Author Topic: Ken Ham  (Read 3665 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Backspace

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1248
  • Darwins +48/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • IXNAY
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #87 on: February 17, 2014, 06:10:42 PM »
Exodus 34:11 says nothing about seeing God face to face.

Typo, it was Exodus 33:11

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.

Only someone steeped in religious manure can twist "The Lord spoke to Moses face to face" as apparent contextual symbolism. When you know for sure, please post your source.  Heck, in Genesis 32:22-32, Jacob not only has a conversation with your god, but physical contact with him.

I'm not rushing to disprove you Skeptic; your Bible easily provided the evidence. 
« Last Edit: February 17, 2014, 06:12:31 PM by Backspace »
There is no opinion so absurd that a preacher could not express it.
-- Bernie Katz

Offline OldChurchGuy

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1499
  • Darwins +99/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • One of those theists who enjoys exchanging ideas
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #88 on: February 17, 2014, 08:23:07 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.

With all due respect, I believe you are wrong.  I have no doubt of your sincerity nor of your conviction.  You are a person of great faith.  The challenge seems to be you present this faith as though it is irrefutable fact.  The members of this website are predominantly atheists which means the subjective explanations of God as a given do not work.  They want some kind of empirical provable evidence that God actually exists. 

You nor I can provide the kind of proof that is asked for.  So while God's existence may be a given for you and me, this website is asking for something more than our beliefs and they are quite clear on that point. 

So please do not falsely accuse them of intolerance.  Simply concede you cannot provide the kind of proof they ask for.

Sincerely,

OldChurchGuy
Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle - Philo of Alexandria

Whether one believes in a religion or not, and whether one believes in rebirth or not, there isn't anyone who doesn't appreciate kindness and compassion - Dalai Lama

Offline skeptic54768

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2486
  • Darwins +45/-416
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #89 on: February 17, 2014, 09:23:06 PM »
With all due respect, I believe you are wrong.  I have no doubt of your sincerity nor of your conviction.  You are a person of great faith.  The challenge seems to be you present this faith as though it is irrefutable fact.  The members of this website are predominantly atheists which means the subjective explanations of God as a given do not work.  They want some kind of empirical provable evidence that God actually exists. 

You nor I can provide the kind of proof that is asked for.  So while God's existence may be a given for you and me, this website is asking for something more than our beliefs and they are quite clear on that point. 

So please do not falsely accuse them of intolerance.  Simply concede you cannot provide the kind of proof they ask for.

Sincerely,

OldChurchGuy

I am curious if you believe that the atheists are right when they ask for proof. Do you believe they are justified in doing that? Or should they rely simply on faith?
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 OldChurchGuy

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1499
  • Darwins +99/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • One of those theists who enjoys exchanging ideas
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #90 on: February 17, 2014, 09:32:45 PM »
With all due respect, I believe you are wrong.  I have no doubt of your sincerity nor of your conviction.  You are a person of great faith.  The challenge seems to be you present this faith as though it is irrefutable fact.  The members of this website are predominantly atheists which means the subjective explanations of God as a given do not work.  They want some kind of empirical provable evidence that God actually exists. 

You nor I can provide the kind of proof that is asked for.  So while God's existence may be a given for you and me, this website is asking for something more than our beliefs and they are quite clear on that point. 

So please do not falsely accuse them of intolerance.  Simply concede you cannot provide the kind of proof they ask for.

Sincerely,

OldChurchGuy

I am curious if you believe that the atheists are right when they ask for proof. Do you believe they are justified in doing that? Or should they rely simply on faith?

Based on the fact this is a website meant for atheists, then yes, they are justified in asking for proof.  Many, not all, were theists at one time and for various reasons concluded faith didn't jive with their questions / concerns. 

As always,

OldChurchGuy
Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle - Philo of Alexandria

Whether one believes in a religion or not, and whether one believes in rebirth or not, there isn't anyone who doesn't appreciate kindness and compassion - Dalai Lama

Offline Aaron123

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2733
  • Darwins +77/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #91 on: February 18, 2014, 02:04:23 AM »
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.

Again, normal spaghetti is material.  The Flying Spaghetti Monster is not made of normal spaghetti.  He is made out of special, immaterial spaghetti, which by definition, is not material.  There is no "changing the definition" going on here.  The line of difference is very fine, I'll give you that, but it is present.  I'll also grant that words alone are very difficult to convene the concept.  One needs to be touched by his noodlely appendices to fully understand him.  Are you willing to bare yourself and let his noodlely appendices touch you?


Quote
God was NEVER defined as material. God has always been immaterial.

The same goes for the FSM.  The FSM was NEVER defined as material.  The FSM has always been immaterial.
Being a Christian, I've made my decision. That decision offers no compromise; therefore, I'm closed to anything else.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12131
  • Darwins +646/-27
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #92 on: February 18, 2014, 10:19:34 AM »
It worries me deeply that atheists would choose to believe in nothing over hope.

That is a poor characterization of the choices.  We chose to believe oblivion (which is not really terrible) over a specific hope, which quite frankly sounds rather childish and extremely improbably.  Thus, the best policy is to live as if there is no afterlife.  Penn Jilette said it well:

Quote
I'm not greedy. I have love, blue skies, rainbows and Hallmark cards, and that has to be enough. It has to be enough, but it's everything in the world and everything in the world is plenty for me. It seems just rude to beg the invisible for more. Just the love of my family that raised me and the family I'm raising now is enough that I don't need heaven.
you should read the whole thing: http://www.npr.org/2005/11/21/5015557/there-is-no-god


God was NEVER defined as material. God has always been immaterial.

completely untrue.  Go back and look at the OT.  Adam supposedly was made to look like yhwh.  Thus, yhwh had a body.  This image of god as a guy with a big white beard came from the hebrew bible.

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

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

Offline stuffin

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 731
  • Darwins +26/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #93 on: February 18, 2014, 10:42:24 AM »
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.

WRONG!

We have tolerated you, haven't we?

And please show me where we make fun of you?

I'd cut him if he stands, and I'd shoot him if he'd run
 Yes I'd kill him with my Bible and my razor and my gun

Poverty is the parent of revolution and crime.
Aristotle

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1934
  • Darwins +347/-7
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #94 on: February 18, 2014, 11:05:21 AM »
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.

Do you know what the word 'exact' means?
"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 Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #95 on: February 18, 2014, 02:29:26 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.

Even a moments thought should tell you this is wrong.  Left twin would have a slightly different viewpoint to right twin, for starters.
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline skeptic54768

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2486
  • Darwins +45/-416
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #96 on: February 18, 2014, 03:15:52 PM »
WRONG!

We have tolerated you, haven't we?

And please show me where we make fun of you?

You have tolerated me to an extent. You guys still smite me at a ridiculous rate and make fun of my faith that i take very seriously. How would you feel if you took music very seriously and loved a certain genre of music and someone kept making fun of the music you like and kept calling it "crap!" and screaming it in your face?
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 jynnan tonnix

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1754
  • Darwins +84/-1
  • Gender: Female
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #97 on: February 18, 2014, 04:00:53 PM »

You have tolerated me to an extent. You guys still smite me at a ridiculous rate and make fun of my faith that i take very seriously. How would you feel if you took music very seriously and loved a certain genre of music and someone kept making fun of the music you like and kept calling it "crap!" and screaming it in your face?

Well, if it was on a music-associated site, I'd put it down to subjective taste, and try to find a different community where people's tastes were more in line with mine.

You are here voluntarily. You know that the site was set up specifically to debunk the existence of god, and you must have figured out by now that quite a lot of very snarky people post here. What would you expect?

And the reason you seem to suffer more smites than some of the other theist members we have is not because of your faith, per se, but because of your blind unwillingness to actually give reasoned and pertinent responses to some very good points that people have made. Very good points. Ones which you may not agree with, but certainly ones which deserve a thoughtful  and direct answer, rather than your typical dodging. Honestly, can't you see that you do that?
« Last Edit: February 18, 2014, 04:04:49 PM by jynnan tonnix »

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12131
  • Darwins +646/-27
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #98 on: February 18, 2014, 04:54:06 PM »
And please show me where we make fun of you?

You really think no one's made fun of him?  I'm pretty sure I have.  If not directly, then obliquely by ridiculing his beliefs.  Though I think he is mistaken in that ridicule is not all we want to do. 

I think the other part he's missed is, of course we're going to lash out a little.  We are the most hated minority in the world.  What should he expect?  And he doesn't get how xianity is shoved down our throats constantly.  He just sees it as xians being free to celebrate their religion.  He does not understand that so much of it requires a special xian privilege, which is really not constitutional.  He does not understand that us (and other religious minorities) pushing back against that is fair.  To many xians that just feels like the world is ending.

I've been to xian websites.  I think overall we treat xians here better than they do.  And certainly better than they treat atheists.  I've been banned from xian sites just for using the screen name "Screwtape". 

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

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

Offline stuffin

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 731
  • Darwins +26/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #99 on: February 18, 2014, 08:17:06 PM »
WRONG!

We have tolerated you, haven't we?

And please show me where we make fun of you?

You have tolerated me to an extent. You guys still smite me at a ridiculous rate and make fun of my faith that i take very seriously. How would you feel if you took music very seriously and loved a certain genre of music and someone kept making fun of the music you like and kept calling it "crap!" and screaming it in your face?

I love music, The Rolling Stones especially. John Prine, New Riders of the Purple Sage, Traffic, Aerosmith, Bloodrock, Gene Pitney, Foghat, The Association, Johhny and Edgar Winter, 50s stuff, country (Older stuff mostly but newer stuff too), go ahead scream and make fun, I don't really care.

I'm no schoolboy, I know what I like.

BTW, you received no smites from me.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2014, 08:31:45 PM by stuffin »
I'd cut him if he stands, and I'd shoot him if he'd run
 Yes I'd kill him with my Bible and my razor and my gun

Poverty is the parent of revolution and crime.
Aristotle

Offline stuffin

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 731
  • Darwins +26/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #100 on: February 18, 2014, 08:26:21 PM »
And please show me where we make fun of you?

You really think no one's made fun of him?  I'm pretty sure I have.  If not directly, then obliquely by ridiculing his beliefs.  Though I think he is mistaken in that ridicule is not all we want to do. 

I think the other part he's missed is, of course we're going to lash out a little.  We are the most hated minority in the world.  What should he expect?  And he doesn't get how xianity is shoved down our throats constantly.  He just sees it as xians being free to celebrate their religion.  He does not understand that so much of it requires a special xian privilege, which is really not constitutional.  He does not understand that us (and other religious minorities) pushing back against that is fair.  To many xians that just feels like the world is ending.

I've been to xian websites.  I think overall we treat xians here better than they do.  And certainly better than they treat atheists.  I've been banned from xian sites just for using the screen name "Screwtape".

First off, you are not helping. I was hoping would RESEARCH some posts TO PROVE his accusation. Maybe he would figure out how we reach our conclusions.

I know I (too) said some things that were belittling.

I'd cut him if he stands, and I'd shoot him if he'd run
 Yes I'd kill him with my Bible and my razor and my gun

Poverty is the parent of revolution and crime.
Aristotle

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6410
  • Darwins +829/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #101 on: February 19, 2014, 12:31:03 AM »
WRONG!

We have tolerated you, haven't we?

And please show me where we make fun of you?

You have tolerated me to an extent. You guys still smite me at a ridiculous rate and make fun of my faith that i take very seriously. How would you feel if you took music very seriously and loved a certain genre of music and someone kept making fun of the music you like and kept calling it "crap!" and screaming it in your face?

If you are staying for several months in the home of someone who lived and breathed jazz music and you wanted to hear only rock music, you might expect to be criticized and made fun of to some extent. You might be expected to defend your musical taste. Suppose the jazz fan gives you a long, detailed explanation of how jazz artists work, and plays you several examples of different forms of jazz.[1]

Then your friend asks you to explain why you think rock is all that. If all you can say is "Dude, rock music is the best, okay, and you are just silly if you don't understand that FREEEEEEBIRRRRD!" you will probably not get a very reasoned response. Moreover, if you maintain that American rock is the only real music in the world, and that furthermore, all other so-called music genres, including classical, jazz, country, medieval chant, Arabic pop, Tuvan throat singing and African gospel, are actually derived from-- and are inferior to-- American rock music, you can expect some major pushback. At the very least, you will be expected to provide some factual evidence and documentation of such a sweeping and nonsensical claim. You see that, don't you?

That is the same thing you have to do with respect to your religious claims. Realize that you are making big claims to people who don't automatically agree with you, and provide us with some factual evidence and documentation. And links to sites that just repeat what you say are not sufficient evidence, any more than a website that said "Dude, rock music is the most awesome and all other kinds of music suck FREEEEEEBIRRRRD!" would be sufficient evidence for your jazz friend.

You have told us that we secretly believe in your god, that we secretly hate your god, that we have no morals, that if we are really atheists we should be out killing people because we have no morals, and that everyone's morals come from your god, and that even people in Japan, China and India who have never heard of your god are secretly obeying the commands of your god.

We have shown you that places with less religion and more science are generally nicer places than those with more religion and less science. Life expectancy, health care, status of women and children, education, poverty, violent crime rates are all better in the less religious places. This is the exact opposite of what you say would happen without religion to control people and give them morals. And you still refuse to acknowledge any of this-- not the facts we have presented about the rest of the world, not the facts about how science works, not even about our own beliefs and ideas.[2]

We are very familiar with religious ideas, because many of us were once religious, and most of us still associate with religious people on a regular basis. We know very well what it is we are rejecting. We rely on scientific explanations rather than the supernatural, because science works consistently, and the supernatural does not. Science has made the world a much, much better place for the past few hundred years than the supernatural did for the previous several thousand years.  We respect scientists, because scientists try to think rationally and because scientists show their work, not because we worship science, or think of scientists as some kind of gods.

We do not believe in your god, or in any god. We, therefore,  do not get our morals from your god, or any god.  We do not believe in the supernatural, and if you do, you need to produce some evidence.
You cannot just keep telling us that, basically, we are wrong and you are right, without giving any reasons or evidence. You cannot insult us and ridicule our views, just because we disagree with you. If you keep doing that, you will keep getting smites. 

Remember, you don't have to be here on this site. It is an atheist oriented site. Theists are welcome, but you are expected to explain and support your views. You have yet to show that you have any real understanding of the things you argue with us about: science, evolution, atheism or religious ideas that differ from yours; instead you keep throwing out insults based on some caricature you have made up about what atheists are like.

You are an invited guest in someone's home, but instead you are acting like a dissident prisoner in the Soviet Gulag. Except the door to the prison is wide open. If you are miserable and don't like the rules or the behavior of the other residents, well, we will somehow manage to muddle along without you.   
 1. That is how I learned to appreciate what is now called classic rock music while attending a college where the white kids absolutely loved it. If I had been as close-minded as skeptic, I would never have gotten into REO, Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin. I would still be listening to the Commodores, Bootsy and Parliament Funkadelic, thinking that was all that popular music had to offer.
 2. Instead of admitting that you may be wrong, you retreat into "everything is subjective" and challenge the very idea that anyone could know anything about the world. Funny how so many religious people end up there eventually. &)
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 Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12223
  • Darwins +268/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #102 on: February 19, 2014, 01:14:40 AM »
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.

Do you know what the word 'exact' means?

Yeah, I was going to make this point, too.  No two people are capable o doing the "same exact" thing.  They would have to occupy the same physical space in order to do so.

Even a moments thought should tell you this is wrong.  Left twin would have a slightly different viewpoint to right twin, for starters.

The bolded is a bit excessive of an expectation, I think.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6410
  • Darwins +829/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #103 on: February 19, 2014, 01:37:23 AM »
^^^Aside from the question of when the soul enters the twins, before or after the fertilized egg cell splits? Are there two separate souls or is there half a soul in each twin? If one of the twins dies inside, where does the soul disappear to? And if one of the twins gets too little oxygen on the way out and is mentally handicapped (as happened to a guy I know) is the soul also mentally handicapped? Or is there a normal soul trapped in a handicapped brain?  :o

What about IVF where you might have eight identical fertilized eggs? Do all eight have souls, or just the 2-3 that god knows are going to survive implantation? Do the frozen ones have frozen souls that get thawed out when implantation happens? Or do the souls just kinda hang out somewhere warmer-- I know I would.
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 Dante

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2179
  • Darwins +71/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • Hedonist Extraordinaire
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #104 on: February 19, 2014, 08:34:43 AM »
^^And dont even start on conjoined twins, with their soul(s) bouncing around all willy nilly between bodies.  &)
Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.

Offline jynnan tonnix

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1754
  • Darwins +84/-1
  • Gender: Female
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #105 on: February 19, 2014, 09:25:18 AM »
Here, again, is one of those things which perplexes me about the way devout theists think.

Despite never having been much of a believer as far as god was concerned, I always had the sense that the concept of a "soul" was something different, and something I could get behind. I didn't have any trouble with ideas of an afterlife, or reincarnation, or ghosts, etc.

And to some extent, I'll admit to not having been able to shed all of those feelings completely. But the more I learn, and the more discrepancies are pointed out to me, such as the "damaged soul" of someone born without the capability of intelligent thought, or someone who becomes an unrecognizable personality through accident or dementia, or mental illness, the more likely I am to take that information and consider what it might mean if there was some part of a person that survived physical death.

I still like the notion of some sort of afterlife; maybe a consciousness which can hang around for a while to keep tabs on people they knew well throughout their lifetimes, but slowly dissipating once anything familiar was gone. That sounds good. I could make up a religion based on that if I was ambitious enough.

Point is, as I go along, all the things which are pointed out to me from both camps get considered, and the things which ring true get assimilated into my view on what is more likely. But the staunch theist has no way to do this. No matter how convincing the arguments and data may be which do not back up the idea of god or afterlife, they are simply forced to reject them. I just can't imagine how one can go through life afraid to look alternative viewpoints objectively just in case they make some sort of sense.

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #106 on: February 19, 2014, 11:14:49 AM »
You guys still smite me at a ridiculous rate and make fun of my faith that i take very seriously.

I'm not the slightest bit convinced you DO take it seriously.

If you truly had faith, then one of your greatest goals would be to disseminate that faith as clearly and as widely as possible.  You would listen carefully to the question people ask of you, and respond clearly and succinctly.  We would be hard pushed to call "dodge" on your responses, and every post you made would move the topic forward.  You wouldn't avoid difficult questions.  You wouldn't preach without evidence, when you'd been told - repeatedly - that such preaching would be ignored.

You would be your absolute best to communicate clearly and succinctly.......IF you really took your faith seriously.  I remain unconvinced that you do, when you can't give answers to the simple questions you are being asked.
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6410
  • Darwins +829/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #107 on: February 19, 2014, 11:45:18 AM »
^^^Agreed. OCG is a much better theist example and far more likely to win converts to his point of view, if any of us was leaning that way.
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 Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3880
  • Darwins +257/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #108 on: February 19, 2014, 12:05:22 PM »
You guys keep saying, "this is reality!" but that hasn't been proven either.

Please verify it is reality by slamming your head into a brick wall and seeing if it hurts. After all, if the statement "this is reality' is so unreliable, you should be comfortable with that.

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 Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3880
  • Darwins +257/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #109 on: February 19, 2014, 12:13:24 PM »
There a difference between tolerance and respect.

I can tolerate a neighbor who says "Blessed be" and has all sorts of newage bumperstickers on their car. I don't respect them.

I don't tolerate a neighbor who is playing their guitar loudly but very well at 2:30 AM on a Thursay, even though I may respect them.

They could be the same neighbor. My ideas of telerance and respect apply to the situation at hand.

Do you get it?

I tolerate theists in regards to their theism, I do not respect them.


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 Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3880
  • Darwins +257/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #110 on: February 19, 2014, 12:16:46 PM »
I have often wondered if Ken Ham is so adamant about eschewing evolution because of his resemblance to artists depictions of early hominids.
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 skeptic54768

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2486
  • Darwins +45/-416
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #111 on: February 19, 2014, 02:29:00 PM »
Here, again, is one of those things which perplexes me about the way devout theists think.

Despite never having been much of a believer as far as god was concerned, I always had the sense that the concept of a "soul" was something different, and something I could get behind. I didn't have any trouble with ideas of an afterlife, or reincarnation, or ghosts, etc.

And to some extent, I'll admit to not having been able to shed all of those feelings completely. But the more I learn, and the more discrepancies are pointed out to me, such as the "damaged soul" of someone born without the capability of intelligent thought, or someone who becomes an unrecognizable personality through accident or dementia, or mental illness, the more likely I am to take that information and consider what it might mean if there was some part of a person that survived physical death.

I still like the notion of some sort of afterlife; maybe a consciousness which can hang around for a while to keep tabs on people they knew well throughout their lifetimes, but slowly dissipating once anything familiar was gone. That sounds good. I could make up a religion based on that if I was ambitious enough.

Point is, as I go along, all the things which are pointed out to me from both camps get considered, and the things which ring true get assimilated into my view on what is more likely. But the staunch theist has no way to do this. No matter how convincing the arguments and data may be which do not back up the idea of god or afterlife, they are simply forced to reject them. I just can't imagine how one can go through life afraid to look alternative viewpoints objectively just in case they make some sort of sense.

I have no problem reading alternate viewpoints. I just don't believe the other viewpoints are supported well enough.

I can certainly think for myself but I get confused when I see "freethinkers" thinking and talking just like every other freethinker out there. if the purpose of freethinking is to think for yourself, then why do so many freethinkers all spout the same rhetoric? Dawkins isn't different fro Harris or Hitchens. They all say the same thing. How is that individual thinking?
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 skeptic54768

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2486
  • Darwins +45/-416
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #112 on: February 19, 2014, 02:43:03 PM »
You guys keep saying, "this is reality!" but that hasn't been proven either.

Please verify it is reality by slamming your head into a brick wall and seeing if it hurts. After all, if the statement "this is reality' is so unreliable, you should be comfortable with that.

Once again, pain is a sensation that is filtered through brains. Since all of our senses are subjective and reside only in the mind, that still doesn't prove reality.

You may as well say, "If you don't think this is reality, look at a blue crayon!" Sight is also in the mind and subjective because not everyone sees blue. Since an object can not be both blue and not blue at the same time, it's only evidence that it is in the mind.

Just because something "hurts" doesn't mean it's real. Likewise just because something is "blue" doesn't mean it's truly "blue." It's filtered through our subjective minds.

Belief in reality is a faith based belief/assumption taken for granted by materialists.
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: 1306
  • Darwins +91/-11
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #113 on: February 19, 2014, 02:59:56 PM »
You guys keep saying, "this is reality!" but that hasn't been proven either.

Please verify it is reality by slamming your head into a brick wall and seeing if it hurts. After all, if the statement "this is reality' is so unreliable, you should be comfortable with that.

Once again, pain is a sensation that is filtered through brains. Since all of our senses are subjective and reside only in the mind, that still doesn't prove reality.

You may as well say, "If you don't think this is reality, look at a blue crayon!" Sight is also in the mind and subjective because not everyone sees blue. Since an object can not be both blue and not blue at the same time, it's only evidence that it is in the mind.

Just because something "hurts" doesn't mean it's real. Likewise just because something is "blue" doesn't mean it's truly "blue." It's filtered through our subjective minds.

Belief in reality is a faith based belief/assumption taken for granted by materialists.

Did you not see what I posted before?

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

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

Some people have mixed senses where they actually smell or taste different colours. Did you know that? The sensations and colours are produced by the brains of the people. They derive from the different wavelengths of light which is the measurable reality behind the sensations.

You need to consider what is causing you to have delusions about science, reality, other people, their beliefs, and about yourself.
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

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3880
  • Darwins +257/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #114 on: February 19, 2014, 03:02:07 PM »
You guys keep saying, "this is reality!" but that hasn't been proven either.

Please verify it is reality by slamming your head into a brick wall and seeing if it hurts. After all, if the statement "this is reality' is so unreliable, you should be comfortable with that.

Once again, pain is a sensation that is filtered through brains. Since all of our senses are subjective and reside only in the mind, that still doesn't prove reality.

They why aren't you slamming you head against the wall?

Could it possibly be that you can reasonably draw the conclusion it will hurt due to observations you have made and experiences you have had. Don't you make a thousand decisions a day from none too difficult conclusions based on reasoning that what you observe has an actual basis of cause and effect?

Or are you not possessed of the type of intellect that is found in a garden slug?


P.S. Mooby, this counts for you too.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2014, 03:15:06 PM by Hatter23 »
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 jynnan tonnix

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1754
  • Darwins +84/-1
  • Gender: Female
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #115 on: February 19, 2014, 03:06:07 PM »
I have no problem reading alternate viewpoints. I just don't believe the other viewpoints are supported well enough.

I can certainly think for myself but I get confused when I see "freethinkers" thinking and talking just like every other freethinker out there. if the purpose of freethinking is to think for yourself, then why do so many freethinkers all spout the same rhetoric? Dawkins isn't different fro Harris or Hitchens. They all say the same thing. How is that individual thinking?

Well, that's the real question, isn't it? Of course, we all look at the evidence presented for any number of things we encounter throughout our lives. And, frequently, there may be differences of opinion. Which is fine. That's how our understanding of the world gets more sophisticated. Both on a personal level and in the case of science as a whole.

You say you have no problem "reading alternate viewpoints", and I believe you. But do you read them with an open mind, ready to stop and consider, when things start running counter to your beliefs, that just maybe all the evidence, even if it not as complete as you might like it to be, certainly does look as though it might contradict something in the Bible? Or do you immediately shut down with the assumption that the Bible is inerrant by definition, and try to twist whatever evidence has just been presented into something which cannot be trusted.

Resorting to a solipsistic view every time you run into some sort of evidence which challenges your beliefs is not the same as looking at it rationally.