Author Topic: Ken Ham  (Read 3782 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2538
  • Darwins +48/-417
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #58 on: February 17, 2014, 12:59:40 PM »
That may sound condescending, and perhaps it is, but in all fairness your ideas deserve to be mocked. In the exact same way that you would mock a person for believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

LOL it's not the same at all. God is immaterial. When you guys make up the FSM, you are speaking of something material. Spaghetti is material. Monsters are material by definition.

God is immaterial and metaphysical.

I am getting very tired of refuting this every day only to have people go right back to saying it like it was never refuted. Very frustrating. It's like people don't listen.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline Dante

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2191
  • Darwins +72/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • Hedonist Extraordinaire
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #59 on: February 17, 2014, 01:45:07 PM »

Neither "life after death" nor "complete nothingness after death" can be 100% empirically proven. Since both of these are beliefs, it makes much more sense to believe in the hopeful afterlife than the depressing nothingness.

This tells me that atheists PREFER and WANT nothingness instead of paradise!

Shep, you have finally said something sensible and admitted that your religion is just a guess and that your preference is based on emotional needs. I would like to give you a higher mark than +1 for this.

As for the second part of your statement, Atheists can believe in afterlives too. Ask any Buddhist! Gods or Christianity are not in the least necessary for an afterlife.

It worries me deeply that atheists would choose to believe in nothing over hope. You guys keep saying, "this is reality!" but that hasn't been proven either. It's merely your belief. I can easily say, "This is reality! You just wish God wasn't real!"

Incorrect on so many counts. We don't choose to believe in nothing over hope. There is no choice for us, there is only a lack of evidence that there is anything at all after this earthly life. We cannot choose to believe, no more than you can choose to believe in any of the other gods posited by humans thoughout time.

And, I'm pretty sure you've been told this already. Some people just dont listen.

You can say "You just wish god wasn't real" all you want, and we'll simply say "prove that your god is real"

Quote
There's no way to test which reality is the true reality considering reality is always defined subjectively anyway.

Is it really defined subjectively? Which parts?
Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.

Offline Aaron123

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2733
  • Darwins +77/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #60 on: February 17, 2014, 02:10:22 PM »
LOL it's not the same at all. God is immaterial. When you guys make up the FSM, you are speaking of something material. Spaghetti is material. Monsters are material by definition.

God is immaterial and metaphysical.

I am getting very tired of refuting this every day only to have people go right back to saying it like it was never refuted. Very frustrating. It's like people don't listen.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is made out of immaterial and metaphysical spaghetti.  I'm pretty sure this was pointed out to you before.

Sure, you can argue that normal spaghetti are material, but the FSM is special, immaterial spaghetti.
Being a Christian, I've made my decision. That decision offers no compromise; therefore, I'm closed to anything else.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10938
  • Darwins +284/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #61 on: February 17, 2014, 02:18:51 PM »
LOL it's not the same at all. God is immaterial. When you guys make up the FSM, you are speaking of something material. Spaghetti is material. Monsters are material by definition.

God is immaterial and metaphysical.

I am getting very tired of refuting this every day only to have people go right back to saying it like it was never refuted. Very frustrating. It's like people don't listen.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is made out of immaterial and metaphysical spaghetti.  I'm pretty sure this was pointed out to you before.

Sure, you can argue that normal spaghetti are material, but the FSM is special, immaterial spaghetti.

What about the Invisible Pink Unicorn?
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1968
  • Darwins +355/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #62 on: February 17, 2014, 02:34:37 PM »
It worries me deeply that atheists would choose to believe in nothing over hope. You guys keep saying, "this is reality!" but that hasn't been proven either. It's merely your belief. I can easily say, "This is reality! You just wish God wasn't real!"

There's no way to test which reality is the true reality considering reality is always defined subjectively anyway.

...and the retreat to solipsism gambit is officially played.  You've just rendered everything you've said since the day you started posting on this board invalid.  Congratulations - now turn off your computer...if you can.  It's not like you can expect the 'off' switch to behave in any repeatable and/or expected manner.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."
- Eddie Izzard

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1968
  • Darwins +355/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #63 on: February 17, 2014, 02:41:28 PM »
Which leads me to another question: What was your eternal soul doing before you were born? Where was it located? Doing what, playing pinochle? It's all nonsense, bro. Complete and utter bullshit.

Minor point - I'm not sure skeptic54768 has implied that his soul existed before he was born.

But he has implied that the soul is eternal. That which is eternal cannot be created; it must have always existed. Therefore by his assertions, his soul has always existed, even before[1] it was placed in his meat sack.
 1. It is impossible to use language to describe eternities because so many words simply cannot be applied, by definition. "Created, before, after, time..." what do these word mean to that which is eternal? Any reference to a time frame automatically contradicts the concept of "eternal".

I suspected that his implication of an 'eternal soul' is in a more informal use of the word 'eternal' - as in, once created, will go on to exist for the remainder of time.  Of course I don't really know.  I'd say he'd be able to clarify it for us, but I no longer take anything he says seriously.  Everything he says is part of whatever constructed reality he's put around himself, and he gets to define whatever he wants in it.

So if he wants to say that his soul is completely eternal and was simultaneously created and has always existed, then whatever.  His constructed reality has no need for sh*t like consistency or anything, so it's moot.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."
- Eddie Izzard

Offline Xero-Kill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 755
  • Darwins +10/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Wait... what?
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #64 on: February 17, 2014, 02:52:57 PM »
That may sound condescending, and perhaps it is, but in all fairness your ideas deserve to be mocked. In the exact same way that you would mock a person for believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

LOL it's not the same at all. God is immaterial. When you guys make up the FSM, you are speaking of something material. Spaghetti is material. Monsters are material by definition.

God is immaterial and metaphysical.

I am getting very tired of refuting this every day only to have people go right back to saying it like it was never refuted. Very frustrating. It's like people don't listen.

Aaron already hit you with my intended response. You see, you have indeed made the claim that "God is immaterial and metaphysical. " and you have provided nothing more than "Cuz I said so!1" as your evidence. Now, I am making the claim that "The Flying Spaghetti Monster is immaterial and metaphysical. Further to that, you must have faith in his noodley appendages because he reveals not himself to the weak of mind that cannot perceive his magnificence. I understand why you don't believe in our pastaful master, but on the day of our boiling, he will know who is mushy soft and who is al dente.

"Our fathers were our models for God. If our fathers bailed, what does that tell you about God? You have to consider the possibility that God does not like you. He never wanted you. In all probability, he hates you. This is not the worst thing that can happen."

~Tyler Durden

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6510
  • Darwins +849/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #65 on: February 17, 2014, 03:09:40 PM »
Firstly, just stating something--like saying "god is immaterial" over and over-- does not make it true. So, no, skeptic, you have not refuted anything. You have to show why something is so in order to refute a point made. If I said I own a car made of spam and it drives like a dream, would you just accept my word?  How many times would I have to say it to get you to accept it as true? Or would you keep dismissing it until I brought some evidence?

I could say, "god is made of blue spun sugar candy". Would you accept that I have refuted your point that "god is immaterial"? I have responded to your point, but I have not refuted anything unless I can bring out some evidence of god's existence, and some evidence of what god is made of.

That is why the made-up, silly, unproven FSM arguments make exactly as much sense as your equally made-up, silly, unproven god arguments. Is Casper the Ghost material? Is Scooby-doo? Is Mr. Spock? Is Thor?[1]To get down in the jello pit and wrestle about whether imaginary beings are material or not so completely misses the point! They are all imaginary, and by definition immaterial, because they all exist only in the imagination![2]

Secondly, we can't just start to believe in an after-death paradise, based only on someone telling us that such a place exists. Otherwise, you should be able to start to believe in the Islamic oasis heaven, or the feasting halls of Valhalla or in the Hindu nirvana. Right now. Today. Believe in all of them. Just because someone tells you about them. Can you do that?

Thirdly, wanting to believe something really strongly does not make it true, or even worthwhile. You are arguing that it is better to believe in something, anything, even if it is completely crazy than, as you say, be an atheist and hold out for some sort of convincing proof.   If someone with a difficult life thinks that paradise awaits them after they die, what realistically should prevent them from trying to get there ASAP, and maybe take their entire family with them? Do you not see the harm in this? Seriously?

Lots of people believe that they will win the lotto. Should someone take all of their retirement savings out of the bank and buy lotto tickets with it, based on their strongly held belief that they will win the lotto? Would you admire that person for their strong faith in the lotto?
 1. Hot damn, I hope so!  :-*
 2. We don't have to go all metaphysical here, but you will agree that the image I have of my husband in my mind is not really him, right?   
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Aaron123

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2733
  • Darwins +77/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #66 on: February 17, 2014, 03:16:23 PM »
What about the Invisible Pink Unicorn?

Clearly, the IPU is also immaterial and metaphysical.  That's what allows it to be pink while invisible at the same time.  The IPU has given me a spiritual understanding of this.
Being a Christian, I've made my decision. That decision offers no compromise; therefore, I'm closed to anything else.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10938
  • Darwins +284/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #67 on: February 17, 2014, 03:18:25 PM »
Clearly, the IPU is also immaterial and metaphysical.  That's what allows it to be pink while invisible at the same time.  The IPU has given me a spiritual understanding of this.

I just wanted to check. You know we have to look out for false believers. Everyone knows the IPU reveals itself to us (believers) and shows us its pink coloration while remaining simultaneously invisible. Only true believers experience this.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1968
  • Darwins +355/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #68 on: February 17, 2014, 03:19:53 PM »
Clearly, the IPU is also immaterial and metaphysical.  That's what allows it to be pink while invisible at the same time.  The IPU has given me a spiritual understanding of this.

I just wanted to check. You know we have to look out for false believers. Everyone knows the IPU reveals itself to us (believers) and shows us its pink coloration while remaining simultaneously invisible. Only true believers experience this.

Queen Maeve the housecat would like a word with all of you.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."
- Eddie Izzard

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6510
  • Darwins +849/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #69 on: February 17, 2014, 03:23:18 PM »
Cats see things that we cannot. I suggest we all begin to stare closely at the tiny spot on the wall where the cat is looking until we, too, can see the face of the Cat God. ;D
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Xero-Kill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 755
  • Darwins +10/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Wait... what?
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #70 on: February 17, 2014, 03:32:54 PM »
I suspected that his implication of an 'eternal soul' is in a more informal use of the word 'eternal' - as in, once created, will go on to exist for the remainder of time.  Of course I don't really know.  I'd say he'd be able to clarify it for us, but I no longer take anything he says seriously.  Everything he says is part of whatever constructed reality he's put around himself, and he gets to define whatever he wants in it.

So if he wants to say that his soul is completely eternal and was simultaneously created and has always existed, then whatever.  His constructed reality has no need for sh*t like consistency or anything, so it's moot.

So very true... and it is one of the things I hate most about having these debates. Far to often I feel that the theists side of the argument spends more time trying to fudge the meanings of words to shoehorn their philosophy into modern culture, or they just downright misuse terms in an attempt at profundity, rather than simply spending a few minutes to compile a few pieces of compelling evidence, or even a logical refutation that doesn't base itself entirely on equivocating terms.

Theist: The soul exists and has XYZ properties!
Atheist: What is a soul?
Theist: It is your spirit!
Atheist: What is a spirit?
Theist: It is your divine force!
Atheist: I don't know what divine means but a "force" you say? Those can be measured! Where is your data!?
Theist: Well, you need to understand, the soul is "immaterial" and cannot be measured!
Atheist: Then how did you detect it? How do you know it has XYZ properties if you cannot detect it?
Theist: God told me!
Atheist: Sweet, I should like to meet this God, perhaps he can answer these questions.
Theist: Well... you see, ummm... HE is immaterial too!
Atheist: Then how did he tell you?
Theist: Well, actually it was my friend Mark over there that heard it from Paul, who heard it from Luke, who heard it from John, but you can trust him... honest you can!
Atheist: I think we're done here...
"Our fathers were our models for God. If our fathers bailed, what does that tell you about God? You have to consider the possibility that God does not like you. He never wanted you. In all probability, he hates you. This is not the worst thing that can happen."

~Tyler Durden

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1336
  • Darwins +96/-11
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #71 on: February 17, 2014, 04:46:15 PM »

Neither "life after death" nor "complete nothingness after death" can be 100% empirically proven. Since both of these are beliefs, it makes much more sense to believe in the hopeful afterlife than the depressing nothingness.

This tells me that atheists PREFER and WANT nothingness instead of paradise!

Shep, you have finally said something sensible and admitted that your religion is just a guess and that your preference is based on emotional needs. I would like to give you a higher mark than +1 for this.

As for the second part of your statement, Atheists can believe in afterlives too. Ask any Buddhist! Gods or Christianity are not in the least necessary for an afterlife.

It worries me deeply that atheists would choose to believe in nothing over hope. You guys keep saying, "this is reality!" but that hasn't been proven either. It's merely your belief. I can easily say, "This is reality! You just wish God wasn't real!"

There's no way to test which reality is the true reality considering reality is always defined subjectively anyway.

Shep, what is forcing you to delude yourself about other people's beliefs? You completely blocked out of your mind what I said about Atheists being able to believe in the afterlife. This includes Indian Buddhists too. You are not just deluding yourself about your own beliefs but about other's. Consider the cause of your delusion.

Second belief is not a choice, it is based on a person's experience, knowledge, intelligence and emotion, for example.
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Online skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2538
  • Darwins +48/-417
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #72 on: February 17, 2014, 05:02:31 PM »

Neither "life after death" nor "complete nothingness after death" can be 100% empirically proven. Since both of these are beliefs, it makes much more sense to believe in the hopeful afterlife than the depressing nothingness.

This tells me that atheists PREFER and WANT nothingness instead of paradise!

Shep, you have finally said something sensible and admitted that your religion is just a guess and that your preference is based on emotional needs. I would like to give you a higher mark than +1 for this.

As for the second part of your statement, Atheists can believe in afterlives too. Ask any Buddhist! Gods or Christianity are not in the least necessary for an afterlife.

It worries me deeply that atheists would choose to believe in nothing over hope. You guys keep saying, "this is reality!" but that hasn't been proven either. It's merely your belief. I can easily say, "This is reality! You just wish God wasn't real!"

There's no way to test which reality is the true reality considering reality is always defined subjectively anyway.

Shep, what is forcing you to delude yourself about other people's beliefs? You completely blocked out of your mind what I said about Atheists being able to believe in the afterlife. This includes Indian Buddhists too. You are not just deluding yourself about your own beliefs but about other's. Consider the cause of your delusion.

Second belief is not a choice, it is based on a person's experience, knowledge, intelligence and emotion, for example.

I would be very curious how you can explain the existence of an afterlife based on pure materialistic atheism. How is the soul able to move on to another body if everything is materialistic? Since the soul is immaterial, this means an immaterial entity created the soul, which would be proof of God.

Since humans are just blobs of chemicals in an atheistic world, it makes no sense how those blobs of chemicals can become other blobs of chemicals.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Online skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2538
  • Darwins +48/-417
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #73 on: February 17, 2014, 05:06:08 PM »
I suspected that his implication of an 'eternal soul' is in a more informal use of the word 'eternal' - as in, once created, will go on to exist for the remainder of time.  Of course I don't really know.  I'd say he'd be able to clarify it for us, but I no longer take anything he says seriously.  Everything he says is part of whatever constructed reality he's put around himself, and he gets to define whatever he wants in it.

So if he wants to say that his soul is completely eternal and was simultaneously created and has always existed, then whatever.  His constructed reality has no need for sh*t like consistency or anything, so it's moot.

So very true... and it is one of the things I hate most about having these debates. Far to often I feel that the theists side of the argument spends more time trying to fudge the meanings of words to shoehorn their philosophy into modern culture, or they just downright misuse terms in an attempt at profundity, rather than simply spending a few minutes to compile a few pieces of compelling evidence, or even a logical refutation that doesn't base itself entirely on equivocating terms.

Theist: The soul exists and has XYZ properties!
Atheist: What is a soul?
Theist: It is your spirit!
Atheist: What is a spirit?
Theist: It is your divine force!
Atheist: I don't know what divine means but a "force" you say? Those can be measured! Where is your data!?
Theist: Well, you need to understand, the soul is "immaterial" and cannot be measured!
Atheist: Then how did you detect it? How do you know it has XYZ properties if you cannot detect it?
Theist: God told me!
Atheist: Sweet, I should like to meet this God, perhaps he can answer these questions.
Theist: Well... you see, ummm... HE is immaterial too!
Atheist: Then how did he tell you?
Theist: Well, actually it was my friend Mark over there that heard it from Paul, who heard it from Luke, who heard it from John, but you can trust him... honest you can!
Atheist: I think we're done here...

I have all the proof you need.

Have you ever empirically experienced the immaterial "you" that animates your body? The answer would be a big fat resounding, "No."

Yet, everyone has a different immaterial soul inside of them. I am not you. You are not me. I am not Michael Jordan. Michael Jordan is not Babe Ruth. Can't explain this without a soul inside of you.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Online skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2538
  • Darwins +48/-417
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #74 on: February 17, 2014, 05:09:01 PM »
The Flying Spaghetti Monster is made out of immaterial and metaphysical spaghetti.  I'm pretty sure this was pointed out to you before.

Sure, you can argue that normal spaghetti are material, but the FSM is special, immaterial spaghetti.

If this was a logic course, you would receive an F, unfortunately.

There is no such thing as immaterial spaghetti. Spaghetti, by definition, is material. You can't change the definition of something.

God was NEVER defined as material. God has always been immaterial.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Online skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2538
  • Darwins +48/-417
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #75 on: February 17, 2014, 05:14:45 PM »
I just wanted to check. You know we have to look out for false believers. Everyone knows the IPU reveals itself to us (believers) and shows us its pink coloration while remaining simultaneously invisible. Only true believers experience this.

It is becoming clearer and clearer that atheists don't want tolerance for all. They just want to make fun of the believers while simultaneously complaining that the believers always make fun of atheism instead of being tolerant to them.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1336
  • Darwins +96/-11
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #76 on: February 17, 2014, 05:18:35 PM »

Neither "life after death" nor "complete nothingness after death" can be 100% empirically proven. Since both of these are beliefs, it makes much more sense to believe in the hopeful afterlife than the depressing nothingness.

This tells me that atheists PREFER and WANT nothingness instead of paradise!

Shep, you have finally said something sensible and admitted that your religion is just a guess and that your preference is based on emotional needs. I would like to give you a higher mark than +1 for this.

As for the second part of your statement, Atheists can believe in afterlives too. Ask any Buddhist! Gods or Christianity are not in the least necessary for an afterlife.

It worries me deeply that atheists would choose to believe in nothing over hope. You guys keep saying, "this is reality!" but that hasn't been proven either. It's merely your belief. I can easily say, "This is reality! You just wish God wasn't real!"

There's no way to test which reality is the true reality considering reality is always defined subjectively anyway.

Shep, what is forcing you to delude yourself about other people's beliefs? You completely blocked out of your mind what I said about Atheists being able to believe in the afterlife. This includes Indian Buddhists too. You are not just deluding yourself about your own beliefs but about other's. Consider the cause of your delusion.

Second belief is not a choice, it is based on a person's experience, knowledge, intelligence and emotion, for example.

I would be very curious how you can explain the existence of an afterlife based on pure materialistic atheism. How is the soul able to move on to another body if everything is materialistic? Since the soul is immaterial, this means an immaterial entity created the soul, which would be proof of God.

Since humans are just blobs of chemicals in an atheistic world, it makes no sense how those blobs of chemicals can become other blobs of chemicals.

You are deluding yourself about other people's beliefs again. Atheism does not have to be purely materialistic. Ask a Buddhist. Atheism is only the disbelief in gods. There are many types of atheist.
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Online skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2538
  • Darwins +48/-417
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #77 on: February 17, 2014, 05:18:40 PM »
...and the retreat to solipsism gambit is officially played.  You've just rendered everything you've said since the day you started posting on this board invalid.  Congratulations - now turn off your computer...if you can.  It's not like you can expect the 'off' switch to behave in any repeatable and/or expected manner.

Since it has been proven that colors only exist in the mind, it logically follows that all of reality exists only in the mind. The problem is, if reality exists only in the mind, then where does reality come from? The answer is God's mind.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline Dante

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2191
  • Darwins +72/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • Hedonist Extraordinaire
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #78 on: February 17, 2014, 05:20:31 PM »
Yet, everyone has a different immaterial soul inside of them. I am not you. You are not me. I am not Michael Jordan. Michael Jordan is not Babe Ruth. Can't explain this without a soul inside of you.

Um, yeah, we can. With things like genetics, upbringing, social environments, experiences, timelines, etc. None of these things are exactly the same for any 2 individuals, so it's not surprising, AT ALL, that everyone is different.

No souls required.
Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.

Online skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2538
  • Darwins +48/-417
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #79 on: February 17, 2014, 05:21:30 PM »
Is it really defined subjectively? Which parts?

Yes. When I look at reality, it is different from your reality. Stephen Hawkings reality is different from my reality.

Every single person on Earth uses their own subjectivity to define reality. Since reality can only be known by minds, it is by default subjective. There is no objective way to go outside of our minds to see what is really there. Therefore, reality is defined subjectively.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Online skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2538
  • Darwins +48/-417
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #80 on: February 17, 2014, 05:23:13 PM »
Yet, everyone has a different immaterial soul inside of them. I am not you. You are not me. I am not Michael Jordan. Michael Jordan is not Babe Ruth. Can't explain this without a soul inside of you.

Um, yeah, we can. With things like genetics, upbringing, social environments, experiences, timelines, etc. None of these things are exactly the same for any 2 individuals, so it's not surprising, AT ALL, that everyone is different.

No souls required.

Not true. Twins raised in the SAME EXACT house doing the SAME EXACT things all the time still turn out differently. If what you say is true, we should expect every set of twins to be in-sync robots.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1336
  • Darwins +96/-11
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #81 on: February 17, 2014, 05:26:03 PM »
...and the retreat to solipsism gambit is officially played.  You've just rendered everything you've said since the day you started posting on this board invalid.  Congratulations - now turn off your computer...if you can.  It's not like you can expect the 'off' switch to behave in any repeatable and/or expected manner.

Since it has been proven that colors only exist in the mind, it logically follows that all of reality exists only in the mind. The problem is, if reality exists only in the mind, then where does reality come from? The answer is God's mind.

You are confusing perception with reality. The brain merely separates different wavelengths of light. Different people's brains do this slightly differently but the reality which causes it is the same.
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Online skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2538
  • Darwins +48/-417
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #82 on: February 17, 2014, 05:34:43 PM »
You are confusing perception with reality. The brain merely separates different wavelengths of light. Different people's brains do this slightly differently but the reality which causes it is the same.

No. Some people see blue and others are colorblind and do not see it as blue. Since it is not possible for an object to be completely blue and not blue at the same time, this means it's all in the mind. Width, height, smell, touch, taste, also face the same problem as color. They exist only in the mind.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline Backspace

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1253
  • Darwins +49/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • IXNAY
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #83 on: February 17, 2014, 05:37:09 PM »
God was NEVER defined as material. God has always been immaterial.

Then who did Moses and Jacob speak to "face-to-face, as one man speaks to another"?[1]
 1.  Gen 32:30, Ex 34:11, Deu 34:10
There is no opinion so absurd that a preacher could not express it.
-- Bernie Katz

Online skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2538
  • Darwins +48/-417
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #84 on: February 17, 2014, 05:42:17 PM »
God was NEVER defined as material. God has always been immaterial.

Then who did Moses and Jacob speak to "face-to-face, as one man speaks to another"?[1]
 1.  Gen 32:30, Ex 34:11, Deu 34:10

Exodus 34:11 says nothing about seeing God face to face. But the other 2 verses when analyzed in context appear to be symbolic rather than literal truth. It's dangerous to read it without context. You're missing the big picture and just rushing to disprove it.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline Xero-Kill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 755
  • Darwins +10/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Wait... what?
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #85 on: February 17, 2014, 05:47:13 PM »
I suspected that his implication of an 'eternal soul' is in a more informal use of the word 'eternal' - as in, once created, will go on to exist for the remainder of time.  Of course I don't really know.  I'd say he'd be able to clarify it for us, but I no longer take anything he says seriously.  Everything he says is part of whatever constructed reality he's put around himself, and he gets to define whatever he wants in it.

So if he wants to say that his soul is completely eternal and was simultaneously created and has always existed, then whatever.  His constructed reality has no need for sh*t like consistency or anything, so it's moot.

So very true... and it is one of the things I hate most about having these debates. Far to often I feel that the theists side of the argument spends more time trying to fudge the meanings of words to shoehorn their philosophy into modern culture, or they just downright misuse terms in an attempt at profundity, rather than simply spending a few minutes to compile a few pieces of compelling evidence, or even a logical refutation that doesn't base itself entirely on equivocating terms.

Theist: The soul exists and has XYZ properties!
Atheist: What is a soul?
Theist: It is your spirit!
Atheist: What is a spirit?
Theist: It is your divine force!
Atheist: I don't know what divine means but a "force" you say? Those can be measured! Where is your data!?
Theist: Well, you need to understand, the soul is "immaterial" and cannot be measured!
Atheist: Then how did you detect it? How do you know it has XYZ properties if you cannot detect it?
Theist: God told me!
Atheist: Sweet, I should like to meet this God, perhaps he can answer these questions.
Theist: Well... you see, ummm... HE is immaterial too!
Atheist: Then how did he tell you?
Theist: Well, actually it was my friend Mark over there that heard it from Paul, who heard it from Luke, who heard it from John, but you can trust him... honest you can!
Atheist: I think we're done here...

I have all the proof you need.

Have you ever empirically experienced the immaterial "you" that animates your body? The answer would be a big fat resounding, "No."

Yet, everyone has a different immaterial soul inside of them. I am not you. You are not me. I am not Michael Jordan. Michael Jordan is not Babe Ruth. Can't explain this without a soul inside of you.

Brains, genes, society, experiences, upbringing... to name a few. In fact, this is basic biology... all of which is backed with exhaustive scientific research into each categories impact on a persons psychological make-up.

Let us assume for a moment that this so called "soul" (i) exists (ii) and is immaterial. Why then should we accept anything you have to say on it? Where are your credentials? What, besides your ability to connect to the internet, makes you any authority on any topic, much less THE topic? Do you hold degrees in Divinity and Soular DynamicsTM? Do you have advanced mental perceptions that we lack? Are you in direct and discernible contact with the creator of the universe? Why do we accept your understanding of these things over say a group of scientists that have posited the existence of stuff like neutrinos and then gone on to build giant atom smashers to actually detect them, and wouldn't you know it... the maths played out and the neutrinos appeared exactly how and where they were supposed to. If there is a soul, and if it can be detected, whom do you suppose is going to develop the tools to detect them? What happens on the day we do detect the soul, and what we learn about it points to a different truth than ANY of us have been clawing at? Would you close your eyes ever more tightly as to cause a singularity from the sheer ignorance?
"Our fathers were our models for God. If our fathers bailed, what does that tell you about God? You have to consider the possibility that God does not like you. He never wanted you. In all probability, he hates you. This is not the worst thing that can happen."

~Tyler Durden

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1336
  • Darwins +96/-11
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #86 on: February 17, 2014, 06:10:33 PM »
You are confusing perception with reality. The brain merely separates different wavelengths of light. Different people's brains do this slightly differently but the reality which causes it is the same.

No. Some people see blue and others are colorblind and do not see it as blue. Since it is not possible for an object to be completely blue and not blue at the same time, this means it's all in the mind. Width, height, smell, touch, taste, also face the same problem as color. They exist only in the mind.

Read again the words of perception you have used here.

This is a website from NASA called "what wavelength goes with a colour?"

http://science-edu.larc.nasa.gov/EDDOCS/Wavelengths_for_Colors.html

Explain why you think it is wrong.
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V