cover it).  Which do you like best?   
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Question
« Reply #252 on: November 17, 2011, 11:00:32 AM »
We all think we've had valid experiences but atheists realize that waht they thought was an supernatural experience was not.
God doesn't answer prayer according to our will, but according to his own.
Nope, that's not what the bible says at all.  You've made that up to excuse your god's evident impotence at best, and nonexistence at worst.  The bible is quite clear that your god will answer prayers positively(aka what is requested is given) and quickly.  You see, whatcha, I've read the bible, both as a beleiver and as not, and I know exactly what it says.  Matthew 7 is one of the best to show how the modern Christian claim of “God only answers prayer according to his will” is not supported by the bible. 
Quote
Matthew 7: 7 “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.    9 “Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? 11 If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! 12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. (Luke 11 repeats this)
At best, whatcha, you might have find a few qualifiers in the bible:
Quote
Matthew 18: 19 “Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”
Gee, can we get two people to ask for the same thing?  How about healing those amputees?
Quote
John 14: 9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves. 12 Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. 13 And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.
I asked in God’s name when I prayed, why didn’t this work?  Why doesn’t it work *ever*? Are there no TrueChristians to do this “right”? The same is repeated in John 16.

Again, it’s easy to show how the Christian religion has been altered to fit reality, to excuse this god for doing nothing.  Christians must run around declaring that prayers aren’t answered as promised in the bible by making new “rules” up.  But that doesn’t stop them from declaring that their prayers are answered when convenient.  Funny how God only answers prayers randomly, just like coincidence would do.  No need of a god at all.

"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Question
« Reply #253 on: November 17, 2011, 11:03:20 AM »
Atheists do the same thing. Are you really going to tell me that geologists know how old rocks are? You seriously believe paleontologists know how old fossils are?
and oh this is hilarious.  Yep, we do, whatcha.  It's so funny to see you simply ignore that we do actually know how to date things.  The methods for dating rocks come from the same science that you poor little hypocrites use everyday. 

EDIT: oh and whatcha, what's the earth "hanging" ON? 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline violatedsmurf80

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 392
  • Darwins +2/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question
« Reply #254 on: November 17, 2011, 11:12:38 AM »
Quantity of evidence is only important as far as it's quality. The evidence you think supports your beliefs is built on assumptions which can't be confirmed. Life from nonliving things, evolution as a process by which mankind came to be, the claim that strata is billions of years old....it's all unprovable. When you look at the "truckloads" of evidence, it proves none of it.
So lets just disregard it and believe the creation myths that suit us better.  &) There are thousands of them but the one in the babble is the correct one?  lets get real here, the only thing that is true about the bible is that it was written when people did not have a clue about anything and the bible thumpers of the time was scared that philosophy and science would put an end to the absurd religion.

Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

All I can do for the sake of your argument is take what the Bible says about how God created the universe to see if it stands up to good science. 
It doesn't it is still at the door waiting to be let in with the rest of the religion because the Earth is not a circle, it is not flat, it does not stand on pillers, nor does it do anything else that the bible says it does.

I wouldn't edit anything from the Bible.

Of course you wouldn't, cause if you did then it would be even more unbelievable then it already it.  I would add The Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Peter, The Gospel of Mary, and the most important one Apocalypse of Moses just to prove how many of these stories are taken from anther religion.
When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”--- Sinclair Lewis

I believe there is something out there watching over us. Unfortunately, it's the government.

Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1452
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Question
« Reply #255 on: November 17, 2011, 11:28:29 AM »
  I am quite self-aware of myself aka "real with myself" in that I have done all that Christians claim to find this god. Nothing has worked, so you all have failed. I prayed and prayed when I still had a scrap of faith left and what did that get me? Nothing again.   

Prayer, fasting, deep introspection, etc. have been employed by many with the same result for all being that No definitive sign of God's presence or nearness is realized. Some get a feeling they identify as God's hand moving in their life, but such a feeling is but a feeling that can be explained a million other ways.
For me, prayer became less and less apart of my life over the last 5 or so years. Initially I concluded that God exists, but generally is not in the business of answering prayers and has not been doing so very much since the time of the apostles. I literally believed that since the suppossed time of Jesus 1st century "2nd coming" that there was no group of "God's people" alive on the Earth and that God's hand had pretty much been inactive here on Earth since the time Jesus was to have "taken" his "bride" way back when. My everything was tied up in the idea that I, and everyone else would at some time in the future be resurrected from the state of being dead and reanimated in a world, this Earth where Jesus' Kingdom reign would be evident and we all would have to choose whether we would submit ourselves to that reign and be given access to rivers and trees of life, or whether we would rebel against tht rule and face the ultimate judgment from which there would be no resurrection. Basically, my idea was that God's presence and undeniable evidence of His hand would be on display for all to see in the resurrection and likely not before that time.
Until very recently, I never even for a moment gave rise to the consideration that prayers were not generally answered because the God to whom people pray was a creation of man's imagination as opposed to the genuine article. It's amazing how bringing "givens" into a discussion can blind you to something that is so obvious were it not for a preconception, especially a flawed one.

Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1452
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Question
« Reply #256 on: November 17, 2011, 11:35:28 AM »
and the most important one Apocalypse of Moses just to prove how many of these stories are taken from anther religion.

So you are familiar with this writing as well I see. For years it has been of interest to me and was a supporting document I employed while still a Bible believer to argue against the idea of Hell and human soul immortality.
According to the experts this document dates to what, about 100 bce and goes by various other titles. What I have often wondered is; where did this document come from? Have you any idea who the originators were, Hellenists, Assyrians, someone else perhaps? 

Offline Avatar Of Belial

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 499
  • Darwins +30/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm not an Evil person; I just act like one!
Re: Question
« Reply #257 on: November 17, 2011, 11:57:41 AM »
Science also believes catastrophies had a hand in shaping the earth. So where does one end and the other begin? Nobody can answer this question, unless recorded history gives an indication of cataclysm.  That's why I told you that anyone who claims to be able to date the earth is lying to you. It can't be done through dating rocks. It can't be done by dating fossils. Fossils and rocks are used to date each other and even then they disagree. It makes no sense.

   As far as catastrophies go; we can see what causes catastrophies and what the results of those catastrophies are. Then we can find similar results that already existed.

   If you see a crater, you know something smashed into the earth there. If you see a multi-layered mountain containing types of rock and certain types of peaks, you know that mountain was once a volcano. Doesn't matter if it happened within recorded histroy, because we don't need to rely on people recording these events to know what they look like or what they do.

   If you find poop in your yard, do you need a written record of it to not think God put it there?


   Now - your claim of "Fossils and rocks are used to date each other" is also false. The main way to date rocks is Radiometric Dating. We know how fast certain chemical elements decay, so when we look at a rock we can know how long ago the elements in it formed. There is no need to compare it to another rock - we just compare its current state with the know rate of decay. A more specific variant of the Radiometric Dating method is used for fossils. Radiocarbon Dating (which specifically uses Carbon-14) can give us a pretty good date-range for fossils (and other carbon-based items). It isn't comparing rocks to rocks, it's looking at an hourglass that can measure tens to hundreds of thousands of years and beyond. There's enough 'sand' that the rate of decay would take that long for a newly created atom to completely decay.

   Even the least accurate radiocarbon dating method gives a clear minimum age of the planet well beyond any of the young-earth predictions (well over 10,000 - you can forget about 6,000). The most accurate ones go so far beyond those minimums as to make YEC a joke.
"You play make-believe every day of your life, and yet you have no concept of 'imagination'."
I do not have "faith" in science. I have expectations of science. "Faith" in something is an unfounded assertion, whereas reasonable expectations require a precedent.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Question
« Reply #258 on: November 17, 2011, 01:07:19 PM »
actually, Carbon 14 isn't much use for many fossils. No carbon is left in the average replacement fossil.   But there are plenty of other elements that can be used. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating 

all of these work because of the same science that hypocrites like whatcha use everyday.

It does help us in dating as you said, things with carbon.  Like oh, any archaeological evidence of the "exodus" but there isn't any.  Darn.  &)
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline ungod

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 580
  • Darwins +15/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Question
« Reply #259 on: November 17, 2011, 02:41:00 PM »
Science also believes catastrophies had a hand in shaping the earth. So where does one end and the other begin? Nobody can answer this question, unless recorded history gives an indication of cataclysm.
So the craters on the Moon don't exist because nobody recorded the impacts!

 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.
Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

"What good fortune for those in power that people do not think." - Hitler

Offline violatedsmurf80

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 392
  • Darwins +2/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question
« Reply #260 on: November 17, 2011, 04:03:39 PM »
and the most important one Apocalypse of Moses just to prove how many of these stories are taken from anther religion.

So you are familiar with this writing as well I see. For years it has been of interest to me and was a supporting document I employed while still a Bible believer to argue against the idea of Hell and human soul immortality.
According to the experts this document dates to what, about 100 bce and goes by various other titles. What I have often wondered is; where did this document come from? Have you any idea who the originators were, Hellenists, Assyrians, someone else perhaps?
I am not sure but for some reason I am lead to think that the Greeks or Syriac wrote it, and IMH they wrote is for a part of an Epic or even an Comedy but of course the religious found it and think it is something special. 

There are a lot of parallels between the Latin Vita Adae et Evae and Apocalypse of Moses. I learn from one of my teachers that this one was from the 4th CE never heard of it being earlier unless your talking about the Sumerians
When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”--- Sinclair Lewis

I believe there is something out there watching over us. Unfortunately, it's the government.