whywontgodhealamputees.com

Main Discussion Zone => Evolution & Creationism => Topic started by: Sketchiii on June 21, 2013, 09:27:18 PM

Title: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Sketchiii on June 21, 2013, 09:27:18 PM
I remember that Eissak recently went on a rant about this sequence. Headaches were had. But my Aunt had this lecture playing in her car for a good while and I was forced to listen to it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDH6ruRheyk
It seems to be a bit more coherent and convincing. Additionally even if it was a mark of a creator, the vid tries to prove that that creator was yahweh.

I'm young and still working on these skeptic/reasoning skills. I would appreciate it if you guys could reach to about 3/4 of the vid ( how much I had  to listen to) and help me in sifting through the fact/fiction or plain lies and ideas. Its been on my mind and a discussion would help to un(fuck/clutter) my mind.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Nam on June 21, 2013, 09:35:09 PM
So you want to force us to listen to it?

;)

-Nam
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Sketchiii on June 21, 2013, 09:58:34 PM
So you want to force us to listen to it?

;)

-Nam

Ha. It is long isn't it.
Probably have it in the background while doing something.
Just wish to have people to discuss it with since its been on my mind. :-[
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Samothec on July 01, 2013, 03:25:43 AM
I'm young and still working on these skeptic/reasoning skills. I would appreciate it if you guys could reach to about 3/4 of the vid ( how much I had  to listen to) and help me in sifting through the fact/fiction or plain lies and ideas. Its been on my mind and a discussion would help to un(fuck/clutter) my mind.
I skimmed though about 40 minutes of that and all I saw/heard was a lot of inaccurate (at best) claims coupled with conflating things which should not have been brought together. If you have no clue about science and math and don't pay attention to facts, it sounds good - it sounds authoritative. That doesn't change the fact that it is crap. For example, the bit about rolled up scrolls having a curl that matches the golden ratio - no, not at all. And a similar claim about hurricanes - again, crap. Any old spiral doesn't contain the golden ratio - that is a specific shape.

The golden ratio and Fibonacci sequence are found in nature because nature is quite economical and they represent some of the most economical ways to pattern something. The Fibonacci sequence is created via a simple rule of adding the two most recent numbers to get the next one. One simple rule. Economical. In every life form there is a balancing act between spending and conserving energy from the moment the egg or seed is fertilized. The life form needs to spend energy to develop, grow, gather energy, etc. But if it spends too much, it will die. Always a careful balance. But there is no magic. Majesty, yes. Beautifully economical, yes. Divine magic, no.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Fiji on July 01, 2013, 08:31:14 AM
What Samothec said ... plus (and this will be disjoint as I'm typing as I'm going along) that he keeps jumping back and forth between, X IS Fibonacci and Y looks a bit like Fibonacci. But what you remember is "oooh, it's all Fibonacci".
Also, he just plain lies in places. Like where he discusses the bones of the hand. grab a tapemeasure and check it. For the VAST majority of people, you won't find the fibonacci sequence.

He tops this off with jumping back and forth in the bible between verses that just happen to fit, connecting verses entire books apart that have nothing to do with eachother but he draws a links between them anyway.

He also pulls a few number games from his ... holy book. Which, you can do with any sizable book. You could play this game with Harry Potter. One example is the number of times the word 'temple' is used compared with the number of bones in the body. OK, they match up ... so what? If you start with the number of bones in the body, and go looking in the bible for some sort of pattern that adds up to that number, you'll sooner or later find such a pattern.
Remember that Harold Camping joker? He played a similar game and was absolutely sure he had predicted the second coming ... Yet, we still seem to be here.
He also frequently goes "X contains exactly 46/23/4/(whatever number is convenient here) words!" ... ok, in which translation?

"The bible tells us X" ... erm, no, science showed us X, he's just digging up a verse that can be twisted into X.
Which verse tells us how to pull off cold fusion? Warp drive? Cure AIDS? Switch to a hydrogen economy?
None of them, until science figures it out, and then people will be finding bible (or quran for that matter) verses that 'exactly' tell us how to do these thing.

Another big revelation ... The book Genesis matches the word gene!!! Riiiiiight, that might be because they're derived from the same word.

"DNA is sugar!" ... minute or two later ... "DNA is stone!"
If you twist and turn enough ... everything is related to everything.

And to wrap it all up ... whence the link between the golden ratio and the god of the bible ... he may have mentioned this, but what's stopping a Muslim from presenting the golden ratio as proof for Allah's existance? Or a follower of any religion to use it as proof for their god. Neat numbers therefor my particular god ... why?
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: harbinger77 on December 18, 2013, 02:59:33 AM
What Samothec said ... plus (and this will be disjoint as I'm typing as I'm going along) that he keeps jumping back and forth between, X IS Fibonacci and Y looks a bit like Fibonacci. But what you remember is "oooh, it's all Fibonacci".
Also, he just plain lies in places. Like where he discusses the bones of the hand. grab a tapemeasure and check it. For the VAST majority of people, you won't find the fibonacci sequence.

He tops this off with jumping back and forth in the bible between verses that just happen to fit, connecting verses entire books apart that have nothing to do with eachother but he draws a links between them anyway.

He also pulls a few number games from his ... holy book. Which, you can do with any sizable book. You could play this game with Harry Potter. One example is the number of times the word 'temple' is used compared with the number of bones in the body. OK, they match up ... so what? If you start with the number of bones in the body, and go looking in the bible for some sort of pattern that adds up to that number, you'll sooner or later find such a pattern.
Remember that Harold Camping joker? He played a similar game and was absolutely sure he had predicted the second coming ... Yet, we still seem to be here.
He also frequently goes "X contains exactly 46/23/4/(whatever number is convenient here) words!" ... ok, in which translation?

"The bible tells us X" ... erm, no, science showed us X, he's just digging up a verse that can be twisted into X.
Which verse tells us how to pull off cold fusion? Warp drive? Cure AIDS? Switch to a hydrogen economy?
None of them, until science figures it out, and then people will be finding bible (or quran for that matter) verses that 'exactly' tell us how to do these thing.

Another big revelation ... The book Genesis matches the word gene!!! Riiiiiight, that might be because they're derived from the same word.

"DNA is sugar!" ... minute or two later ... "DNA is stone!"
If you twist and turn enough ... everything is related to everything.

And to wrap it all up ... whence the link between the golden ratio and the god of the bible ... he may have mentioned this, but what's stopping a Muslim from presenting the golden ratio as proof for Allah's existance? Or a follower of any religion to use it as proof for their god. Neat numbers therefor my particular god ... why?

I didn't know the #bones can be related to the #of times the word temple is used. I think that's awesome. I agree that christians do this and sometimes it's a stretch. Considering one of those times is "the body is the temple of the holy spirit" Just awesome, Sometimes it's coincidence sometimes it seems more than that.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Fiji on December 18, 2013, 04:27:23 AM
I didn't know the #bones can be related to the #of times the word temple is used. I think that's awesome. I agree that christians do this and sometimes it's a stretch. Considering one of those times is "the body is the temple of the holy spirit" Just awesome, Sometimes it's coincidence sometimes it seems more than that.

How would you go about figuring out hich ones are coincidence and which point towards a god?
Muslims play this game too, you know. "The word 'day' appears 365 times in the Quran!!!" and such.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: relativetruth on December 18, 2013, 05:05:45 AM
Fibonacci

Add the last two numbers together to get another number based on those two.

Is that not like evolution?

Coincidence?
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: wheels5894 on December 18, 2013, 10:50:25 AM
Oh dear! I started to watch the guy and right off the bat he has things wrong. He talks of the age of the universe as being 15 billion instead of 13.8 billion for example. he would do well to get the facts right - even if he doesn't believe them.

I gave up where we were going to be shown how Genesis describes the forming of the universe and, I suppose, we were going to ignore that the earth was there already!

Don't waste time on that goon!
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: harbinger77 on December 18, 2013, 07:27:52 PM
Oh dear! I started to watch the guy and right off the bat he has things wrong. He talks of the age of the universe as being 15 billion instead of 13.8 billion for example. he would do well to get the facts right - even if he doesn't believe them.

I gave up where we were going to be shown how Genesis describes the forming of the universe and, I suppose, we were going to ignore that the earth was there already!

Don't waste time on that goon!

You are wrong on one point. In your view The Bible has earth hanging out in nothing. The bible actually has it hanging in the heavens. Space is called, by the Christians, the 2nd heaven. As it says, "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the earth." Your confusion comes from the earth being created before the Sun moon and stars.

u·ni·verse (y n -vûrs )
n.1. The earth together with all its inhabitants and created things. (look at that. created things. hmm)
2. The human race.
3. The sphere or realm in which something exists or takes place.

I have to ask. The universe by it's definition must contain the earth. We can see human pride all over this definition. If the earth blew away tomorrow would the universe no longer BE the universe? Of course it would. Conversely, Could it not be the universe if it contained no stars?
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: jdawg70 on December 18, 2013, 07:47:00 PM
You are wrong on one point. In your view The Bible has earth hanging out in nothing. The bible actually has it hanging in the heavens. Space is called, by the Christians, the 2nd heaven. As it says, "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the earth." Your confusion comes from the earth being created before the Sun moon and stars.

u·ni·verse (y n -vûrs )
n.1. The earth together with all its inhabitants and created things. (look at that. created things. hmm)
Well look at that - some person decided to declare the universe is the Earth and it was created.  Big whoop.  Some jacka** within a 30 mile radius of you probably decided to declare the universe to be an illusion.  What's you're point?  Where did you get this idiotic definition of the word 'universe'?

'Universe' can also be defined as the central repository of software containing all GPL-sanctioned code for the Ubuntu operating system[1].  What does that have to do with anything?

Quote
2. The human race.
3. The sphere or realm in which something exists or takes place.

I have to ask. The universe by it's definition must contain the earth. We can see human pride all over this definition.
Do what now?  Because the Earth exists, and the universe contains everything that exists, then, yes, by definition, the universe contains the Earth.  Where you see human pride in that is beyond me.  No one[2] is saying that the universe must contain the Earth in order to exist.  You're doing English backwards or something.

Quote
If the earth blew away tomorrow would the universe no longer BE the universe? Of course it would.  Conversely, Could it not be the universe if it contained no stars?
What intellectually-challenged idiot would declare the universe wouldn't exist if the Earth blew up?  If the Earth blew up, then the Earth would no longer exist[3], ergo, it would no longer be in the universe[4].  That is...obvious.  Your 'conversely' is also confusing.

Honestly, your whole post is a confusing mess.  You seem to think that semantic definitions control the state of objective reality rather than describe the state of objective reality.
 1. I'm doing this from the hip and don't really remember how the Ubuntu or Debian repositories categorize things.  Doesn't detract from my point.
 2. well, maybe the solipsists, but good luck getting them to say anything coherent
 3. well, yeah, the remnants of the Earth would exist, but those remnants scattered about all over the place would not be thought of as Earth
 4. Again, I recognize the matter and energy that comprised (note the past tense) the Earth would still exist in the universe, but no longer would the planet Earth exist.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: nogodsforme on December 18, 2013, 07:48:03 PM
Ummm. I'm not sure I get your point, harbinger. The universe includes everything we know of. So of course that includes the earth and everything on it, plus our moon, plus Saturn, plus Saturn's 62 moons and everything else in this solar system and everything else in the Milky Way galaxy, plus everything in all the other galaxies, plus lots of random stars, black holes, meteors, comets, and so on.

Why would it be prideful to include the earth in a definition of the universe? If you were describing a chocolate chip cookie, wouldn't you assume that all the chocolate chips  in the cookie are included in the definition? It is just a fact-- seems strange to leave one out.

That would be prideful, as if the earth is the one little chocolate chip that should be singled out as special in some way. There are lots of other solar systems and lots of other planets in the universe. The odds are that earth is no more special than one chocolate chip in a cookie full of them.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: harbinger77 on December 18, 2013, 09:28:07 PM
I didn't know the #bones can be related to the #of times the word temple is used. I think that's awesome. I agree that christians do this and sometimes it's a stretch. Considering one of those times is "the body is the temple of the holy spirit" Just awesome, Sometimes it's coincidence sometimes it seems more than that.

How would you go about figuring out hich ones are coincidence and which point towards a god?
Muslims play this game too, you know. "The word 'day' appears 365 times in the Quran!!!" and such.


In a word discernment. Like I said most are just amusing little factoids. 

Why wouldn't God play number games though. As far as I can tell God likes numbers. 3And12 are themes throughout scriptures.

As for the Qu'an I would expect some number games there. As it is inspired too. just not from the same source.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Graybeard on December 18, 2013, 09:39:07 PM
You are wrong on one point. In your view The Bible has earth hanging out in nothing. The bible actually has it hanging in the heavens.
Actually, it is supported on pillars.

However, I think this is what your idea of the world is like:

(http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i325/PaulQ86/CosmosNew1_zps09041015.gif)
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: harbinger77 on December 18, 2013, 09:45:17 PM
 The post that I had replied to was suggesting that The Bible tells a story where the earth is created and hung in nothing I guess, and then the universe after that. I pointed out his mistake in his understanding of creation. By demonstrating that there can be a universe with no earth it is also true there can be a universe even if it contains no stars. This was the root of his misunderstanding. Creation of stars = creation of the universe.

 The human pride comes in when they specifically  mentioned Earth. It goes without saying. Rather than just saying all planets or something along that line. They had to make their chip in the cookie more special than the rest. Typical human pride.

I don't see how this was hard to follow.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: ParkingPlaces on December 18, 2013, 09:55:25 PM
. The human pride comes in when they specifically  mentioned Earth. It goes without saying. Rather than just saying all planets or something along that line. They had to make their chip in the cookie more special than the rest. Typical human pride.

I don't see how this was hard to follow.

Does extrapolating like that hurt? I've never had the guts to try.

Thy universe, by definition, contains a bunch of stuff. Take away a little, and it still the universe. Take away all the stuff and it ceases to be the universe.  At least as it is current defined.

The earth is little. Everything else is big. Your sample size was a bit excessive.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: harbinger77 on December 18, 2013, 09:56:45 PM
You are wrong on one point. In your view The Bible has earth hanging out in nothing. The bible actually has it hanging in the heavens.
Actually, it is supported on pillars.

However, I think this is what your idea of the world is like:

(http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i325/PaulQ86/CosmosNew1_zps09041015.gif)

Graybeard- forgive me for assuming or maybe I'm using the wrong vocabulary. There is something though, even if I can't put my finger on just the right word. Why are you so.. spiteful, bitter, maybe angry? Maybe it goes deeper than you wish to discuss but there seems to be something there.

For the rest of you No, this has nothing to do with this specific post. I find the picture rather amusing.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Willie on December 19, 2013, 01:34:01 AM
u·ni·verse (y n -vûrs )
n.1. The earth together with all its inhabitants and created things. (look at that. created things. hmm)
2. The human race.
3. The sphere or realm in which something exists or takes place.

I looked up the word "universe" on half a dozen or so online dictionaries, and not one of them gives your #1 definition as the primary definition. One of them (www.thefreedictionary.com citing American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition) does, however, include that definition, verbatim, and the other two as well. They're numbers 2a, 2b, and 3. Number 1 was: "All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.", which agrees reasonably well with the primary definitions given by the other dictionaries that I looked at.

Tell us, harbinger77, where did you find a dictionary that lists your #1 definition first? And if you did not, in fact, find such a dictionary, why did you misrepresent (as well as fail to cite) your source? Can you understand why doing that would be perceived as dishonest, or at least ill conceived?
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Anfauglir on December 19, 2013, 04:11:29 AM
How would you go about figuring out hich ones are coincidence and which point towards a god?

In a word discernment. Like I said most are just amusing little factoids. 

That, sir, is not an answer.  It is a weasel response that allows you to pick and choose whichever coincidences you want to prove the point du jour, with no possibility of ever being proved wrong.

Why not have a stab at ACTUALLY answering the question.  Give us a list of the rules that you use to figure out which are coincidence and which point to a god, THEN we can go through the Bible and see if they work.  Simply saying "oh, I can see them" just highlights your confirmation bias and sidesteps Fiji's question.


The human pride comes in when they specifically  mentioned Earth. It goes without saying. Rather than just saying all planets or something along that line. They had to make their chip in the cookie more special than the rest. Typical human pride.

Whoooah there.  Didn't Yahweh create the Earth specifically for humans?  Is it NOT the most important part of the universe, waaaay more so than all the other planets and asteroids?  So I don't see how anyone could be accused of being "prideful" by putting priority on the earth - by your standards, its just a straight fact, surely?
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: wheels5894 on December 19, 2013, 05:25:40 AM
Gray beard, I like your picture but I rather think those stars are embedded in the dome over the earth. The following is based on the bible texts of Genesis, Psalms and Job. It is remarkably like the way the Greeks saw it too.

(http://i675.photobucket.com/albums/vv118/icedbun/creation.jpg) (http://s675.photobucket.com/user/icedbun/media/creation.jpg.html)

Now the odd thing about this is that it is nothing at all like the universe we now know about. It really has nothing in common. now there is a reason for that - it how the ancient peoples understood astronomy. The Greek were ahead and by the time of Jesus had worked out the earth as a sphere and even worked out a rough dimension but the Hebrews were quite content to stick with the 'discworld' understanding.

Of course, even the act of creation isn't what it is claimed. God started with the earth covered in water so I imagine the above picture a bit wetter and nthen he dries out a patch and the job is done - unless even that happened on its own.

If you want to quote the bible to help with your claims, Harbinger, make sure they really do help.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Graybeard on December 19, 2013, 05:35:13 AM
Graybeard- forgive me
You are forgiven -Joh:5:14b Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.

Quote
for assuming or maybe I'm using the wrong vocabulary.
There may be hope for you. But yes, you are using the vocabulary of a person who rejects what we know in favour of what was the concept 3,000 years ago.

Quote
There is something though, even if I can't put my finger on just the right word.
Try... try...

Quote
Why are you so.. spiteful, bitter, maybe angry?
Ga:4:16: Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?

Quote
Maybe it goes deeper than you wish to discuss but there seems to be something there.
Well, you seem to spend a lot of time thinking that things that don't exist, actually do, so, I suppose, I should not be too surprised if you imagine my words carry a meaning that they do not.

Gray beard, I like your picture but I rather think those stars are embedded in the dome over the earth. The following is based on the bible texts of Genesis, Psalms and Job. It is remarkably like the way the Greeks saw it too.
Many thanks for that to-scale and accurate map. I'm sure it will be a great help to Bible-Believing Christians.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Anfauglir on December 19, 2013, 05:38:07 AM
Why are you so.. spiteful, bitter, maybe angry?
Ga:4:16: Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?

Quote
Maybe it goes deeper than you wish to discuss but there seems to be something there.
Well, you seem to spend a lot of time thinking that things that don't exist, actually do, so, I suppose, I should not be too surprised if you imagine my words carry a meaning that they do not.

When you've not got an answer to the question, attack the motives of the questioner.  Always a good way for believers to sidetrack away from the issue at hand.  Not that they are judging, or anything.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: harbinger77 on December 20, 2013, 09:30:00 AM
How would you go about figuring out hich ones are coincidence and which point towards a god?

In a word discernment. Like I said most are just amusing little factoids. 

That, sir, is not an answer.  It is a weasel response that allows you to pick and choose whichever coincidences you want to prove the point du jour, with no possibility of ever being proved wrong.

Why not have a stab at ACTUALLY answering the question.  Give us a list of the rules that you use to figure out which are coincidence and which point to a god, THEN we can go through the Bible and see if they work.  Simply saying "oh, I can see them" just highlights your confirmation bias and sidesteps Fiji's question.


The human pride comes in when they specifically  mentioned Earth. It goes without saying. Rather than just saying all planets or something along that line. They had to make their chip in the cookie more special than the rest. Typical human pride.

Whoooah there.  Didn't Yahweh create the Earth specifically for humans?  Is it NOT the most important part of the universe, waaaay more so than all the other planets and asteroids?  So I don't see how anyone could be accused of being "prideful" by putting priority on the earth - by your standards, its just a straight fact, surely?

biased absolutely! narrow minded concerning God? Yes sir!
As an unsaved individual I'm sorry but you can't get it
it's all foolishness to those who are perishing. discernment is something you pray for. Unless you plan on hitting your knees and having a conversation with God... You will never understand.

as for the pride thing, I'm speaking to humanists why would I present it outside your thinking?
I don't understand how this off hand comment has you all so bothered. Unless you all just gotta have something to argue about?
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: harbinger77 on December 20, 2013, 10:07:32 AM
One more thing Earth was not made for us...

Colossians 1:16
For by him were all things created, that are in
heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible,
whether they be thrones, or dominions, or
principalities, or powers: all things were created by
him, and FOR him:

I can see where your confusion would come from though.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Anfauglir on December 20, 2013, 10:19:13 AM
How would you go about figuring out which ones are coincidence and which point towards a god?

In a word discernment. Like I said most are just amusing little factoids. 

That, sir, is not an answer.  It is a weasel response that allows you to pick and choose whichever coincidences you want to prove the point du jour, with no possibility of ever being proved wrong.

Why not have a stab at ACTUALLY answering the question.  Give us a list of the rules that you use to figure out which are coincidence and which point to a god, THEN we can go through the Bible and see if they work.  Simply saying "oh, I can see them" just highlights your confirmation bias and sidesteps Fiji's question.

biased absolutely! narrow minded concerning God? Yes sir!
As an unsaved individual I'm sorry but you can't get it
it's all foolishness to those who are perishing. discernment is something you pray for. Unless you plan on hitting your knees and having a conversation with God... You will never understand.

Great!  So, you have prayed, and now discern what passages are coincidence, and which ones are not.  So then.....

1) EVERY Christian that prays will therefore have the same discernment.  Something is either a coincidence, or will point towards a god, surely?  Or is your point that ANY statement in the Bible could be evidence of god, or a coincidence, depending on the person?

2) YOU have prayed (I presume), and so your god has provided you the discernment.  Great!  You therefore CAN do exactly what I asked for: to explain the process by which you look at a line, and "discern" whether it is evidence, or not.  Or are you saying that your god has NOT so far granted you an all encompassing "discernment"?

3) What you seem to be saying with your "unsaved" comment is that the only way one can understand how the Bible points to god....is if you have already accepted that there IS a god.  Because why would I pray for the ability to discern the parts of the Bible that reveal god to me, if I already believed that god exists?  And if I've not got the discernment to already have god revealed to me, naturally I am not going to pray to something that I do not believe exists.  So you've described a very neat little Catch-22 there, haven't you?  "You'll only get the evidence for god when you already believe". 

Why do you think your god made it so deliberately difficult to "find" him?  I thought he wanted us to find him, am I wrong about that?
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Anfauglir on December 20, 2013, 10:24:31 AM
One more thing Earth was not made for us...

Colossians 1:16
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and FOR him:

I stand corrected.

So can you explain why I should in any way feel grateful for anything your god created, if it was all done just for HIM?  Sure - I may get some passing enjoyment from it, but if he made it entirely for his own purposes (as you've just explained), by what reasoning should I give thanks for any of it?
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: ParkingPlaces on December 20, 2013, 11:06:24 AM
Well, thanks to Harbinger, we now know that the christian claim that the earth was made for us is wrong. I, for one, am keeping that bible verse around.

There was no need to finely tune a universe made for Him. He doesn't need any niche's. He can handle everything he throws at himself.

Why he made scorpions that couldn't sting him I dunno, but I guess it made sense at the time.

I am enjoying this conversation. Keep at it guys. And to whomever it may concern, DUCK!

Added: To god, earth must be like the ultimate reality show. Fake, scripted and boring. But I'll bet he's making a fortune off of ad revenues.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Astreja on December 20, 2013, 11:12:03 AM
So can you explain why I should in any way feel grateful for anything your god created, if it was all done just for HIM?  Sure - I may get some passing enjoyment from it, but if he made it entirely for his own purposes (as you've just explained), by what reasoning should I give thanks for any of it?
Já, that's kind of like being expected to say "Thank you" when your spouse buys you the pool table he's always wanted for your birthday.   ;D
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: jdawg70 on December 20, 2013, 11:38:10 AM
Já, that's kind of like being expected to say "Thank you" when your spouse buys you the pool table he's always wanted for your birthday.   ;D
(http://www.hwdyk.com/q/quizimage/lifeonthefastlane.jpg)
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Backspace on December 20, 2013, 02:40:27 PM
As an unsaved individual I'm sorry but you can't get it
it's all foolishness to those who are perishing. discernment is something you pray for. Unless you plan on hitting your knees and having a conversation with God... You will never understand.

I have a brother and sister who are both knee-hitting, arm-waiving Christians, and their understanding of the Bible is no more informed than mine as an atheist.



Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: ParkingPlaces on December 20, 2013, 02:59:04 PM
Unless you plan on hitting your knees and having a conversation with God... You will never understand.

No, actually, if you base your reality on hitting your knees, you won't ever understand anything. You will just think you do. Which is not now, nor has it ever been, the same thing.

Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Ataraxia on December 20, 2013, 03:05:44 PM
biased absolutely! narrow minded concerning God? Yes sir!

...and this is something to be proud of, why?
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: jaimehlers on December 20, 2013, 03:06:19 PM
biased absolutely! narrow minded concerning God? Yes sir!
Then why should anyone bother to pay attention to you, if you're so totally biased?  You are really no different than someone who's absolutely biased and narrow-minded concerning black people - totally convinced of your own rectitude and the rightness of what you believe, and totally unwilling to discuss the subject (except when you get to lecture other people about it), let alone listening to what someone else has to say.  It's a waste of both your time and ours.

Quote from: harbinger77
As an unsaved individual I'm sorry but you can't get it
Excuses don't help your case any, I'm afraid.

Quote from: harbinger77
it's all foolishness to those who are perishing. discernment is something you pray for. Unless you plan on hitting your knees and having a conversation with God... You will never understand.
Irrelevant.  If your god actually exists, then there is no reason he couldn't strike up a conversation with an atheist - offering excuses like "discernment is something you pray for" is silly.

Quote from: harbinger77
as for the pride thing, I'm speaking to humanists why would I present it outside your thinking?
Indeed, good question.  So why are you presenting this as something that we're totally unable to understand unless we pray?  Seems to me that you're automatically presenting this "outside our thinking".

Quote from: harbinger77
I don't understand how this off hand comment has you all so bothered. Unless you all just gotta have something to argue about?
Because when a theist says something, and doesn't back it up, we want more than, "oh, well, you can't understand anyway unless you pray about it".  That's not an answer, that's an excuse, and a bad one at that.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Hatter23 on December 20, 2013, 03:45:30 PM
The post that I had replied to was suggesting that The Bible tells a story where the earth is created and hung in nothing I guess, and then the universe after that. I pointed out his mistake in his understanding of creation. By demonstrating that there can be a universe with no earth it is also true there can be a universe even if it contains no stars. This was the root of his misunderstanding. Creation of stars = creation of the universe.

 The human pride comes in when they specifically  mentioned Earth. It goes without saying. Rather than just saying all planets or something along that line. They had to make their chip in the cookie more special than the rest. Typical human pride.

I don't see how this was hard to follow.

One vague statement that is kind of true if you squint hard doesn't distract me from the hundreds of things the Bible is just plain wrong on.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Graybeard on December 20, 2013, 05:31:54 PM
biased absolutely! narrow minded concerning God? Yes sir!
Dear me... You do know that God hates you, right?

Let us crack open KJV1611 and ask ourselves, "Who does God hate?" but first let us look at what Jesus says: You proclaim your faith loudly, yet does not Jesus warn,

"Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
M't:7:22: Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
M't:7:23: And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

And now, a couple of sins that you seem to wallow in; sins that are abhorrent to God. He hates people like you:

The Proud (Romans 1:30), Boasters (Romans 1:30),

So, what is this "hate"? Why, it is the doctrine of reprobation or God's "HATE" and this involves eternal retribution or the everlasting punishment in Hell forever. The description is given in Leviticus 20:13,23, Psalm 5:5, Psalm 11:5, Malachi 1:1-3, Romans 9:11-13, Matthew 7:13,23, John 12:39-40, 1 Peter 2:8, Jude 4, Revelation 13:8, 20:15, 21:27, etc.

Yet you mindlessly, and happily ignoring the Word of the Almighty, The Lord of Hosts, (and paradoxically) you spit in His Perfect Face and boast of your faith and humility. You scream how humble you are from the roof-tops. You call for others to see how much you love God.

Is this right? Can it be true? It certainly seems so. I'm with God on this one. It is disgusting.

So, as you fry for all eternity, I and the other atheists here, having been modest and truly humble hoping only for "reasonable people to be heard (see the Sermon on the Mount), will sit with Jesus and look down and laugh as Satan and his Devils anally rape you in the pit of darkness and fire for all eternity. We, like poor Lazarus will peer down on you and we will laugh with Jesus.

I am really glad I am not you, for you the Afterlife will be torture without end and the presence of God will have deserted you for ever.

Worse still: as if your sins were not black and evil enough, you say you are biased... and yet Jesus tells us to "Judge in righteousness."

Jesus does not say, “Start hating, don't listen to reason but spit out your own one-sided, personal bile." No... He does not do that.  Yet you do it. I am so, so sad for you.

You will never see your family in heaven. You will never know joy. You will never sit at God’s right hand.

Look, Harbinger, I’m the last person to say this but I really feel the presence of Satan in your soul, your prideful, dark and wizened soul, the soul that festers with conceit, bias and pride within your breast and forces you to proclaim how much better you are than others. I cannot understand why all that Jesus has ever said is, to you and your dark master, no more than so much dross.

I hear you say you talk to God... and someone talks back... I am afraid that everything points to your being deceived. The voice you hear is that of Satan and his minions.

It cannot possibly be the Voice of Jesus. Jesus would never, ever, tell you to write such things.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Antidote on December 20, 2013, 05:43:49 PM
u·ni·verse (y n -vûrs )
n.1. The earth together with all its inhabitants and created things. (look at that. created things. hmm)
2. The human race.
3. The sphere or realm in which something exists or takes place.

I looked up the word "universe" on half a dozen or so online dictionaries, and not one of them gives your #1 definition as the primary definition. One of them (www.thefreedictionary.com citing American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition) does, however, include that definition, verbatim, and the other two as well. They're numbers 2a, 2b, and 3. Number 1 was: "All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.", which agrees reasonably well with the primary definitions given by the other dictionaries that I looked at.

Tell us, harbinger77, where did you find a dictionary that lists your #1 definition first? And if you did not, in fact, find such a dictionary, why did you misrepresent (as well as fail to cite) your source? Can you understand why doing that would be perceived as dishonest, or at least ill conceived?

Harbinger can you please address this.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Ivellios on December 21, 2013, 10:50:07 AM
u·ni·verse (y n -vûrs )
n.1. The earth together with all its inhabitants and created things. (look at that. created things. hmm)
2. The human race.
3. The sphere or realm in which something exists or takes place.

I looked up the word "universe" on half a dozen or so online dictionaries, and not one of them gives your #1 definition as the primary definition. One of them (www.thefreedictionary.com citing American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition) does, however, include that definition, verbatim, and the other two as well. They're numbers 2a, 2b, and 3. Number 1 was: "All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.", which agrees reasonably well with the primary definitions given by the other dictionaries that I looked at.

Tell us, harbinger77, where did you find a dictionary that lists your #1 definition first? And if you did not, in fact, find such a dictionary, why did you misrepresent (as well as fail to cite) your source? Can you understand why doing that would be perceived as dishonest, or at least ill conceived?

Harbinger can you please address this.

He cannot. Christians feel justified to make any kind of lie they can if it means someone else might join thier ranks and be 'saved.' After all, they must preach the 'truth' to the unrighteous.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: harbinger77 on December 21, 2013, 12:15:50 PM
u·ni·verse (y n -vûrs )
n.1. The earth together with all its inhabitants and created things. (look at that. created things. hmm)
2. The human race.
3. The sphere or realm in which something exists or takes place.

I looked up the word "universe" on half a dozen or so online dictionaries, and not one of them gives your #1 definition as the primary definition. One of them (www.thefreedictionary.com citing American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition) does, however, include that definition, verbatim, and the other two as well. They're numbers 2a, 2b, and 3. Number 1 was: "All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.", which agrees reasonably well with the primary definitions given by the other dictionaries that I looked at.

Tell us, harbinger77, where did you find a dictionary that lists your #1 definition first? And if you did not, in fact, find such a dictionary, why did you misrepresent (as well as fail to cite) your source? Can you understand why doing that would be perceived as dishonest, or at least ill conceived?

Harbinger can you please address this.

He cannot. Christians feel justified to make any kind of lie they can if it means someone else might join thier ranks and be 'saved.' After all, they must preach the 'truth' to the unrighteous.

I didn't highlight the full definition when I copied it. I got busy and a few hours later remembered I was responding. I pasted it to the post and thought well that's not right and I "fixed it"... I should have double checked the source, and I didn't in fact I gave it no other thought. Call it a brain fart. Not quite the dumbest thing I ever did but pretty dumb. in the future I will be be sure to not only double check the source but also include a link. I do humbly apologize for being stupid. I didn't intend to mislead or lie. I see how my actions could damage a future statement.

As for "Christians feeling justified to make any lie" I happen to believe that there is NOTHING I nor anyone else could say or do or not say or do that would convince you to turn to Jesus. Until the holy spirit acts on you and regenerates your spirit, You just won't. It's all God. His plan, His time, His way.
Also I changed some #s. In the end I misrepresented the definition. I didn't make it a lie by changing words though.

 I had no intent to deceive.
mis·rep·re·sent
Pronunciation: \( ? )mis- ? re-pri- ?zent\
Function: transitive verb
Date: 1647
1 : to give a false or misleading
representation of usually with an intent
to deceive or be unfair <misrepresented
the facts> 2 : to serve badly or
improperly as a representative of

http://i.word.com/idictionary/misrepresent
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: harbinger77 on December 21, 2013, 12:26:35 PM
biased absolutely! narrow minded concerning God? Yes sir!
Then why should anyone bother to pay attention to you, if you're so totally biased?  You are really no different than someone who's absolutely biased and narrow-minded concerning black people - totally convinced of your own rectitude and the rightness of what you believe, and totally unwilling to discuss the subject (except when you get to lecture other people about it), let alone listening to what someone else has to say.  It's a waste of both your time and ours.

Quote from: harbinger77
As an unsaved individual I'm sorry but you can't get it
Excuses don't help your case any, I'm afraid.

Quote from: harbinger77
it's all foolishness to those who are perishing. discernment is something you pray for. Unless you plan on hitting your knees and having a conversation with God... You will never understand.
Irrelevant.  If your god actually exists, then there is no reason he couldn't strike up a conversation with an atheist - offering excuses like "discernment is something you pray for" is silly.

Quote from: harbinger77
as for the pride thing, I'm speaking to humanists why would I present it outside your thinking?
Indeed, good question.  So why are you presenting this as something that we're totally unable to understand unless we pray?  Seems to me that you're automatically presenting this "outside our thinking".

Quote from: harbinger77
I don't understand how this off hand comment has you all so bothered. Unless you all just gotta have something to argue about?
Because when a theist says something, and doesn't back it up, we want more than, "oh, well, you can't understand anyway unless you pray about it".  That's not an answer, that's an excuse, and a bad one at that.

I only want to address 2 comments here. first Other than a few scriptures that say he won't, I see no reason God wouldn't "strike up a conversation" other than the fact that you won't humble yourself, get on your knees and make the call.

second You asked about something outside what you call discernment. You asked about my thinking. how can I present my thinking inside of your own?
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: wheels5894 on December 21, 2013, 01:05:54 PM
Harbinger

When had God ever actually spoke to anyone in a way that we can know that he has - for example more than one person simultaneously hears exactly the same words? (I put it like that as we all know god doesn't speak out loud to anyone so it has to be something that a person 'hears' in their head. Think of it like three people listen to one person speaking. Each person listening hears exactly the same words. )
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: relativetruth on December 21, 2013, 01:49:44 PM
As for "Christians feeling justified to make any lie" I happen to believe that there is NOTHING I nor anyone else could say or do or not say or do that would convince you to turn to Jesus. Until the holy spirit acts on you and regenerates your spirit, You just won't. It's all God. His plan, His time, His way.

My Bolding.

Fatalism. What will happen, will happen.

So we really cannot change things, so all we can do (as atheists) is hope that the holy spirit touches us on the shoulder and says. 'You guy are really chosen'.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: wheels5894 on December 21, 2013, 02:24:49 PM
As for "Christians feeling justified to make any lie" I happen to believe that there is NOTHING I nor anyone else could say or do or not say or do that would convince you to turn to Jesus. Until the holy spirit acts on you and regenerates your spirit, You just won't. It's all God. His plan, His time, His way.

My Bolding.

Fatalism. What will happen, will happen.

So we really cannot change things, so all we can do (as atheists) is hope that the holy spirit touches us on the shoulder and says. 'You guy are really chosen'.

So we are hardly ot blame if the HS doesn't touch us on the shoulder so we should go to heaven anyway and get bored with the singing?
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: ParkingPlaces on December 21, 2013, 03:09:20 PM
Gee, I'm as humble as they come, and just this morning I was on my knees, looking for a pen that rolled under the sofa. Didn't hear a word.

But if that is what is required, does god-guy not see that it isn't working. He set up this specific system to get folks permanently high (i.e., into heaven) and misses not only most of the billions on earth right now, but also most of the billions of people who ever lived, who forgot to get all humble and stuff, and have already become fried heathen. So if a guy is gonna have a plan, he should be realistic, and take into consideration all the variables, not get all strict on our asses and assume that we know exactly what to do, and how. Without, by the way, providing clear instructions, unless you count the variations provided by those who think they have it all figured out. And who are, oft-times, hard to be around.

I asked my very religious friend George this morning if he ever hears gods voice. "Of course not, god doesn't talk to us. That's what faith is all about. If he talked to us, we wouldn't need it."

Now, I disagree with George just as much as I disagree with Harbinger, but at least George isn't asking me to assume the position.

Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: nogodsforme on December 21, 2013, 03:13:26 PM
As for "Christians feeling justified to make any lie" I happen to believe that there is NOTHING I nor anyone else could say or do or not say or do that would convince you to turn to Jesus. Until the holy spirit acts on you and regenerates your spirit, You just won't. It's all God. His plan, His time, His way.

My Bolding.

Fatalism. What will happen, will happen.

So we really cannot change things, so all we can do (as atheists) is hope that the holy spirit touches us on the shoulder and says. 'You guy are really chosen'.

Many Christians don't truly believe it is all up to god or the holy spirit. Or else they would stay at home and be religious and leave the rest of us alone. Instead, we have to live in a world where they are in our faces and trying to make us live according to their religious beliefs.

Look at all the religious crap that was thrown around in the last presidential election, how it is affecting the health care bill, people in the military forced to hear religious stuff, how it is even influencing foreign policy towards Israel and changing decisions about aid to other countries--no money to family planning clinics, for example.

How about this.  Leave it all up to god and the holy spirit. Please. No more missionaries, no more proselytizing, no more attempts to interfere in politics, no more heavily funded campaigns against gays or contraception, no more packing school boards to change the science curriculum. No more nativity scenes on public property or gigantic billboards telling everyone about how wonderful your religion is and how everyone else is going to hell. Let go and let god, right? I think every atheist would be down with that.

We will patiently wait for god and the holy spirit. You go first.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: harbinger77 on December 21, 2013, 03:28:04 PM
Gee, I'm as humble as they come, and just this morning I was on my knees, looking for a pen that rolled under the sofa. Didn't hear a word.

But if that is what is required, does god-guy not see that it isn't working. He set up this specific system to get folks permanently high (i.e., into heaven) and misses not only most of the billions on earth right now, but also most of the billions of people who ever lived, who forgot to get all humble and stuff, and have already become fried heathen. So if a guy is gonna have a plan, he should be realistic, and take into consideration all the variables, not get all strict on our asses and assume that we know exactly what to do, and how. Without, by the way, providing clear instructions, unless you count the variations provided by those who think they have it all figured out. And who are, oft-times, hard to be around.

I asked my very religious friend George this morning if he ever hears gods voice. "Of course not, god doesn't talk to us. That's what faith is all about. If he talked to us, we wouldn't need it."

Now, I disagree with George just as much as I disagree with Harbinger, but at least George isn't asking me to assume the position.

If he hasn't pleaded in anyway for your soul. Either with you or in his private time. I would have to say he is either not saved or not your friend. I don't think both can be true. I have no doubt he may be religious though. religious does not equal saved.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Antidote on December 21, 2013, 03:34:12 PM
Gee, I'm as humble as they come, and just this morning I was on my knees, looking for a pen that rolled under the sofa. Didn't hear a word.

But if that is what is required, does god-guy not see that it isn't working. He set up this specific system to get folks permanently high (i.e., into heaven) and misses not only most of the billions on earth right now, but also most of the billions of people who ever lived, who forgot to get all humble and stuff, and have already become fried heathen. So if a guy is gonna have a plan, he should be realistic, and take into consideration all the variables, not get all strict on our asses and assume that we know exactly what to do, and how. Without, by the way, providing clear instructions, unless you count the variations provided by those who think they have it all figured out. And who are, oft-times, hard to be around.

I asked my very religious friend George this morning if he ever hears gods voice. "Of course not, god doesn't talk to us. That's what faith is all about. If he talked to us, we wouldn't need it."

Now, I disagree with George just as much as I disagree with Harbinger, but at least George isn't asking me to assume the position.

If he hasn't pleaded in anyway for your soul. Either with you or in his private time. I would have to say he is either not saved or not your friend. I don't think both can be true. I have no doubt he may be religious though. religious does not equal saved.

Why would "god" plea for our souls? I thought he was omniscient, if he was he would have no need to do so, and if he was omnipotent, he wouldn't have allowed us to stray from him, free-will be damned.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: harbinger77 on December 21, 2013, 03:40:10 PM
Gee, I'm as humble as they come, and just this morning I was on my knees, looking for a pen that rolled under the sofa. Didn't hear a word.

But if that is what is required, does god-guy not see that it isn't working. He set up this specific system to get folks permanently high (i.e., into heaven) and misses not only most of the billions on earth right now, but also most of the billions of people who ever lived, who forgot to get all humble and stuff, and have already become fried heathen. So if a guy is gonna have a plan, he should be realistic, and take into consideration all the variables, not get all strict on our asses and assume that we know exactly what to do, and how. Without, by the way, providing clear instructions, unless you count the variations provided by those who think they have it all figured out. And who are, oft-times, hard to be around.

I asked my very religious friend George this morning if he ever hears gods voice. "Of course not, god doesn't talk to us. That's what faith is all about. If he talked to us, we wouldn't need it."

Now, I disagree with George just as much as I disagree with Harbinger, but at least George isn't asking me to assume the position.

Matt7:14
13 “Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction,
and those who enter by it are many. 14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life,
and those who find it are few.
http://biblehub.com/esv/matthew/7.htm

looks like not only by your own account is the plan on course, but you just backed up Jesus too.

As for George. I do not doubt he may very well be religious. However, IF he has never pleaded for your soul to you or at least in private prayer, Either he is not saved or he is not your friend. I don't think both can be true. However, one can be religious AND unsaved. often times religion is what prevents salvation.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: ParkingPlaces on December 21, 2013, 03:43:14 PM
Gee, I'm as humble as they come, and just this morning I was on my knees, looking for a pen that rolled under the sofa. Didn't hear a word.

But if that is what is required, does god-guy not see that it isn't working. He set up this specific system to get folks permanently high (i.e., into heaven) and misses not only most of the billions on earth right now, but also most of the billions of people who ever lived, who forgot to get all humble and stuff, and have already become fried heathen. So if a guy is gonna have a plan, he should be realistic, and take into consideration all the variables, not get all strict on our asses and assume that we know exactly what to do, and how. Without, by the way, providing clear instructions, unless you count the variations provided by those who think they have it all figured out. And who are, oft-times, hard to be around.

I asked my very religious friend George this morning if he ever hears gods voice. "Of course not, god doesn't talk to us. That's what faith is all about. If he talked to us, we wouldn't need it."

Now, I disagree with George just as much as I disagree with Harbinger, but at least George isn't asking me to assume the position.

If he hasn't pleaded in anyway for your soul. Either with you or in his private time. I would have to say he is either not saved or not your friend. I don't think both can be true. I have no doubt he may be religious though. religious does not equal saved.

Yea, George is religious. He learned Greek specifically so he could read the parts of the bible in the original. He's been a christian for years and has tried to convert me on many an occasion. He credits his belief for getting him through the young death of his father, his sisters death in a car wreck, and his near fatal skydiving accident. He is every bit as religious as you.

Unless you guys have an agreed upon scoring system or something that can differentiate who is winning in the most religious category.

Thanks for not commenting on my main point, which was that your god guy hasn't gotten his word out very effectively. Notice, if you will, how little it impresses us, and it has impressed others just as little. But by not commenting, you have confirmed my suspicion that you do this out of ego, not out of concern for others. That is what I encounter in most christians. You folks think you are in a very exclusive club, and just don't realize that you're the ones coming up with all the entrance requirements.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: harbinger77 on December 21, 2013, 03:46:34 PM
Gee, I'm as humble as they come, and just this morning I was on my knees, looking for a pen that rolled under the sofa. Didn't hear a word.

But if that is what is required, does god-guy not see that it isn't working. He set up this specific system to get folks permanently high (i.e., into heaven) and misses not only most of the billions on earth right now, but also most of the billions of people who ever lived, who forgot to get all humble and stuff, and have already become fried heathen. So if a guy is gonna have a plan, he should be realistic, and take into consideration all the variables, not get all strict on our asses and assume that we know exactly what to do, and how. Without, by the way, providing clear instructions, unless you count the variations provided by those who think they have it all figured out. And who are, oft-times, hard to be around.

I asked my very religious friend George this morning if he ever hears gods voice. "Of course not, god doesn't talk to us. That's what faith is all about. If he talked to us, we wouldn't need it."

Now, I disagree with George just as much as I disagree with Harbinger, but at least George isn't asking me to assume the position.

If he hasn't pleaded in anyway for your soul. Either with you or in his private time. I would have to say he is either not saved or not your friend. I don't think both can be true. I have no doubt he may be religious though. religious does not equal saved.

Why would "god" plea for our souls? I thought he was omniscient, if he was he would have no need to do so, and if he was omnipotent, he wouldn't have allowed us to stray from him, free-will be damned.

curious thing I didn't mean for the double post but since you took "he" to be God not George (i was trying to edit) God did plead for your soul. He gave you Jesus, all of Creation, and the bible too.
However your statement is said like a true calvinist. God is the ONLY being with a free will. Perhaps you would like the doctrines of grace. Perhaps you're not ready for that either though...
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: ParkingPlaces on December 21, 2013, 04:05:31 PM
Harbinger

Do you realize how confusing it must be to people who actually want to be christians, let alone we atheists, that you guys have so many different versions of what is true? You just said only god has free will, yet we are told by other christians who come here that WE have free will. Now you may be splitting hairs rather than specifically saying that, but between that, the various descriptions of hell (where applicable), the various descriptions of heaven, what people have to do to get there, why we should want to go there, etc, we get this wide-ranging set of view, all coming under the heading of "Christian", and yet not agreeing with each other in myriad ways.

You are here now telling us that you are right. Others, with noticeably different takes on that religion, have told us far different things. If it was only little stuff, like the disagreeing by a few percentage points what the highest temperature ever reached in hell was, then it would be minor. But here you are, very christian, saying that the earth is not 6,000 years old (which is refreshing, by the way) and yet agreeing more in principal with others who do claim the universe to be young than you do with us, who superficially agree about the age of the earth.

If I even wanted to become a believer, I'd be doomed, because I don't have that many years left to live. Years that I'd need to use figuring out which variation to proclaim as god's truth.

I've got other things to do.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: harbinger77 on December 21, 2013, 04:21:56 PM
Gee, I'm as humble as they come, and just this morning I was on my knees, looking for a pen that rolled under the sofa. Didn't hear a word.

But if that is what is required, does god-guy not see that it isn't working. He set up this specific system to get folks permanently high (i.e., into heaven) and misses not only most of the billions on earth right now, but also most of the billions of people who ever lived, who forgot to get all humble and stuff, and have already become fried heathen. So if a guy is gonna have a plan, he should be realistic, and take into consideration all the variables, not get all strict on our asses and assume that we know exactly what to do, and how. Without, by the way, providing clear instructions, unless you count the variations provided by those who think they have it all figured out. And who are, oft-times, hard to be around.

I asked my very religious friend George this morning if he ever hears gods voice. "Of course not, god doesn't talk to us. That's what faith is all about. If he talked to us, we wouldn't need it."

Now, I disagree with George just as much as I disagree with Harbinger, but at least George isn't asking me to assume the position.

If he hasn't pleaded in anyway for your soul. Either with you or in his private time. I would have to say he is either not saved or not your friend. I don't think both can be true. I have no doubt he may be religious though. religious does not equal saved.

Yea, George is religious. He learned Greek specifically so he could read the parts of the bible in the original. He's been a christian for years and has tried to convert me on many an occasion. He credits his belief for getting him through the young death of his father, his sisters death in a car wreck, and his near fatal skydiving accident. He is every bit as religious as you.

Unless you guys have an agreed upon scoring system or something that can differentiate who is winning in the most religious category.

Thanks for not commenting on my main point, which was that your god guy hasn't gotten his word out very effectively. Notice, if you will, how little it impresses us, and it has impressed others just as little. But by not commenting, you have confirmed my suspicion that you do this out of ego, not out of concern for others. That is what I encounter in most christians. You folks think you are in a very exclusive club, and just don't realize that you're the ones coming up with all the entrance requirements.

perhaps you should discuss the diffrence between saved and religious with your friend.

The "entrance requirements" are stated plain enough repent ye that ye may be saved. of course to repent you must first realize that, like me and george, you are a sinner too.

why do you assume I'm hear to save your soul? That's not my motive. I also believe anyone who thinks they can save you is deluded. The Gospel has and does go out over the whole world. looks like the method to get the word out has been effective. Or have you not heard the good news?

since effective could mean something other than the way I took it. what would you have God to do since in your wisdom you see a better way?

1Cor1:18
The message of the cross is foolish to those who are headed for destruction! But we who are being saved know it is the very power of God.

John10:26-29
26 but you do not believe because you are not part
 of my flock. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I
know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one
will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me,
http://biblehub.com/esv/john/10.htm


Notice they don't Believe BECAUSE they are not His sheep.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: harbinger77 on December 21, 2013, 05:14:51 PM
Harbinger

Do you realize how confusing it must be to people who actually want to be christians, let alone we atheists, that you guys have so many different versions of what is true? You just said only god has free will, yet we are told by other christians who come here that WE have free will. Now you may be splitting hairs rather than specifically saying that, but between that, the various descriptions of hell (where applicable), the various descriptions of heaven, what people have to do to get there, why we should want to go there, etc, we get this wide-ranging set of view, all coming under the heading of "Christian", and yet not agreeing with each other in myriad ways.

You are here now telling us that you are right. Others, with noticeably different takes on that religion, have told us far different things. If it was only little stuff, like the disagreeing by a few percentage points what the highest temperature ever reached in hell was, then it would be minor. But here you are, very christian, saying that the earth is not 6,000 years old (which is refreshing, by the way) and yet agreeing more in principal with others who do claim the universe to be young than you do with us, who superficially agree about the age of the earth.

If I even wanted to become a believer, I'd be doomed, because I don't have that many years left to live. Years that I'd need to use figuring out which variation to proclaim as god's truth.

I've got other things to do.

I should say I understand your frustration and I fight them with other Christians too. There are a few reasons people don't except what is truly true. Traditions and emotional attachment I believe are the 2 chief reasons. Then you have the false teachers out there. Like Joel Osteen and that  whole false prosperity "best life now" garbage. Then of course there are those who are plain Lazy and never read the Bible let alone study it. That's how cults happen. Then you have to sort out Catholics, Morman's and Jahovas witness. No matter how hard they fight you they are NOT christians. I come from a catholic family btw. I can show each of them the major defects but they never believe the words of the Bible. It breaks my heart really.

I would just tell you get off line get a bible and ask God to show you the truth. Open your heart and mind and read every word BEFORE you listen to someone who could very well be given over to a spirit that don't want to see you saved anyway. I bet you have enough life left to read a book that can be read out loud in 72hrs. I'm also confident that the truth will be known to those who seek it.

 Most Christians, or people in general, WANT to think they are in control. That they make some kind of decision. However, IF God is sovereign then would he not be in control  of EVERYTHING. It's a  hard doctrine to accept. look this one up for yourself. I think that since you are emotionally removed maybe you can see Arminianism
(en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arminianism ) a logical paradox in some ways but look into calvinism also called the doctrine of grace or sovereignty reformed. theology or just type in T.U.L.I.P.

 http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/dabney/5points.htm
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: ParkingPlaces on December 21, 2013, 05:55:49 PM
I should say I understand your frustration and I fight them with other Christians too. There are a few reasons people don't except what is truly true. Traditions and emotional attachment I believe are the 2 chief reasons. Then you have the false teachers out there. Like Joel Osteen and that  whole false prosperity "best life now" garbage. Then of course there are those who are plain Lazy and never read the Bible let alone study it. That's how cults happen. Then you have to sort out Catholics, Morman's and Jahovas witness. No matter how hard they fight you they are NOT christians. I come from a catholic family btw. I can show each of them the major defects but they never believe the words of the Bible. It breaks my heart really.

I would just tell you get off line get a bible and ask God to show you the truth. Open your heart and mind and read every word BEFORE you listen to someone who could very well be given over to a spirit that don't want to see you saved anyway. I bet you have enough life left to read a book that can be read out loud in 72hrs. I'm also confident that the truth will be known to those who seek it.

 Most Christians, or people in general, WANT to think they are in control. That they make some kind of decision. However, IF God is sovereign then would he not be in control  of EVERYTHING. It's a  hard doctrine to accept. look this one up for yourself. I think that since you are emotionally removed maybe you can see Arminianism
(en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arminianism ) a logical paradox in some ways but look into calvinism also called the doctrine of grace or sovereignty reformed. theology or just type in T.U.L.I.P.

 http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/dabney/5points.htm

I must commend your even response, even though I disagree with it (as I would any other version from any other christian). Luckily, I don't think for a second that I am in control of much of anything, so if that were my only problem with picking a type of god, it wouldn't be much of an issue. (By the way, not much else is in control of anything either, outside the various laws of physics and such,) As a biological mechanism slated to die in the next decade or so, I only need concern myself with that period of time between now and my last breathe. After that, my chemical components are on their own.

I wish life were so easy that you were right. If one simple source with all the answers was actually the truth, life would be so much less complicated. I wouldn't like it, but it would be simpler. Especially if said explanation were also effective.

I still say that real gods would be far less dependent upon the imaginations of their followers.

Added: By the way, I'm not actually frustrated. I see the wide variation in religions as more evidence that none of them are true. The ability to blatantly customize without negative feedback seems to be a good indicator that there are no gods out there, let alone ones with vested interests in our behavior, etc.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Hatter23 on December 21, 2013, 06:43:01 PM
I see the wide variation in religions as more evidence that none of them are true. The ability to blatantly customize without negative feedback seems to be a good indicator that there are no gods out there, let alone ones with vested interests in our behavior, etc.

I concur. Far better evidence than the lack of healing of amputees. Gods arise reflecting the ideals and values of the culture that spawned them. When those cultures come into contact with other cultures, the concept of said gods seems to shift in perfect reflection of syncretism.
When the cultures shift, those gods either shift or fade away.

The claim that somehow the Christianity is different seems fanciful it must be treated with skepticism. So many things in the Bible do not match natural law, archeology, history, and human nature...plus so many aspects of Jesus seem to be borrowed from earlier myths...all from the local area, the conclusion that it is a syncretic myth structure; a Jewish heresy mixed with some Egyptian mysticism with two dashes of Platonic thought.

And then look at the time and place it emerged. Exactly the elements present. It is so terribly obvious, I have difficulty understanding how intelligent Christians not get it.




Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Backspace on December 21, 2013, 06:44:11 PM
Then you have the false teachers out there.

How can we be sure you aren't one?
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: harbinger77 on December 21, 2013, 06:58:00 PM
biased absolutely! narrow minded concerning God? Yes sir!
Dear me... You do know that God hates you, right?

Let us crack open KJV1611 and ask ourselves, "Who does God hate?" but first let us look at what Jesus says: You proclaim your faith loudly, yet does not Jesus warn,

"Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
M't:7:22: Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
M't:7:23: And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

And now, a couple of sins that you seem to wallow in; sins that are abhorrent to God. He hates people like you:

The Proud (Romans 1:30), Boasters (Romans 1:30),

So, what is this "hate"? Why, it is the doctrine of reprobation or God's "HATE" and this involves eternal retribution or the everlasting punishment in Hell forever. The description is given in Leviticus 20:13,23, Psalm 5:5, Psalm 11:5, Malachi 1:1-3, Romans 9:11-13, Matthew 7:13,23, John 12:39-40, 1 Peter 2:8, Jude 4, Revelation 13:8, 20:15, 21:27, etc.

Yet you mindlessly, and happily ignoring the Word of the Almighty, The Lord of Hosts, (and paradoxically) you spit in His Perfect Face and boast of your faith and humility. You scream how humble you are from the roof-tops. You call for others to see how much you love God.

Is this right? Can it be true? It certainly seems so. I'm with God on this one. It is disgusting.

So, as you fry for all eternity, I and the other atheists here, having been modest and truly humble hoping only for "reasonable people to be heard (see the Sermon on the Mount), will sit with Jesus and look down and laugh as Satan and his Devils anally rape you in the pit of darkness and fire for all eternity. We, like poor Lazarus will peer down on you and we will laugh with Jesus.

I am really glad I am not you, for you the Afterlife will be torture without end and the presence of God will have deserted you for ever.

Worse still: as if your sins were not black and evil enough, you say you are biased... and yet Jesus tells us to "Judge in righteousness."

Jesus does not say, “Start hating, don't listen to reason but spit out your own one-sided, personal bile." No... He does not do that.  Yet you do it. I am so, so sad for you.

You will never see your family in heaven. You will never know joy. You will never sit at God’s right hand.

Look, Harbinger, I’m the last person to say this but I really feel the presence of Satan in your soul, your prideful, dark and wizened soul, the soul that festers with conceit, bias and pride within your breast and forces you to proclaim how much better you are than others. I cannot understand why all that Jesus has ever said is, to you and your dark master, no more than so much dross.

I hear you say you talk to God... and someone talks back... I am afraid that everything points to your being deceived. The voice you hear is that of Satan and his minions.

It cannot possibly be the Voice of Jesus. Jesus would never, ever, tell you to write such things.

You said you hate the KJV1611. (private msg) I should also point out I can tell from the spelling you didn't use it. so when you said lets see what it says and quoted something else you lied.

Rev21:8
But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

I never said anything you allude to sir. i'm sorry. never said I hear a voice. More like feel one. I have nothing to be proud about. I have nothing to even boast about, All I am all I have is given me by the father. I have never claimed more. You "feel" satan in me? I see him in the fruit of your teaching.

Galatians1:8-10
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man
preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should
not be the servant of Christ.
http://biblehub.com/kjv/galatians/1.htm

Did you just do a search to establish God hates some people and or sins? Thank you it goes well with the Tulip.

 You are the lawyer to my tax collector sir. I'm glad you are not me and may God forgive us both for we are but dirty sinners.


You can't sit in heaven and deny Christ, let alone God. However "good" you think are.

1 John 4:2-3
This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which
you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world.
http://biblehub.com/1_john/2-23.htm

Romans 10:9
If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
http://biblehub.com/1_john/4-15.htm

That IS the spirit of anti-christ all over you. You twist the scripture at every turn. You do truly have a talent for it sir.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: harbinger77 on December 21, 2013, 07:10:41 PM
Then you have the false teachers out there.

How can we be sure you aren't one?

I invite you to look up what I say. NEVER take my word or someone else's word for it. You should question and test and seek God always.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: One Above All on December 21, 2013, 07:13:17 PM
I invite you to look up what I say. NEVER take my word or someone else's word for it. You should question and test and seek God always.

Questioning and testing is exactly why some (most?) of us became atheists.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: harbinger77 on December 21, 2013, 07:29:48 PM
As for "Christians feeling justified to make any lie" I happen to believe that there is NOTHING I nor anyone else could say or do or not say or do that would convince you to turn to Jesus. Until the holy spirit acts on you and regenerates your spirit, You just won't. It's all God. His plan, His time, His way.

My Bolding.

Fatalism. What will happen, will happen.

So we really cannot change things, so all we can do (as atheists) is hope that the holy spirit touches us on the shoulder and says. 'You guy are really chosen'.

Many Christians don't truly believe it is all up to god or the holy spirit. Or else they would stay at home and be religious and leave the rest of us alone. Instead, we have to live in a world where they are in our faces and trying to make us live according to their religious beliefs.

Look at all the religious crap that was thrown around in the last presidential election, how it is affecting the health care bill, people in the military forced to hear religious stuff, how it is even influencing foreign policy towards Israel and changing decisions about aid to other countries--no money to family planning clinics, for example.

How about this.  Leave it all up to god and the holy spirit. Please. No more missionaries, no more proselytizing, no more attempts to interfere in politics, no more heavily funded campaigns against gays or contraception, no more packing school boards to change the science curriculum. No more nativity scenes on public property or gigantic billboards telling everyone about how wonderful your religion is and how everyone else is going to hell. Let go and let god, right? I think every atheist would be down with that.

We will patiently wait for god and the holy spirit. You go first.

Let go and let God I agree with. but basically you are saying just practice my religious freedom, That men fought for and died for and bled for in my own home. And be stifled by the minority in public... Just like China? Sweet deal! because after all gays (1% of pop) for example need to be out there openly practicing their lifestyle. I supose I should hide everything I hold sacred cause lord knows unless it's Christian we should be free to practice and display it.

let God be true..... read these prophetic words and know the days are short.
John15:18-19
18 "If the world hates you, you know
that it has hated Me before it hated
you.
19 "If you were of the world, the
world would love its own; but because
you are not of the world, but I chose
you out of the world, because of this
the world hates you.…
http://biblehub.com/john/15-18.htm
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Antidote on December 21, 2013, 08:01:44 PM
You said you hate the KJV1611. (private msg)

GB's personal feelings about KJV1611 are irrelevant, and stating the fact that he said it in a private message is both irrelevant, AND disrespectful.

I personally feel that ALL translations of the bible are terrible, because the source material is terrible.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Backspace on December 21, 2013, 08:14:34 PM
Quote
Questioning and testing is exactly why some (most?) of us became atheists.

^^^ Bingo.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Backspace on December 21, 2013, 08:18:44 PM
after all gays (1% of pop) for example need to be out there openly practicing their lifestyle. I supose I should hide everything I hold sacred cause lord knows unless it's Christian we should be free to practice and display it.

Religion is a choice.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Antidote on December 21, 2013, 08:19:59 PM
after all gays (1% of pop) for example need to be out there openly practicing their lifestyle. I supose I should hide everything I hold sacred cause lord knows unless it's Christian we should be free to practice and display it.

I'm pretty sure that percentage is dead wrong

http://www.gallup.com/poll/6961/what-percentage-population-gay.aspx
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: harbinger77 on December 21, 2013, 08:50:15 PM
I see the wide variation in religions as more evidence that none of them are true. The ability to blatantly customize without negative feedback seems to be a good indicator that there are no gods out there, let alone ones with vested interests in our behavior, etc.

I concur. Far better evidence than the lack of healing of amputees. Gods arise reflecting the ideals and values of the culture that spawned them. When those cultures come into contact with other cultures, the concept of said gods seems to shift in perfect reflection of syncretism.
When the cultures shift, those gods either shift or fade away.

The claim that somehow the Christianity is different seems fanciful it must be treated with skepticism. So many things in the Bible do not match natural law, archeology, history, and human nature...plus so many aspects of Jesus seem to be borrowed from earlier myths...all from the local area, the conclusion that it is a syncretic myth structure; a Jewish heresy mixed with some Egyptian mysticism with two dashes of Platonic thought.

And then look at the time and place it emerged. Exactly the elements present. It is so terribly obvious, I have difficulty understanding how intelligent Christians not get it.

Christianity with it's roots in the jewish faith has been growing for 4000 years at least. where is the shift or fade? while this is not evidence for being correct ask yourself if God had a path for you would it not be the most visible farthest reaching religion known?
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: harbinger77 on December 21, 2013, 09:08:07 PM
after all gays (1% of pop) for example need to be out there openly practicing their lifestyle. I supose I should hide everything I hold sacred cause lord knows unless it's Christian we should be free to practice and display it.

I'm pretty sure that percentage is dead wrong

http://www.gallup.com/poll/6961/what-percentage-population-gay.aspx

so you gave me the pole that says:
 The 2000 U.S. Census Bureau found that homosexual couples constitute less than 1% of American households.
 
 The FamilyResearch Report says "around 2-3% of men, and 2% of women, are homosexual or bisexual.

However, the ones who have a dog in the fight want us to believe the population is higher...

 The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force estimates three to eight percent of both sexes.

side note I didn't know they had a task force...

The article goes on to say that in a poll Americans in an open ended poll  guess (estimate) as much as 25% of the population.
 I blame the media. and non of this makes them anything other than minority.

thanks for backing up my point. :)
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Antidote on December 21, 2013, 09:20:21 PM
after all gays (1% of pop) for example need to be out there openly practicing their lifestyle. I supose I should hide everything I hold sacred cause lord knows unless it's Christian we should be free to practice and display it.

I'm pretty sure that percentage is dead wrong

http://www.gallup.com/poll/6961/what-percentage-population-gay.aspx

so you gave me the pole that says:
 The 2000 U.S. Census Bureau found that homosexual couples constitute less than 1% of American households.
 
 The FamilyResearch Report says "around 2-3% of men, and 2% of women, are homosexual or bisexual.

However, the ones who have a dog in the fight want us to believe the population is higher...

 The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force estimates three to eight percent of both sexes.

side note I didn't know they had a task force...

The article goes on to say that in a poll Americans in an open ended poll  guess (estimate) as much as 25% of the population.
 I blame the media. and non of this makes them anything other than minority.

thanks for backing up my point. :)

I reject your "FamilyResearch" on the basis of their extreme bias, please try again.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Antidote on December 21, 2013, 09:22:32 PM
I see the wide variation in religions as more evidence that none of them are true. The ability to blatantly customize without negative feedback seems to be a good indicator that there are no gods out there, let alone ones with vested interests in our behavior, etc.

I concur. Far better evidence than the lack of healing of amputees. Gods arise reflecting the ideals and values of the culture that spawned them. When those cultures come into contact with other cultures, the concept of said gods seems to shift in perfect reflection of syncretism.
When the cultures shift, those gods either shift or fade away.

The claim that somehow the Christianity is different seems fanciful it must be treated with skepticism. So many things in the Bible do not match natural law, archeology, history, and human nature...plus so many aspects of Jesus seem to be borrowed from earlier myths...all from the local area, the conclusion that it is a syncretic myth structure; a Jewish heresy mixed with some Egyptian mysticism with two dashes of Platonic thought.

And then look at the time and place it emerged. Exactly the elements present. It is so terribly obvious, I have difficulty understanding how intelligent Christians not get it.

Christianity with it's roots in the jewish faith has been growing for 4000 years at least. where is the shift or fade? while this is not evidence for being correct ask yourself if God had a path for you would it not be the most visible farthest reaching religion known?

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/400322/Christianity-in-crisis-Britain-loses-faith-as-number-of-believers-fall-by-4-MILLION
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Graybeard on December 21, 2013, 09:30:42 PM
You said you hate the KJV1611. (private msg)

Here is what I wrote to you in the PM:

I thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule of misleading people to expose your lack of Biblical knowledge.

First of all, you need to know that KJV1611 and the Geneva Bible were both written in a form of English that was old fashioned even at that time. This was done to make it sound important, much like today when someone speaks very formally.

So you don't like the king James.

It is nothing to do with KJV. The problem is that no one knows for certain what a lot of the Bible says. The best that anyone can do is to read opinions (and they are no higher than that) and then decide which version is likely to be the correct one given the other context that is available.

You see: it was you who said I did not like KJV1611. I certainly never said that I hated it or even disliked it.

You had that information in front of you, didn’t you? And yet, at the behest of your master, Satan, you now say I hate KJV1611 and you have the effrontery to try to make me out to be a liar, when it was you all along who are the liar! And, not satisfied with that, you “bear false witness”!

Ex:20:16: Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

To say that I am shocked, truly shocked is an understatement!

I forgive you. You are deluded and under the thrall of the Lord of The Flies. You cannot know good from evil. I will satisfy myself with the knowledge that Jesus will punish you, because as you rightly show, God hates all liars! :-

Rev21:8
But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
[/quote]

I told you that you would be in the Lake of Fire, didn’t I? And there it is – by their fruits shall ye know them. Well, Harbinger, we’ve seen your fruits, haven’t we?

Quote
You are the lawyer to my tax collector sir. I'm glad you are not me and may God forgive us both for we are but dirty sinners.

One moment there Harbinger! I thought you were saved! Yet you are now a self-confessed and continuing sinner! What is this all about? Trying to deceive God? It doesn’t work, you know.

Ac:5:3: But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
Ac:5:5: And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.

And then you say
Quote
Romans 10:9
If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
http://biblehub.com/1_john/4-15.htm

You see, you are misguiding again. Oh, I know that Satan knows Scripture (and he teaches his little friends well, doesn’t he?) – why shouldn’t he? He has been around for a while.

This is Salvation:

Ro:9:21: Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
Ro:9:22: What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
Ro:9:23: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

This teaches us how ordinary people are Saved, and it is not by listening to false prophets, but by the very Grace of God – directly - it is that gift! You earlier mentioned something to that effect, but you had "forgotten", hadn't you?

Now you call “Lord, Lord!” and we sit here quietly. Have you considered that you might well be one of those referred to in

Ro:9:22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

Who are you to say that we here are not those upon whom  “he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,”?

Ah, but then I know you are simply a liar and that you probably think God is a liar because you consistently change His Words. Words that are refined sliver:

Psalm 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Psalm 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Finally, I will address this:
Quote
I should also point out I can tell from the spelling you didn't use it. so when you said lets see what it says and quoted something else you lied.
Ah! The spelling! You mean where KJV1611 uses ‘u’ for ‘v’? Have you tried typing that? But the words are otherwise the same as the version I use.

And let us look at the preface to KJV1611:
Quote
It is welcomed with suspicion instead of love, and with emulation instead of thanks: and if there be any hole left for cavil to enter, (and cavil, if it do not find a hole, will make one) it is sure to be misconstrued, and in danger to be condemned.

Do you see how the author knew there would be people like you? How they would "cavil" and invent a hole? Why, it is as if God spoke to him, isn’t it?

So, in your lie, your anger, your vitriol, your spiteful and prideful comments, you have given no answer to my considered post.

I thank all here for enabling me to expose this false prophet for what he is: a hypocrite, not a Christian.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: ParkingPlaces on December 21, 2013, 09:33:34 PM
Of course there are more Christians than any other religion.Funny how effective proselytizing with guns can be. Or, in the case of the second place Muslims, stones.

But if you're proud of that, so be it.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Azdgari on December 21, 2013, 09:49:59 PM
I invite you to look up what I say. NEVER take my word or someone else's word for it. You should question and test and seek God always.

So in other words, we shouldn't have your attitude of being biased and narrow-minded on the topic?
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: harbinger77 on December 21, 2013, 10:00:56 PM
Grey beard...
 I apologize I was wrong. I didn't look at the msg you sent before I spoke. I did take the liberty to state at least the feeling you had left me with. I was wrong In the future I'll stick to quotes and not paraphrase.

 The rest I stand behind. I even double down.
I think I now know the answer to the question that set you off. Although I think it's multifaceted and not something you will discuss here. Maybe I just say this, He will always let you come back home. I'll have you in my prayers tonight. In the name of Jesus, May it be bound and cast away.

I may respond to the rest at another time right now I need a break.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: jaimehlers on December 22, 2013, 01:39:35 AM
I only want to address 2 comments here. first Other than a few scriptures that say he won't, I see no reason God wouldn't "strike up a conversation" other than the fact that you won't humble yourself, get on your knees and make the call.

second You asked about something outside what you call discernment. You asked about my thinking. how can I present my thinking inside of your own?
You pretty much just supported my argument with this post - that you are convinced of your own rectitude and rightness, and that you're largely interested in lecturing other people about it.  The problem is, you have nothing to base your opinion on except a few scriptures and your own beliefs, and that makes it unconvincing.

Look at what you posted here.  You have a few scriptures, which don't actually prove anything, and then you have your 'fact' that God requires obeisance from humans before deigning to even talk to them.  What kind of an argument is that?

Finally, you shouldn't try to put your thinking inside of other people's.  That just makes for a tangled mess.  Just keep the argument simple and have good support for it.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Ivellios on December 22, 2013, 02:58:02 AM
As for "Christians feeling justified to make any lie" I happen to believe that there is NOTHING I nor anyone else could say or do or not say or do that would convince you to turn to Jesus. Until the holy spirit acts on you and regenerates your spirit, You just won't. It's all God. His plan, His time, His way.
Also I changed some #s. In the end I misrepresented the definition. I didn't make it a lie by changing words though.

Though it was accidental for you, but there are Christians that do it on purpose. I see you are not one of those.

His time, his plan, his way...

Just as God knows the dimensions of the Earth (Job) what good is it to anyone that he won't tell anybody? Maybe he doesn't know, and it's all a bluff, a con? Just to get you to shut up and put up. To say that one has free will, but if they don't surrender it, they are threatened with hell... well, coercion negates free will, just as bribery. In fact, "his plan" negates free will as well.

Edit: Didn't relize there were so many replies between your reply to me and the end of thread. Aparrently you're not so big on free will. Even the bible supports free will. God thru Moses says, "You have free will, follow me or die." That's neither here nor there, though. Every version of Christianity I'm familiar with, [Free Will] is one of the big things mega important things, as important as the Trinity, Jesus' Death and Resurrection, Baptism and the Lord's Supper/Communion. I do know that fatalism as a christian belief has been around for awhile, just not in the sects I grew up in, nor with the ones that knock on my door every once in awhile.

Imagine: you're in a play. The director expects you to follow the part he decided for you to play, but he refuses to let you or anyone see/read the script. How successful do you think the play is going to be, and how would you really know if there is a script to begin with?
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: wheels5894 on December 22, 2013, 05:07:22 AM
harbinger,


Having done some study in this area I wondered what study you have done on the bible and its exegesis? I discovered early on that the tools to understand the bible are hard to acquire and yet highly important to proper study. For example, learning the Hebrew Aramaic and Greek is essential as well as numerous other studies. So I was wondering, Harbinger, have you done any of this or are you just relying on a single, English translation and using it literally?
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Anfauglir on December 22, 2013, 07:05:53 AM
I see no reason God wouldn't "strike up a conversation" other than the fact that you won't humble yourself, get on your knees and make the call.

Until the holy spirit acts on you and regenerates your spirit, You just won't. It's all God. His plan, His time, His way

Okay, I'm confused.  Is it down to me, or down to Yahweh, to get things moving?
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Anfauglir on December 22, 2013, 07:18:07 AM
Harbinger, I'm getting pretty tired of having to remove posts where you have messed up the quoting.  Please take the time to check and ensure all comments are correctly attributed before Submitting your posts.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Anfauglir on December 22, 2013, 07:22:37 AM
One more thing Earth was not made for us...

Colossians 1:16
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and FOR him:

I stand corrected.

So can you explain why I should in any way feel grateful for anything your god created, if it was all done just for HIM?  Sure - I may get some passing enjoyment from it, but if he made it entirely for his own purposes (as you've just explained), by what reasoning should I give thanks for any of it?

Harbinger, were you planning on addressing this point at all?  I mean, I'm happy to accept your scripture that proves Yahweh created everything for his own purposes, but that does leave me wondering what I am expected to be thankful for?   I mean, if I were starving, say, and a rich man ordered too much food and dropped the rest in the bin, and I came along and ate it, I wouldn't feel especially thankful.  I might feel happy, but I wouldn't see why I should be thankful he bought some food for himself and I got to eat the leavings just because he couldn't finish it all?
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: wheels5894 on December 22, 2013, 08:07:40 AM
It's fair to say, Anfauglir, that the verse quoted is the only place in the bible where we are told that god created everything for himself. So far as I know, we aren't told anything about the reasons in any other book or the bible. I wonder how the author of the particular verse found this interesting fact out?
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Graybeard on December 22, 2013, 08:53:09 AM
Greybeard...
 I apologize I was wrong. I didn't look at the msg you sent before I spoke.

Again, you have not learned that Godly lesson: you should listen. If you do not listen to us here at WWGHA, can you really be listening to God or are you just hearing what you think you should hear? Anyway, as usual, you have not read my words - I have already forgiven you but it is God's forgiveness you require: you may find Lu:11:4: helpful, however, there is always,

John:9:31 Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth.[1]

In your last post to me, you said you were a sinner. Throughout your posts, we see you not doing God’s Will.

Quote
The rest I stand behind. I even double down.
It is in the small things that we do and say that we expose our true nature to God, wouldn’t you say?

Well, I’m certainly no expert in these things, but I discover that when you say, “I even double down” you are referring to a game of chance – gambling!

Obviously, I cannot really associate with such sinful behaviour. For you, who does not know good from evil, those words came quickly to your lips. Those who gamble have a love of money, don't they?

1Tm:6:10: For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

You see, each word you write exposes your abominable Godless nature both to Jesus and to us here, too. And it is because you do not see or hear.

Jer:5:21 Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not:
Jer:5:22: Fear ye not me?  saith the LORD: will ye not tremble at my presence, which have placed the sand for the bound of the sea by a perpetual decree, that it cannot pass it: and though the waves thereof toss themselves, yet can they not prevail; though they roar, yet can they not pass over it?
Jer:5:23: But this people hath a revolting and a rebellious heart; they are revolted and gone.

Why have you left the Lord?

If I may offer you some scriptural guidance on the matter: to you, gambling may be an everyday activity along with other vile sins. The Bible tells us of other people who, like you, enjoyed gambling whilst Christ was dying at Calvary:

Joh:19:24: They said therefore among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be: that the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They parted my raiment among them, and for my vesture they did cast lots. These things therefore the soldiers did.

That you want to associate yourself with such disgusting, sinful and pagan people is remarkable. I’m beginning to doubt that you are a Christian at all – even in a small way.

Quote
Maybe I just say this, He will always let you come back home. I'll have you in my prayers tonight. In the name of Jesus, May it be bound and cast away.

Again, I feel John:9:31 is helpful: God simply will not hear your words at all.

Perhaps a rest is what you require - a long rest. This is a message from Jesus: you can choose to have that long rest in Heaven or Hell, the choice is yours. You should really repent and get straight[2] with Jesus.

Edit for formatting
 1. Of course, a true reading of this verse poses the questions, “If He does he not hear sinners who worship and if I am a sinner, how does God ever hear me to start with?” (It is one of those Godly Mysteries, isn't it?)
 2. That is "straight" as in "honest", not "a straight" as in the sinful game of Texas Hold’  em  that you spend your time playing in your lust for filthy piles of cash, whilst reducing other innocent, simple, people to poverty.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: harbinger77 on December 22, 2013, 09:50:30 AM
I invite you to look up what I say. NEVER take my word or someone else's word for it. You should question and test and seek God always.

Questioning and testing is exactly why some (most?) of us became atheists.

This was exactly why became Christian... You didn't quote the "seek God always" part. I have to say this is the most important element.
Enter the TULIP...
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: One Above All on December 22, 2013, 01:17:15 PM
This was exactly why became Christian... You didn't quote the "seek God always" part. I have to say this is the most important element.
Enter the TULIP...

I thought the former implied the latter.
No clue what the last sentence means.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: wheels5894 on December 22, 2013, 01:27:12 PM
Depends on the colour of tulip, I suppose. Watch out for the black ones as they are Satan's work!
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: harbinger77 on December 22, 2013, 01:57:22 PM
I rather thought someone had looked it up since I mentioned it several times. TULIP is an acrostic used for Calvinism, reformed theology, doctrine of sovereignty, or doctrines of Grace. These are all different names for the same thing. Here is a link for you.
http://www.ligonier.org/blog/tulip-and-reformed-theology-introduction/
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: harbinger77 on December 22, 2013, 02:39:38 PM
One more thing Earth was not made for us...

Colossians 1:16
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and FOR him:

I stand corrected.

So can you explain why I should in any way feel grateful for anything your god created, if it was all done just for HIM?  Sure - I may get some passing enjoyment from it, but if he made it entirely for his own purposes (as you've just explained), by what reasoning should I give thanks for any of it?

Harbinger, were you planning on addressing this point at all?  I mean, I'm happy to accept your scripture that proves Yahweh created everything for his own purposes, but that does leave me wondering what I am expected to be thankful for?   I mean, if I were starving, say, and a rich man ordered too much food and dropped the rest in the bin, and I came along and ate it, I wouldn't feel especially thankful.  I might feel happy, but I wouldn't see why I should be thankful he bought some food for himself and I got to eat the leavings just because he couldn't finish it all?

while it wasn't made for you do you not enjoy the life you were given? Do you not enjoy the sun shine or sometimes the rain? can you not be thankful that God would choose to give you even the ability to "enjoy" let alone the specific item that gives you enjoyment?
What if the food is providence? The man orders more than he needs (he must be American right... lol yes before I upset someone I am American) Rather than take it home to finish later he tosses it in the bin. The food is then left through providence for you to eat. You were taken care of in that moment. Thank the Lord. I don't believe in chance or luck as these human concepts contradict the sovereignty of God. I am currently wrestling with free will though. Could it be a series of poor choices that have left you homeless? Or is it a lesson in perhaps compassion that the Lord wishes you to learn that you may effect another person later in life? Perhaps the lesson is for me. While you are sustained by the Lord. I learn to be thankful for what I have and even love and compassion for fellow man. Whatever end of the lesson you may be on we can thank the Lord that He guides and teaches us.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: harbinger77 on December 22, 2013, 02:49:14 PM
This was exactly why became Christian... You didn't quote the "seek God always" part. I have to say this is the most important element.
Enter the TULIP...

I thought the former implied the latter.
No clue what the last sentence means.

I suppose one would need to be agnostic at the least, to depend on God to guide one to the truth. I guess I should restate it
Seek the wisdom of God... ask that He guide you into the truth. Question it, test it, but depend on God. depending upon yourself puts you in the flesh not in the spirit. The Bible teaches these things are of the spirit and the natural man will receive it not.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Graybeard on December 22, 2013, 04:47:45 PM
I suppose one would need to be agnostic at the least, to depend on God to guide one to the truth. I guess I should restate it
Seek the wisdom of God... ask that He guide you into the truth. Question it, test it, but depend on God. depending upon yourself puts you in the flesh not in the spirit. The Bible teaches these things are of the spirit and the natural man will receive it not.

You have used a lot of Biblical jargon there. To know what exactly you are talking about, can you please help the forum by answering the following?

What you mean by "the truth."

Quote
Seek the wisdom of God...

What you mean by "wisdom"?

Quote
ask that He guide you into the truth.

How is this "guiding" done? (I trust you have defined what you mean by "truth"

Quote
Question it, test it, but depend on God.

If you question and test it, but find it wanting - why do you "depend on God"?

What aspect of God should we depend upon?

Quote
depending upon yourself puts you in the flesh not in the spirit.

What do you mean by (i) "in the flesh" and (ii) "in the spirit"?

Quote
The Bible teaches these things are of the spirit

What things?

Quote
and the natural man will receive it not.
(i) what is (a) a natural man, (b) an unnatural man? (ii) "will receive it not." - why are you speaking 17th century English?

Finally, what does "Enter the TULIP..." mean?
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Ivellios on December 22, 2013, 06:09:57 PM
while it wasn't made for you do you not enjoy the life you were given? Do you not enjoy the sun shine or sometimes the rain? can you not be thankful that God would choose to give you even the ability to "enjoy" let alone the specific item that gives you enjoyment?
What if the food is providence? The man orders more than he needs (he must be American right... lol yes before I upset someone I am American) Rather than take it home to finish later he tosses it in the bin. The food is then left through providence for you to eat. You were taken care of in that moment. Thank the Lord. I don't believe in chance or luck as these human concepts contradict the sovereignty of God. I am currently wrestling with free will though. Could it be a series of poor choices that have left you homeless? Or is it a lesson in perhaps compassion that the Lord wishes you to learn that you may effect another person later in life? Perhaps the lesson is for me. While you are sustained by the Lord. I learn to be thankful for what I have and even love and compassion for fellow man. Whatever end of the lesson you may be on we can thank the Lord that He guides and teaches us.

If my mother was a prostitute that got impregnated by one of her customers whom she has never seen or heard of since he paid her. Regardless how happy I am with my life, I owe that man nothing. If that guy wanted to be a father, it's His responsibility to seek me first, why must I do everything for someone that allegedly "loves" me? After all, he did the deed, for himself.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: harbinger77 on December 22, 2013, 06:59:12 PM
graybeard- We both know you can answer these questions. I wasn't being tricky. My jargon was not strictly biblical. SPIRITUAL maybe, but not biblical. This was written for an agnostic view as stated in the first line. I feel I was speaking plainly enough. I honestly tried to answer these questions but I couldn't find a respectful way to break this down. I came across as though I was patronizing so I scrapped the whole thing.

As for the tulip I would think an ex-baptist would be well aware of this but...
 enter the tulip... I answered this a few posts back on this thread. here is the quote.

I rather thought someone had looked it up since I mentioned it several times. TULIP is an acrostic used for Calvinism, reformed theology, doctrines of sovereignty, or doctrines of Grace. These are all different names for the same thing. Here is a link for you.
http://www.ligonier.org/blog/tulip-and-reformed-theology-introduction/
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: harbinger77 on December 22, 2013, 07:22:38 PM
while it wasn't made for you do you not enjoy the life you were given? Do you not enjoy the sun shine or sometimes the rain? can you not be thankful that God would choose to give you even the ability to "enjoy" let alone the specific item that gives you enjoyment?
What if the food is providence? The man orders more than he needs (he must be American right... lol yes before I upset someone I am American) Rather than take it home to finish later he tosses it in the bin. The food is then left through providence for you to eat. You were taken care of in that moment. Thank the Lord. I don't believe in chance or luck as these human concepts contradict the sovereignty of God. I am currently wrestling with free will though. Could it be a series of poor choices that have left you homeless? Or is it a lesson in perhaps compassion that the Lord wishes you to learn that you may effect another person later in life? Perhaps the lesson is for me. While you are sustained by the Lord. I learn to be thankful for what I have and even love and compassion for fellow man. Whatever end of the lesson you may be on we can thank the Lord that He guides and teaches us.

If my mother was a prostitute that got impregnated by one of her customers whom she has never seen or heard of since he paid her. Regardless how happy I am with my life, I owe that man nothing. If that guy wanted to be a father, it's His responsibility to seek me first, why must I do everything for someone that allegedly "loves" me? After all, he did the deed, for himself.

I see your train of thought. it's not lost to me that you have reduced God to some kind of John. I don't like this... I'll work with this though. :)

I don't know my father so I identify with this too.
my comment was about being thankful not seeking God. Why can't you just be thankful that you were given life? Without my father I wouldn't be here. In my case my father was abusive so I am thankful for not knowing that type of childhood.
No matter the circumstance there is always something to be thankful for.
As for why should you seek Him? unlike your John father In this case Your Heavenly has given you much. Your life, the sun, the stars, the food, those fish even. He didn't walk out. He gave everything for you.. even His Son tasted our death. Providence, common grace, be thankful. :)
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: jynnan tonnix on December 22, 2013, 08:03:53 PM
What of those people who have no joy in their lives? Those who live with crippling pain or neverending hunger? Those who suffer from debilitating depression, or who lose their entire homes and families through random catastrophe? Those who, literally, live and die having experienced almost nothing but misery?

I suppose that if they were convinced that it was all some part of a master plan, they might be able to find some solace in it (though many, in fact, cannot face the pain of their lives and end up committing suicide or just wasting away, derelict, on a street corner somewhere). But if they are merely by-products of a world created by god for his own amusement, why should they feel any gratitude for their existence?
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: ParkingPlaces on December 22, 2013, 08:45:56 PM
He gave everything for you.. even His Son tasted our death. Providence, common grace, be thankful. :)

Harbinger

I trust that we can all agree that that our both our planet and the universe are complex places. If you look out in the night sky without the aid of a telescope, you can see planets and stars. Some of the planets are relatively small, others are huge. Some of the stars are yellow, some are red, some are blue. Some are small, some are humongous. You can see our moon, and we know that some of the other planets have moons as well. In some cases, large numbers of moons. We've found 67 so far around Jupiter, 52 around Saturn.

And with a sufficiently powerful telescope, we can see not only our galaxy, but far, far away galaxies. And see that the universe is an incredibly huge and complex place.

On earth, we have wonder after wonder. We live amongst an amazing assortment of plants, animals, bacteria and viruses. Biologists who study such things find astonishing connections between the life forms. We have moths that eat only hair and fur, and without them the planet would be several feet deep in fuzzies because neither of those two things decompose. We have a wide variety of plants that can only be fertilized by very specific species of insects or birds. We have ecosystem complexities in our great coral reefs that are fragile, and that are sadly falling apart because the planet has warmed but a few degrees.

Everywhere you look you see complexity. And if your god had a hand in it, it means that he took great care to create the conditions and situations I have described. It would not be a casual act to create the naked mole rat, an animal that can only live in its underground tunnels, replete with high methane levels from passing gas and high carbon dioxide levels because of their lack of air circulation. But they thrive. And if your god was involved, he paid attention to that detail, as well as every other detail on this planet and in the universe.

And he only managed to come up with two options for humans after death. He was capable of making the rings around Saturn, but didn't come up with any other choices for us besides heaven and hell. He figured out how to deal with excessive hair but he can't allow for good people who don't accept his kid, he can't allow for people who were good but in a moment of frustration or fear acted out of character. He can't allow for people like me who need more proof than people like you. He can't allow for differences in intelligence, temperament, social conditions, political realities, fear, or misinformation.

He couldn't design a list of criteria which would differentiate between Hitler and my non-born again grandmother. When a person otherwise fails to pass his "get on your knees" test, it is all over. There is nothing complex about it.  He took the time to make sure that 30% of humans had harmless little Demonex folliculorum mites living in the follicles of their eyelashes, but he couldn't take the time to either make his message clear to all (rather than just those susceptible to it) or offer up a variety of afterlife scenarios, based on one's overall behavior. It is either the streets of gold or the pits of fire.

And that is one of the reasons that I know that religion is a human invention. Infinite beings would, by definition, be a bit more understanding of us puny humans, because as being who enjoyed complexity, they would know that our weaknesses (when compared to their strengths) were such that we were prone to misunderstanding obscure instruction sets. Humans, on the other hands, who for whatever reason want to control others, are prone to indeed go with the extremes, the black and white choices that are clearly human scenarios. Come with us or suffer for an eternity! What could be more human than that?

What you don't seem to take into account is that when people evolved to be smart enough to realize that they didn't know everything, they started making stuff up. They started finding links that weren't there, because humans evolved to see patterns. And the imagined started becoming the real because it probably made existence a bit easier. And what probably started off as an explanation as to why the cave gods let Junior be eaten by a saber toothed tiger eventually became your god sending down his kid to help define evil and how to combat it.

No, JC didn't taste death. Storytellers made it sound like he did, but there was no JC, just like there is no god. Humans, intervening in life by trying to redefine it as something it is not, have distorted human existence far more than necessary. Especially in 2013. And people such as yourself, prone to accepting the story (which was written specifically for those who are, you know, prone to accepting the story), swallow it lock, stock and barrel, again for very human reasons. And some of you show up on our site and tell us how wrong we are, because you honestly believe that we are. And if we can't communicate the futility of your belief system adequately, you may be stuck with it the rest of your life.

The subject of this thread, whether god is moral if he lets bad things happen, is of interest only to you. We atheists understand that there is no god, so the question is moot. But theists, who insist that there is, need to play games with our heads and their own to keep the otherwise precarious definition of their god intact. And we atheists tend to ask things like "Why would your god do this or that?" in an effort to get you to think about it.

But I think you're old enough for the truth. The people who told you that there is a god were wrong. And your world is distorted because of it.

It is fixable. Stop seeing the light. It isn't there.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Ivellios on December 23, 2013, 01:30:48 AM
I see your train of thought. it's not lost to me that you have reduced God to some kind of John. I don't like this... I'll work with this though. :)

I don't know my father so I identify with this too.
my comment was about being thankful not seeking God. Why can't you just be thankful that you were given life?

I didn't ask to be alive, but if I needed to be thankful for the good things in my life... then I'd also need to be thankful for the bad things in my life. I didn't ask to be given free-will to then be demanded to grovel on my knees or face eternal damnation in a firey hell. I guess I should be "thankful" for that as well, eh?  &)

Without my father I wouldn't be here. In my case my father was abusive so I am thankful for not knowing that type of childhood.
No matter the circumstance there is always something to be thankful for.

There are people who have it worse off than I. So I am glad it wasn't worse... however the one to "thank" for my perserverence, is me. The one who learned stuff reading books to make my life better instead of wallowing in self pity on thier knees, was me. The one who decided to get back up after getting smacked down and faced adversity on without anyone's support, was me. 

As for why should you seek Him? unlike your John father In this case Your Heavenly has given you much. Your life, the sun, the stars, the food, those fish even. He didn't walk out. He gave everything for you.. even His Son tasted our death. Providence, common grace, be thankful. :)

There is no evidence of this "heaven" that is above the sky dome. There is no sky dome either. There is a Cosmos. A muslim would say all that is attributed to Allah. How can you prove that they are wrong? They have just as much proof that they are correct as you do, ie. none. How do you tell that "God's voice" is his and not your subconcious? If there was a heavenly father there, he was indistinguishable from an invisible immaterial brick wall... as if he was never there.

Until the "heavenly father" decides to make an appearence and have a chit-chat with me, I'll live as if he doesn't exist. Everything you attribute to him, until he shows up and proves that he's the cause, I'll have to accept a more natural explanation than Santa, Fairies, Elves, God, Angels, Vampires and Werewolves.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Anfauglir on December 23, 2013, 05:07:20 AM
So can you explain why I should in any way feel grateful for anything your god created, if it was all done just for HIM?  Sure - I may get some passing enjoyment from it, but if he made it entirely for his own purposes (as you've just explained), by what reasoning should I give thanks for any of it?
while it wasn't made for you do you not enjoy the life you were given? Do you not enjoy the sun shine or sometimes the rain? can you not be thankful that God would choose to give you even the ability to "enjoy" let alone the specific item that gives you enjoyment?

Ah - but YOU said it was all made for HIM.  So any enjoyment I may get from it was not because he made anything with my happiness in mind, just his.


What if the food is providence? ... Rather than take it home to finish later he tosses it in the bin. The food is then left through providence for you to eat. You were taken care of in that moment. Thank the Lord.

Thank the Lord....IF the food was made for me.  It wasn't.  So I'm happy to get the food, but why should I give thanks for the scraps that were produced with no thought of me?

Perhaps the lesson is for me. While you are sustained by the Lord. I learn to be thankful for what I have and even love and compassion for fellow man. Whatever end of the lesson you may be on we can thank the Lord that He guides and teaches us.

Nope, not if your Biblical quote is correct - because it means that everything your god created was doen for HIS purposes, not mine.  Do I get some tangential benefit from it?  Sure!  But I'm not going to be "thankful" for the scraps.  Nor am I even going to be thankful for creation, if my creation was done for his benefit.

That's the problem you've caused yourself by introducing that one quote that contradicts everything else in the Bible.  Not only do you now have to explain away a phrase that says the opposite of most other phrases, you now have yet another thing to twist an apologetic for.

Bottom line: you give thanks for someone who does something for YOU.  Not for something they do for THEMSELVES, that you happen to get a side benefit from. 
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Anfauglir on December 23, 2013, 05:09:49 AM
I see no reason God wouldn't "strike up a conversation" other than the fact that you won't humble yourself, get on your knees and make the call.

Until the holy spirit acts on you and regenerates your spirit, You just won't. It's all God. His plan, His time, His way

Okay, I'm confused.  Is it down to me, or down to Yahweh, to get things moving?

On the subject of contradictions that need to be reconciled.....   ;)
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Anfauglir on December 23, 2013, 05:17:23 AM
Why can't you just be thankful that you were given life? No matter the circumstance there is always something to be thankful for.

I think this is where you are getting confused.  There are always things to be happy for, sure.  I'm very happy I exist.  But your Biblical quote makes clear that my life was not made for MY benefit, but for your god's - and that is why "thankfulness" becomes a nonsense.

As for why should you seek Him? ..... Your Heavenly has given you much. Your life, the sun, the stars, the food, those fish even. He didn't walk out. He gave everything for you.. even His Son tasted our death.

Again, NOT given for ME.  Everything was created for HIM, you said, digging out a verse in order to prove a point you were making that this world isn't ours, that it was all created for god, not us.  But because you didn't think it through - because you've never thought your theology through - you are now desperately backpedalling to say "well, actually, be grateful because it IS all made for you".

But YOU SAID.....

One more thing Earth was not made for us...

If Earth was not made for us, there is no reason at all to be thankful to its creator.  But you can't retract, because then you'd have to deny the scripture that you dug out.  So you are stuck with the impossible to reconcile "be thankful for something that was created for someone else".
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Hatter23 on December 23, 2013, 01:32:18 PM



My comment about being thankful not seeking Ugabuga. Why can't you just be thankful you given life? Without father I wouldn't be here. In my case father was abusive so I thankful not knowing that type  childhood.
No matter the circumstance there always something be thankful for.
As why should you seek Ugabuga? unlike your John father In this case Ugabuga given you much. Your life, sun, stars, food, fish even. He didn't walk out. He gave everything you.. even King Agga, his son, tasted our death. Providence, common grace, be thankful. :)

That's what you sound like to me. An ignorant savage bowing down before your volcano god.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: harbinger77 on December 24, 2013, 01:16:59 AM
  All of creation was made for Him. If one wants to say being created was for him and therefore one shouldn't be thankful for the  very life given, that's fine.

However, someone asked what for and why should I be thankful. All of my examples, based on someone else's story, concern providence. All of them concern God providing something. As your father it makes Him happy to provide for you who is His creation. Maybe you were created so that he would have someone to make happy. Otherwise with no object of affection, He would be miserable.

As humanists I don't expect providence would be a concept one would accept. So I see where the disconnect is.

 prov·i·dence /?präv?d?ns/
Noun:
1. The protective care of God or of nature as a spiritual power
2. God or nature as providing such care

hu·man·ism /?(h)yo?om??niz?m/
Noun:
 1. An outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine
or supernatural matters
2. A Renaissance cultural movement that turned away from medieval scholasticism and revived
interest in ancient Greek and Roman thought
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Antidote on December 24, 2013, 01:35:23 AM
  All of creation was made for Him. If one wants to say being created was for him and therefore one shouldn't be thankful for the  very life given, that's fine.

However, someone asked what for and why should I be thankful. All of my examples, based on someone else's story, concern providence. All of them concern God providing something. As your father it makes Him happy to provide for you who is His creation. Maybe you were created so that he would have someone to make happy. Otherwise with no object of affection, He would be miserable.

As humanists I don't expect providence would be a concept one would accept. So I see where the disconnect is.

 prov·i·dence /?präv?d?ns/
Noun:
1. The protective care of God or of nature as a spiritual power
2. God or nature as providing such care

hu·man·ism /?(h)yo?om??niz?m/
Noun:
 1. An outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine
or supernatural matters
2. A Renaissance cultural movement that turned away from medieval scholasticism and revived
interest in ancient Greek and Roman thought

I find it humorous that you refuse to post the whole definitions, then refuse to provide your sources:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/providence
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/humanism
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Anfauglir on December 24, 2013, 02:50:40 AM
  All of creation was made for Him. If one wants to say being created was for him and therefore one shouldn't be thankful for the  very life given, that's fine.

And so it should be.  Because our lives were not created as a gift for us, but as a gift for himself.

If someone in your house bought themselves a present at Christmas - a DVD, let's say - then said that it was okay for you to be in the room while they watched it, would you feel overwhelmied with gratitude to them?

However, someone asked what for and why should I be thankful. All of my examples, based on someone else's story, concern providence. All of them concern God providing something. As your father it makes Him happy to provide for you who is His creation. Maybe you were created so that he would have someone to make happy. Otherwise with no object of affection, He would be miserable.

Again - we weren't created for ourselves, but as a means to stop god being sad.  Well, gee, that really makes me feel valued.

Ever been in a relationship, harbinger?  If your partner turned to you and said "I don't really love YOU, you know.  You could have been anyone.  I just had to find someone to be with because I was so lonely", would you feel chuffed to bits at being the random choice they went with?
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: wheels5894 on December 24, 2013, 07:17:58 AM
Harbinger's signature -
Quote
I reject Atheism on the basis of logic.

Tell us, Harbinger, where's this logic? Can we see how it works, please?
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Hatter23 on December 24, 2013, 11:33:18 AM
Harbinger's signature -
Quote
I reject Atheism on the basis of logic.

Tell us, Harbinger, where's this logic? Can we see how it works, please?
I second this.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Willie on December 24, 2013, 12:25:07 PM
^^^
Thirded.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Graybeard on December 24, 2013, 01:48:24 PM
graybeard- We both know you can answer these questions.
I think my point is, what do you mean by those words? in http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,25096.msg590741.html#msg590741 I know what I think they mean, but, in the context you used them, their meaning is not at all clear.
Quote
I wasn't being tricky.
I am sure that you did not intend to be tricky, but you use these words and it is only fair that we know what you, you personally, mean by them, otherwise we could be discussing the wrong point. 
Quote
I honestly tried to answer these questions but I couldn't find a respectful way to break this down.
To my mind, this indicates that the words have little real meaning. You use them as "impressive filler". I want to know the meaning of "truth" as you have used it
Quote
I came across as though I was patronizing so I scrapped the whole thing.
No, you came across just as if you were talking as you usually do. The difficulty I, and I think others, have is that when you use such specialised words in a religious context, they obviously don't mean the same thing as when used elsewhere (if they can be used elsewhere.)

Quote
As for the tulip I would think an ex-baptist would be well aware of this but...
They may well be, but I know no ex-Baptists to ask.
Quote
I rather thought someone had looked it up since I mentioned it several times. TULIP is an acrostic used for Calvinism, reformed theology, doctrines of sovereignty, or doctrines of Grace. These are all different names for the same thing. Here is a link for you.
http://www.ligonier.org/blog/tulip-and-reformed-theology-introduction/
Well... I am better informed but not a lot wiser. The only thing I really got out of it was "total depravity". At that point I stopped reading : )

However, before you get off too lightly, what, exactly do you mean by "truth" and the other words and phrases in http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,25096.msg590741.html#msg590741 in the way you used them?
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: jaimehlers on December 24, 2013, 08:21:24 PM
harbinger:  One of the links in your signature states that there are only three options to explain our existence; God,  agnosticism, or atheism.  However, these have nothing to do with explaining existence.  They refer to human beliefs - and completely presuppose that a god or gods exist.

The truth is that there are really only two general possibilities to explain our existence.  First is that it happened through nature, and second that it happened via something impossible to explain via nature (ala, the supernatural).  Saying that we don't know dies not explain anything.  In short, it is a true dilemma.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: harbinger77 on December 26, 2013, 12:34:45 AM
Harbinger's signature -
Quote
I reject Atheism on the basis of logic.

Tell us, Harbinger, where's this logic? Can we see how it works, please?
Harbinger's signature -
Quote
I reject Atheism on the basis of logic.

Tell us, Harbinger, where's this logic? Can we see how it works, please?
I second this.

4 separate posts and only one of you actually read the link that goes with it? Just do favor before you post a knee jerk response take a min and think about what I have presented.

To be an Atheist one must say "there is no God." It's an extreme position. This implies there is knowledge acquired that you simply don't have. You state this based on the fact, as some have said, "I've never seen Him." You are depending on things unseen to form your opinion. that's the very definition of faith. Atheism is illogical.
 I may also add it flies in the face of beliefs that say there are no absolutes.

Agnostics run the spectrum but will leave room for the possibility that maybe there's a slight chance to a pretty good chance there is God because they acknowledge they can't know everything. This middle position, based on the evidence at hand, is logical.

To be a Theist one must state there IS God. This is also an extreme position. One for which you would say there is no proof. The Theist However, has interacted with God in some way. Even though they didn't see it. That just gives them faith in things unseen. I can't show you my proof. I can tell you the why of it but you of course being an anti-theist and true to your position will and even must reject such claims. I have my proof all the same though. (I'll give you this one) Theism is also illogical. Or so it appears to be. This belief comes from the heart not the head.

While I agree with your two part natural vs supernatural because we know it must be one or the other, right? You are focused on the actual creation vs. evolution not the three part belief system that goes with it.

Think of it as a road. On the right, the Theist on the left the anti-theist, and in the middle the agnostic. I suppose we could argue fine points but at the end of the day there are only 3 ways to view the existence of existence, and that's the point of the article I have linked to.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Aaron123 on December 26, 2013, 01:17:55 AM
4 separate posts and only one of you actually read the link that goes with it? Just do favor before you post a knee jerk response take a min and think about what I have presented.

To be an Atheist one must say "there is no God." It's an extreme position. This implies there is knowledge acquired that you simply don't have. You state this based on the fact, as some have said, "I've never seen Him." You are depending on things unseen to form your opinion. that's the very definition of faith. Atheism is illogical.
 I may also add it flies in the face of beliefs that say there are no absolutes.

You're arguing a strawman (and so does the link in your signature).  Being an atheist is more like saying "there is a lack of evidence for the existence of god-beings."  Saying "atheism is a faith" is an old and trite argument.

Dismissing god due to lack of evidence is no different than dismissing the tooth fairy or Santa Claus, since there's no evidence that those things exists.[1]

Or do you consider "atooth fairyism" and "aSanta Clausism" to be faith as well?
 1.  Outside of stories, of course.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Anfauglir on December 26, 2013, 03:12:38 AM
To be an Atheist one must say "there is no God." It's an extreme position. This implies there is knowledge acquired that you simply don't have. You state this based on the fact, as some have said, "I've never seen Him." You are depending on things unseen to form your opinion. that's the very definition of faith. Atheism is illogical.

Harbinger therefore believes there could be ghosts, aliens abducting people, Bigfoot, a leprechaun under his bed, that his wife cheats on him, that the CIA are beaming thoughts into his head, that elves steal his pocket change, that Obama is a cyborg lizard from Rigel IV.

That's a whole lot of weird shit to agree could possibly be true, Harbinger.  Do you admit all that and argue the possibilities in your daily life?
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Willie on December 26, 2013, 04:23:05 AM
To be an Atheist one must say "there is no God." It's an extreme position. This implies there is knowledge acquired that you simply don't have. You state this based on the fact, as some have said, "I've never seen Him." You are depending on things unseen to form your opinion. that's the very definition of faith. Atheism is illogical.
 I may also add it flies in the face of beliefs that say there are no absolutes.

Having made up one's mind about something does not mean that one is irrational or closed to reason. If someone told you that he believes that there is no life on Mars, would you assume that he must hold that belief with absolute certainty? Would you assume that he would not change his mind even if compelling evidence were found? Would you interpret his disbelief as an implicit claim of knowledge about every nook and cranny of Mars? If so, how do you possibly justify that? If not, why the double standard?

Agnostics run the spectrum but will leave room for the possibility that maybe there's a slight chance to a pretty good chance there is God because they acknowledge they can't know everything. This middle position, based on the evidence at hand, is logical.

This has been covered here many times before, but atheism, agnosticism, theism, and gnosticism are not distinct, mutually exclusive, positions. Atheism and theism refer to a belief that there is a god or a belief that there isn't, while agnosticism and gnosticism refer to the degree of certainty in one's knowledge of said belief. They are better described as the axes of a plane, than as points along a road. The four quadrants of the plane are:

gnostic theist - I know that there is a god.
agnostic theist - I think there's a god, but I don't know for sure.
gnostic atheist - I know that there is no god.
agnostic theist - I think there's no god, but I don't know for sure.

Note that one's position on the plane can differ depending on which god is being considered. For example, one could be a gnostic atheist in regard to a specific god, but an agnostic atheist in regard to the general idea of a god.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Hatter23 on December 26, 2013, 07:00:35 AM

Quote
I reject Atheism on the basis of logic.



4 separate posts and only one of you actually read the link that goes with it? Just do favor before you post a knee jerk response take a min and think about what I have presented.

To be an Atheist one must say "there is no God." It's an extreme position.


So your logic is based on a Strawman and an appeal to ignorance. Guess what, that isn't logic. Quite the contrary actually.

Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: wheels5894 on December 26, 2013, 07:02:49 AM

So your logic is based on a Strawman and an appeal to ignorance. Guess what, that isn't logic. Quite the contrary actually.

Yet, by good logic, harbinger can only be an agnostic - he cannot know there is a god ; only believe there is.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: harbinger77 on December 27, 2013, 08:50:15 PM

So your logic is based on a Strawman and an appeal to ignorance. Guess what, that isn't logic. Quite the contrary actually.

Yet, by good logic, harbinger can only be an agnostic - he cannot know there is a god ; only believe there is.

Kudos for the only reply I expected. logically  speaking yes. like I said though, Theism is in the heart. It's something you just know that you know.  To me it's perfectly logical. If you were saved you would know. Your Family would know as you would suddenly be a different person. My ex-agnostic sister now firmly believes in God the father and jesus Christ as there is no other way to explain what happened to me.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: harbinger77 on December 27, 2013, 09:23:31 PM
To be an Atheist one must say "there is no God." It's an extreme position. This implies there is knowledge acquired that you simply don't have. You state this based on the fact, as some have said, "I've never seen Him." You are depending on things unseen to form your opinion. that's the very definition of faith. Atheism is illogical.

Harbinger therefore believes there could be ghosts, aliens abducting people, Bigfoot, a leprechaun under his bed, that his wife cheats on him, that the CIA are beaming thoughts into his head, that elves steal his pocket change, that Obama is a cyborg lizard from Rigel IV.

That's a whole lot of weird shit to agree could possibly be true, Harbinger.  Do you admit all that and argue the possibilities in your daily life?

could be? of course there COULD be. I'll say yes I believe in demonic activity.
I have 7 kids. my wife has no time to cheat. Why you add this to the list is unknown but disgusting!
 I'm positive your government is doing things you don't know about. As an infantry soldier deployed to Iraq. I know secrets I still can't talk about as far as i know it's still classified.
 Lizard men is an interesting theory. It's origin is actually native American. It's not new. The lizard men were thought to eat humans but look just like humans. except they had six fingers. Ever investigate it or just dismiss it? what if it's the next step of evolution? Obama could well be a plant, absolutely Islamic... cyborg lizard, I doubt it.

do I argue these things in daily life? If they came up I would discuss them. I don't feel strongly enough about any of these to warrant an argument though.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: harbinger77 on December 27, 2013, 11:09:01 PM
To be an Atheist one must say "there is no God." It's an extreme position. This implies there is knowledge acquired that you simply don't have. You state this based on the fact, as some have said, "I've never seen Him." You are depending on things unseen to form your opinion. that's the very definition of faith. Atheism is illogical.
 I may also add it flies in the face of beliefs that say there are no absolutes.

Having made up one's mind about something does not mean that one is irrational or closed to reason. If someone told you that he believes that there is no life on Mars, would you assume that he must hold that belief with absolute certainty? Would you assume that he would not change his mind even if compelling evidence were found? Would you interpret his disbelief as an implicit claim of knowledge about every nook and cranny of Mars? If so, how do you possibly justify that? If not, why the double standard?

Agnostics run the spectrum but will leave room for the possibility that maybe there's a slight chance to a pretty good chance there is God because they acknowledge they can't know everything. This middle position, based on the evidence at hand, is logical.

This has been covered here many times before, but atheism, agnosticism, theism, and gnosticism are not distinct, mutually exclusive, positions. Atheism and theism refer to a belief that there is a god or a belief that there isn't, while agnosticism and gnosticism refer to the degree of certainty in one's knowledge of said belief. They are better described as the axes of a plane, than as points along a road. The four quadrants of the plane are:

gnostic theist - I know that there is a god.
agnostic theist - I think there's a god, but I don't know for sure.
gnostic atheist - I know that there is no god.
agnostic theist - I think there's no god, but I don't know for sure.

Note that one's position on the plane can differ depending on which god is being considered. For example, one could be a gnostic atheist in regard to a specific god, but an agnostic atheist in regard to the general idea of a god.

Main Entry: the·ism
Pronunciation: \ ?th?- ?i-z?m\
Function: noun
Date: 1678
: belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world

http://i.word.com/idictionary/theism

 athe·ism
Pronunciation: \ ??-th?- ? i-z?m\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme,
from athée atheist, from Greek atheos
godless, from a- + theos god
Date: 1546
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS , WICKEDNESS
2a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b:the doctrine that there is no deity

http://i.word.com/idictionary/atheism

1 ag·nos·tic
Pronunciation: \ag- ?näs-tik, ?g-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek agn?stos unknown,
unknowable, from a- + gn?stos known,
from gign?skein to know — more at
KNOW
Date: 1869
1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably ; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the
existence or the (inexistence) of God or a god
2:aperson who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics >
— ag·nos·ti·cism \-t?- ?si-z?m\ noun

http://i.word.com/idictionary/agnosticism

now that the terms are properly defined....

I did say agnostic runs the spectrum to lean one way or the other.
By the definitions of atheist and theist you can't be both.
 A-theist means anti-theist. These are polar opposite. extreme positions. Your introduction of gnostic only demonstrates the spectrum that I have already referred to.

As for your life on Mars question. I would assume they are 100% convinced that under every rock, in every nook, in every cranny there is no life. (atheist) unless they said "....that we know of" (agnostic) It's not a double standard it's holding true to the definition of atheist. Generally speaking though I would assume they can be convinced otherwise if the proper evidence was shown. Scientist does not equal atheist.
By this analogy are you saying that you are open to the possibility that one day someone could possibly show you the evidence of God and then you would change your mind?
I'll miss your answer I'm sure. So let me respond in advance. By definition if you are open to the possibility of evidence you are are not atheist. You only lean that way.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: harbinger77 on December 27, 2013, 11:14:41 PM

Quote
I reject Atheism on the basis of logic.



4 separate posts and only one of you actually read the link that goes with it? Just do favor before you post a knee jerk response take a min and think about what I have presented.

To be an Atheist one must say "there is no God." It's an extreme position.


So your logic is based on a Strawman and an appeal to ignorance. Guess what, that isn't logic. Quite the contrary actually.

knee jerk...

 athe·ism
Pronunciation: \ ??-th?- ? i-z?m\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme,
from athée atheist, from Greek atheos
godless, from a- + theos god
Date: 1546
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS , WICKEDNESS
2a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b:the doctrine that there is no deity
http://i.word.com/idictionary/atheism

How is holding to the definition a strawman or even illogical?
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Antidote on December 27, 2013, 11:16:39 PM
Because the definition itself is a strawman
https://www.google.com/#q=define+atheism

1: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Anfauglir on December 28, 2013, 02:56:48 AM
To be an Atheist one must say "there is no God." It's an extreme position. This implies there is knowledge acquired that you simply don't have. You state this based on the fact, as some have said, "I've never seen Him." You are depending on things unseen to form your opinion. that's the very definition of faith. Atheism is illogical.
That's a whole lot of weird shit to agree could possibly be true, Harbinger.  Do you admit all that and argue the possibilities in your daily life?
I have 7 kids. my wife has no time to cheat. Why you add this to the list is unknown but disgusting!


You've never seen your wife's lover, Harbinger, but that doesn't mean he doesn't exist....by your logic.  You must surely at least entertain the possibility that he exists?

Don't depend on things unseen to prove your opinion.  Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and all that.

Or are you saying that your observations of the world CAN lead you to conclude for DEFINITE that something does not exist?
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Willie on December 28, 2013, 05:31:05 AM
...
1 : archaic : UNGODLINESS , WICKEDNESS
2a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b:the doctrine that there is no deity
...
(bold mine)

From merriam-webster.com:

Quote
dis·be·lief
noun \?dis-b?-?le-f\

: a feeling that you do not or cannot believe or accept that something is true or real
Full Definition of DISBELIEF
the act of disbelieving :  mental rejection of something as untrue
(bold mine)

Also from same source:

Quote
dis·be·lieve
verb \-?le-v\

: to not believe (someone or something)
Full Definition of DISBELIEVE
transitive verb
:  to hold not worthy of belief :  not believe
intransitive verb
:  to withhold or reject belief
(bold mine)

From this it is clear that to simply not believe is within the accepted use of the word "atheism", even if it isn't the primary definition given by Webster's. And, as Antidote pointed out, it is, in fact, the primary definition from at least one source (Google). And in case you had in mind to dismiss that source as being insufficiently authoritative, Google's definition matches Oxford's online dictionary verbatim.

More importantly, this is the meaining that very nearly all self-described atheists adhere to. So until you concede this point, there is no possibility for you to have a rational discussion about atheists or atheism. You are indeed battling a straw man. There is no one here who fits your definition, and you'll be hard pressed to find anyone anywhere who does.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Anfauglir on December 28, 2013, 06:31:16 AM
Harbinger, can you explain the interaction between dictionaries and the evolution of language?  Which one defines the other?
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: harbinger77 on December 29, 2013, 03:18:14 PM
To be an Atheist one must say "there is no God." It's an extreme position. This implies there is knowledge acquired that you simply don't have. You state this based on the fact, as some have said, "I've never seen Him." You are depending on things unseen to form your opinion. that's the very definition of faith. Atheism is illogical.
That's a whole lot of weird shit to agree could possibly be true, Harbinger.  Do you admit all that and argue the possibilities in your daily life?
I have 7 kids. my wife has no time to cheat. Why you add this to the list is unknown but disgusting!


You've never seen your wife's lover, Harbinger, but that doesn't mean he doesn't exist....by your logic.  You must surely at least entertain the possibility that he exists?

Don't depend on things unseen to prove your opinion.  Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and all that.

Or are you saying that your observations of the world CAN lead you to conclude for DEFINITE that something does not exist?

That you would even use my wife in such a way... the very idea is disrespectful, distasteful, and  disgusting. However, I will respond. My wife is a good Christian woman. Furthermore, she doesn't have the time or energy to have a lover, Due to having 7 kids. What man would even want to get all mixed up in that anyway? She is very committed to our family and aside from grocery shopping she is most always with family. The odds that she has a lover would be astronomical. For the sake of argument though the odds can't be reduced to zero. Therefore, yes it is possible.
Now kindly leave my wife out of this. Thank You.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Antidote on December 29, 2013, 04:09:36 PM
To be an Atheist one must say "there is no God." It's an extreme position. This implies there is knowledge acquired that you simply don't have. You state this based on the fact, as some have said, "I've never seen Him." You are depending on things unseen to form your opinion. that's the very definition of faith. Atheism is illogical.
That's a whole lot of weird shit to agree could possibly be true, Harbinger.  Do you admit all that and argue the possibilities in your daily life?
I have 7 kids. my wife has no time to cheat. Why you add this to the list is unknown but disgusting!


You've never seen your wife's lover, Harbinger, but that doesn't mean he doesn't exist....by your logic.  You must surely at least entertain the possibility that he exists?

Don't depend on things unseen to prove your opinion.  Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and all that.

Or are you saying that your observations of the world CAN lead you to conclude for DEFINITE that something does not exist?

That you would even use my wife in such a way... the very idea is disrespectful, distasteful, and  disgusting. However, I will respond. My wife is a good Christian woman. Furthermore, she doesn't have the time or energy to have a lover, Due to having 7 kids. What man would even want to get all mixed up in that anyway? She is very committed to our family and aside from grocery shopping she is most always with family. The odds that she has a lover would be astronomical. For the sake of argument though the odds can't be reduced to zero. Therefore, yes it is possible.
Now kindly leave my wife out of this. Thank You.

You're the one who brought your wife into it.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: harbinger77 on December 29, 2013, 04:38:08 PM
My position is Atheism is illogical.
I assume all who argue stand in direct opposition and are defending
 Atheism Is logical.
 By this argumet:

I believe there IS a God
There IS a God.
I know there IS a God
These are all perfectly logical statements??
Part of my argument is that these are also illogical. I did notice no one wants to address this. If one is logical based on "belief". The other must be logical as well, by the same argument.

I think it's important to say "believe" (not know) is rooted in emotion. Therefore it is also illogical.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-divided-mind/201207/logic-and-emotion

The believe is implied...
"I don't believe there is a God"
"there is no god." (oppinion states an unsaid believe unless you really mean know)
"I know there is no God" (this is the most extreme and the most illogical position)

Lets look at doctrine:

doc·trine /?däktrin/ Noun:
1. A belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church, political party, or other group
2. A stated principle of government policy, mainly in foreign or military affairs
http://www.google.com/m?q=define+doctrine&client=ms-opera-mini-android&channel=new

Would you teach:
1: There is no god. (an absolute)
2:There may not be a god. (opinion)
I'm positive the "fact" would be presented. Maybe in the form of evolution perhaps?

Note: this is a comment on teaching not evolution other than it says there is no God and my children learn it.

A straw man , also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally , [1][2] is a common type of argument and is an
informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. [3] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having denied a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet
inequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to deny it, without ever having actually denied the
original position.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

I defined Atheism.. I worked from the definition. I provided the link to the definition. In order to be a strawman I would have had to misrepresent the definition. I did not.
If I mentally reject something (God) as untrue Then I believe God is a lie. Therefore There is no God is a belief that pure logic would say you can't know the answer to. Atheism is illogical. Unless you have evidence and can then reduce the odds of God to zero. You are agnostic at best.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Anfauglir on December 29, 2013, 04:38:48 PM
You've never seen your wife's lover, Harbinger, but that doesn't mean he doesn't exist....by your logic.  You must surely at least entertain the possibility that he exists?

Or are you saying that your observations of the world CAN lead you to conclude for DEFINITE that something does not exist?

That you would even use my wife in such a way... the very idea is disrespectful, distasteful, and  disgusting. However, I will respond. ...... The odds that she has a lover would be astronomical. For the sake of argument though the odds can't be reduced to zero. Therefore, yes it is possible.


Oh my.  You'd actually prefer to state your wife could be having an affair than admit you could be wrong in an internet discussion?  And you have the nerve to call ME disrespectful, distasteful, and disgusting? 

I think we're done here - I've now seen how far you will go in order not to have to admit you could be wrong.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: harbinger77 on December 29, 2013, 04:39:33 PM
To be an Atheist one must say "there is no God." It's an extreme position. This implies there is knowledge acquired that you simply don't have. You state this based on the fact, as some have said, "I've never seen Him." You are depending on things unseen to form your opinion. that's the very definition of faith. Atheism is illogical.
That's a whole lot of weird shit to agree could possibly be true, Harbinger.  Do you admit all that and argue the possibilities in your daily life?
I have 7 kids. my wife has no time to cheat. Why you add this to the list is unknown but disgusting!


You've never seen your wife's lover, Harbinger, but that doesn't mean he doesn't exist....by your logic.  You must surely at least entertain the possibility that he exists?

Don't depend on things unseen to prove your opinion.  Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and all that.

Or are you saying that your observations of the world CAN lead you to conclude for DEFINITE that something does not exist?

That you would even use my wife in such a way... the very idea is disrespectful, distasteful, and  disgusting. However, I will respond. My wife is a good Christian woman. Furthermore, she doesn't have the time or energy to have a lover, Due to having 7 kids. What man would even want to get all mixed up in that anyway? She is very committed to our family and aside from grocery shopping she is most always with family. The odds that she has a lover would be astronomical. For the sake of argument though the odds can't be reduced to zero. Therefore, yes it is possible.
Now kindly leave my wife out of this. Thank You.

You're the one who brought your wife into it.

no this quote is selective.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Anfauglir on December 29, 2013, 04:41:30 PM

You're the one who brought your wife into it.

He didn't actually - I included it as one of a large range of options, which for some reason harbinger chose as the one to take forward.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: harbinger77 on December 29, 2013, 04:43:26 PM
To be an Atheist one must say "there is no God." It's an extreme position. This implies there is knowledge acquired that you simply don't have. You state this based on the fact, as some have said, "I've never seen Him." You are depending on things unseen to form your opinion. that's the very definition of faith. Atheism is illogical.

Harbinger therefore believes there could be ghosts, aliens abducting people, Bigfoot, a leprechaun under his bed, that his wife cheats on him, that the CIA are beaming thoughts into his head, that elves steal his pocket change, that Obama is a cyborg lizard from Rigel IV.

That's a whole lot of weird shit to agree could possibly be true, Harbinger.  Do you admit all that and argue the possibilities in your daily life?

This is the full quote that introduced my wife.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: harbinger77 on December 29, 2013, 04:47:17 PM

You're the one who brought your wife into it.

He didn't actually - I included it as one of a large range of options, which for some reason harbinger chose as the one to take forward.

thank you...
I did address all of what you mentioned though not just the wife. I'm very surprised I didn't get hammered on believing in demonic activity or other things I brought forward though.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: wheels5894 on December 29, 2013, 04:47:56 PM

I defined Atheism.. I worked from the definition. I provided the link to the definition. In order to be a strawman I would have had to misrepresent the definition. I did not.
If I mentally reject something (God) as untrue Then I believe God is a lie. Therefore There is no God is a belief that pure logic would say you can't know the answer to. Atheism is illogical. Unless you have evidence and can then reduce the odds of God to zero. You are agnostic at best.

Well its disrespectful at the very least to define something aside from sking the atheists about their belief. In fact you have made your own definition and runn with it and thus your own definition to the extent that you ignore what atheists actualy believe is a strawman.

Most people here take the view that there is insufficient evidence (basically none) to justify belief in a god and thus they do not believe in one. There is no need to muddle this up with doctrine and beliefs it is simple and plain you, Harbinger, can understand it. You have been given the chance to enlighten us with the evidence for a god and all you can say is that it is emotional - hardly good evidence for anything.

Please stop this mi-representation of atheists and get back on course to show us the evidence for your god.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Willie on December 29, 2013, 04:53:07 PM
It should be noted that Anfauglir listed the wife cheating among a list of unlikely or even absurd things that Harbinger must logically accept as possible because he does not have universal knowledge. Outside of Harbinger's imagination, there was no negative or ugly implication in that. It seems as if Harbinger was actually looking for some excuse to play the victim, even going so far as to misrepresent another's intent in order to do it.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: harbinger77 on December 29, 2013, 04:56:15 PM
You've never seen your wife's lover, Harbinger, but that doesn't mean he doesn't exist....by your logic.  You must surely at least entertain the possibility that he exists?

Or are you saying that your observations of the world CAN lead you to conclude for DEFINITE that something does not exist?

That you would even use my wife in such a way... the very idea is disrespectful, distasteful, and  disgusting. However, I will respond. ...... The odds that she has a lover would be astronomical. For the sake of argument though the odds can't be reduced to zero. Therefore, yes it is possible.


Oh my.  You'd actually prefer to state your wife could be having an affair than admit you could be wrong in an internet discussion?  And you have the nerve to call ME disrespectful, distasteful, and disgusting? 

I think we're done here - I've now seen how far you will go in order not to have to admit you could be wrong.

I almost didn't comment but from experience that's just as bad. i discussed this with my wife. We had a good laugh.
What you see here is logic with no emotion to cloud it. I'm sorry I didn't fight you on the logic side of things.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: harbinger77 on December 29, 2013, 05:00:23 PM
It should be noted that Anfauglir listed the wife cheating among a list of unlikely or even absurd things that Harbinger must logically accept as possible because he does not have universal knowledge. Outside of Harbinger's imagination, there was no negative or ugly implication in that. It seems as if Harbinger was actually looking for some excuse to play the victim, even going so far as to misrepresent another's intent in order to do it.

I disagree. I just think some things should be off limits. including it was out of bounds. regardless of intent. it didn't further the point at all. That's my opinion though. I spoke my mind and it's done. Can we move on to the logical argument now?
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Willie on December 29, 2013, 05:04:07 PM
It should be noted that Anfauglir listed the wife cheating among a list of unlikely or even absurd things that Harbinger must logically accept as possible because he does not have universal knowledge. Outside of Harbinger's imagination, there was no negative or ugly implication in that. It seems as if Harbinger was actually looking for some excuse to play the victim, even going so far as to misrepresent another's intent in order to do it.

I disagree. I just think some things should be off limits. including it was out of bounds. regardless of intent. it didn't further the point at all. That's my opinion though. I spoke my mind and it's done. Can we move on to the logical argument now?

The only offense committed is yours. But sure, let's move on, despite your refusal to handle it honorably.

Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: harbinger77 on December 29, 2013, 05:12:10 PM

I defined Atheism.. I worked from the definition. I provided the link to the definition. In order to be a strawman I would have had to misrepresent the definition. I did not.
If I mentally reject something (God) as untrue Then I believe God is a lie. Therefore There is no God is a belief that pure logic would say you can't know the answer to. Atheism is illogical. Unless you have evidence and can then reduce the odds of God to zero. You are agnostic at best.

Well its disrespectful at the very least to define something aside from sking the atheists about their belief. In fact you have made your own definition and runn with it and thus your own definition to the extent that you ignore what atheists actualy believe is a strawman.

Most people here take the view that there is insufficient evidence (basically none) to justify belief in a god and thus they do not believe in one. There is no need to muddle this up with doctrine and beliefs it is simple and plain you, Harbinger, can understand it. You have been given the chance to enlighten us with the evidence for a god and all you can say is that it is emotional - hardly good evidence for anything.

Please stop this mi-representation of atheists and get back on course to show us the evidence for your god.

I disagree believing there is no god is something you said by giving yourself a label that can be defined. I didn't make up my own definition either. I defined the word and provided a link to the definition I used.
I'm a Theist. I'm a Christian. By these examples the unsaid can fill books As to what these labels imply I believe. If you disagree redefine yourself. If you can't be defined as atheist what are you? There are only 2 other options.

If most people hold out for evidence then by definition they are not atheist. As that implies they also belive that maybe possibly there could be evidence someday.

Also I believe 4 people wanted me to redirect to this topic. It wasn't my idea.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Willie on December 29, 2013, 05:15:36 PM

I defined Atheism.. I worked from the definition. I provided the link to the definition. In order to be a strawman I would have had to misrepresent the definition. I did not.
If I mentally reject something (God) as untrue Then I believe God is a lie. Therefore There is no God is a belief that pure logic would say you can't know the answer to. Atheism is illogical. Unless you have evidence and can then reduce the odds of God to zero. You are agnostic at best.

Well its disrespectful at the very least to define something aside from sking the atheists about their belief. In fact you have made your own definition and runn with it and thus your own definition to the extent that you ignore what atheists actualy believe is a strawman.

Most people here take the view that there is insufficient evidence (basically none) to justify belief in a god and thus they do not believe in one. There is no need to muddle this up with doctrine and beliefs it is simple and plain you, Harbinger, can understand it. You have been given the chance to enlighten us with the evidence for a god and all you can say is that it is emotional - hardly good evidence for anything.

Please stop this mi-representation of atheists and get back on course to show us the evidence for your god.

I disagree believing there is no god is something you said by giving yourself a label that can be defined. I didn't make up my own definition either. I defined the word and provided a link to the definition I used.
I'm a Theist. I'm a Christian. By these examples the unsaid can fill books As to what these labels imply I believe. If you disagree redefine yourself. If you can't be defined as atheist what are you? There are only 2 other options.

Also I believe 4 people wanted me to redirect to this topic. It wasn't my idea.

There is really no reason to continue debating with you. You are continuing to attack a straw-man, and at this point, you are just flat out lying in order to defend that position.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: harbinger77 on December 29, 2013, 05:27:23 PM

I defined Atheism.. I worked from the definition. I provided the link to the definition. In order to be a strawman I would have had to misrepresent the definition. I did not.
If I mentally reject something (God) as untrue Then I believe God is a lie. Therefore There is no God is a belief that pure logic would say you can't know the answer to. Atheism is illogical. Unless you have evidence and can then reduce the odds of God to zero. You are agnostic at best.

Well its disrespectful at the very least to define something aside from sking the atheists about their belief. In fact you have made your own definition and runn with it and thus your own definition to the extent that you ignore what atheists actualy believe is a strawman.

Most people here take the view that there is insufficient evidence (basically none) to justify belief in a god and thus they do not believe in one. There is no need to muddle this up with doctrine and beliefs it is simple and plain you, Harbinger, can understand it. You have been given the chance to enlighten us with the evidence for a god and all you can say is that it is emotional - hardly good evidence for anything.

Please stop this mi-representation of atheists and get back on course to show us the evidence for your god.

I disagree believing there is no god is something you said by giving yourself a label that can be defined. I didn't make up my own definition either. I defined the word and provided a link to the definition I used.
I'm a Theist. I'm a Christian. By these examples the unsaid can fill books As to what these labels imply I believe. If you disagree redefine yourself. If you can't be defined as atheist what are you? There are only 2 other options.

Also I believe 4 people wanted me to redirect to this topic. It wasn't my idea.

There is really no reason to continue debating with you. You are continuing to attack a straw-man, and at this point, you are just flat out lying in order to defend that position.

I didn't misrepresent anything. i even defined strawman to show this. Could you point out my lie please. remove your emotion.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Willie on December 29, 2013, 05:35:37 PM

I defined Atheism.. I worked from the definition. I provided the link to the definition. In order to be a strawman I would have had to misrepresent the definition. I did not.
If I mentally reject something (God) as untrue Then I believe God is a lie. Therefore There is no God is a belief that pure logic would say you can't know the answer to. Atheism is illogical. Unless you have evidence and can then reduce the odds of God to zero. You are agnostic at best.

Well its disrespectful at the very least to define something aside from sking the atheists about their belief. In fact you have made your own definition and runn with it and thus your own definition to the extent that you ignore what atheists actualy believe is a strawman.

Most people here take the view that there is insufficient evidence (basically none) to justify belief in a god and thus they do not believe in one. There is no need to muddle this up with doctrine and beliefs it is simple and plain you, Harbinger, can understand it. You have been given the chance to enlighten us with the evidence for a god and all you can say is that it is emotional - hardly good evidence for anything.

Please stop this mi-representation of atheists and get back on course to show us the evidence for your god.

I disagree believing there is no god is something you said by giving yourself a label that can be defined. I didn't make up my own definition either. I defined the word and provided a link to the definition I used.
I'm a Theist. I'm a Christian. By these examples the unsaid can fill books As to what these labels imply I believe. If you disagree redefine yourself. If you can't be defined as atheist what are you? There are only 2 other options.

Also I believe 4 people wanted me to redirect to this topic. It wasn't my idea.

There is really no reason to continue debating with you. You are continuing to attack a straw-man, and at this point, you are just flat out lying in order to defend that position.

I didn't misrepresent anything. i even defined strawman to show this. Could you point out my lie please. remove your emotion.

See bolding above. The lie is in your continued insistence that your preferred definition is the only valid one. It has already been established that it is not. There was a point where this could have been written off as misconception or ignorance, but we're well past that now. All that remains is dishonesty.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: ParkingPlaces on December 29, 2013, 05:45:04 PM
Harbinger

There are still people today who insist that the earth is flat. Am I wrong in being an a-flattist? Am I supposed to instead be, at the most, agnostic about the concept, even though evidence for a round earth proliferates? Am I not allowed to judge for myself about controversial ideas and decide where I stand without having my position on the issue be defined by the opposing forces?

I see zero evidence for a god or gods. I see no evidence that believers benefit in any way other than sometimes mentally, and I attribute that to vivid imaginations, not gods. Christians don't, on average, live longer, better, healthier or happier lives. I have neither seen nor heard of any concrete benefit that didn't sound psychological (and which is, I've no doubt, real. The psychological part, not the religious part that artificially causes it.)

The bible does not match reality enough to even be considered useful, let alone authoritative. It makes claim after claim that can be shown to be false. It gets history wrong, biology wrong, travel stories wrong, geography wrong and weather reports wrong. It is educational in the sense that it teaches its people what not to learn, which is anything that doesn't support the story.

And it creates followers who seem to think that all non-followers are on the cusp, in need of just a nudge to become instant believers.

If the only "evidence" for a god I can find is people insisting that he is real, why should I be forced to redefine my own view just to make a christian feel better? I have seen absolutely no concrete evidence that there is a god but you feel comfortable telling me that I can't be sure, so I can't be an atheist.

Do you want me telling you that you can't be a true believer because I know there is no god so you're not allowed?

I don't think so.

Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: harbinger77 on December 29, 2013, 10:45:03 PM

I defined Atheism.. I worked from the definition. I provided the link to the definition. In order to be a strawman I would have had to misrepresent the definition. I did not.
If I mentally reject something (God) as untrue Then I believe God is a lie. Therefore There is no God is a belief that pure logic would say you can't know the answer to. Atheism is illogical. Unless you have evidence and can then reduce the odds of God to zero. You are agnostic at best.

Well its disrespectful at the very least to define something aside from sking the atheists about their belief. In fact you have made your own definition and runn with it and thus your own definition to the extent that you ignore what atheists actualy believe is a strawman.

Most people here take the view that there is insufficient evidence (basically none) to justify belief in a god and thus they do not believe in one. There is no need to muddle this up with doctrine and beliefs it is simple and plain you, Harbinger, can understand it. You have been given the chance to enlighten us with the evidence for a god and all you can say is that it is emotional - hardly good evidence for anything.

Please stop this mi-representation of atheists and get back on course to show us the evidence for your god.

I disagree believing there is no god is something you said by giving yourself a label that can be defined. I didn't make up my own definition either. I defined the word and provided a link to the definition I used.
I'm a Theist. I'm a Christian. By these examples the unsaid can fill books As to what these labels imply I believe. If you disagree redefine yourself. If you can't be defined as atheist what are you? There are only 2 other options.

Also I believe 4 people wanted me to redirect to this topic. It wasn't my idea.

There is really no reason to continue debating with you. You are continuing to attack a straw-man, and at this point, you are just flat out lying in order to defend that position.

I didn't misrepresent anything. i even defined strawman to show this. Could you point out my lie please. remove your emotion.

See bolding above. The lie is in your continued insistence that your preferred definition is the only valid one. It has already been established that it is not. There was a point where this could have been written off as misconception or ignorance, but we're well past that now. All that remains is dishonesty.

My "preferred definition" That would suggest you can find one that contradicts the one I used?
Maybe you missed it but the only thing that was defined after I defined atheist was "believe." it was an attempt to make "atheist" A flexible term. rather than an extreme position. The only one that is flexible is agnostic.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: harbinger77 on December 29, 2013, 11:18:19 PM
Harbinger

There are still people today who insist that the earth is flat. Am I wrong in being an a-flattist? Am I supposed to instead be, at the most, agnostic about the concept, even though evidence for a round earth proliferates? Am I not allowed to judge for myself about controversial ideas and decide where I stand without having my position on the issue be defined by the opposing forces?

I see zero evidence for a god or gods. I see no evidence that believers benefit in any way other than sometimes mentally, and I attribute that to vivid imaginations, not gods. Christians don't, on average, live longer, better, healthier or happier lives. I have neither seen nor heard of any concrete benefit that didn't sound psychological (and which is, I've no doubt, real. The psychological part, not the religious part that artificially causes it.)

The bible does not match reality enough to even be considered useful, let alone authoritative. It makes claim after claim that can be shown to be false. It gets history wrong, biology wrong, travel stories wrong, geography wrong and weather reports wrong. It is educational in the sense that it teaches its people what not to learn, which is anything that doesn't support the story.

And it creates followers who seem to think that all non-followers are on the cusp, in need of just a nudge to become instant believers.

If the only "evidence" for a god I can find is people insisting that he is real, why should I be forced to redefine my own view just to make a christian feel better? I have seen absolutely no concrete evidence that there is a god but you feel comfortable telling me that I can't be sure, so I can't be an atheist.

Do you want me telling you that you can't be a true believer because I know there is no god so you're not allowed?

I don't think so.

come on..  really... I don't even think there are people who believe the earth is flat. I guess it's possible though. I would say since we have pictures of earth from space among other things we can logically reduce the odds to 0 therefore you are a moron if you think it's flat.
I'm pretty sure the definition I used was neutral not an "opposing force"
 
I'm not saying that you cant be true in your disbelief not even you are not allowed. believe what you want.

I simply said Atheism is illogical. I also took the position that Theism is also illogical. That side gets no play though. To say there are degrees of unbelief within Atheism is wrong. Only the term agnostic allows for degree of belief or unbelief.
These arguments have 0 to do with emotion or my own system of belief. I'm focused on the definition of terms. I'm not suggesting that because I believe a certain way you can't believe whatever you want.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: ParkingPlaces on December 29, 2013, 11:30:50 PM
come on..  really... I don't even think there are people who believe the earth is flat. I guess it's possible though. I would say since we have pictures of earth from space among other things we can logically reduce the odds to 0 therefore you are a moron if you think it's flat.
I'm pretty sure the definition I used was neutral not an "opposing force"
 
I'm not saying that you cant be true in your disbelief not even you are not allowed. believe what you want.

I simply said Atheism is illogical. I also took the position that Theism is also illogical. That side gets no play though. To say there are degrees of unbelief within Atheism is wrong. Only the term agnostic allows for degree of belief or unbelief.
These arguments have 0 to do with emotion or my own system of belief. I'm focused on the definition of terms. I'm not suggesting that because I believe a certain way you can't believe whatever you want.

Irrelevant except I used it as an example: http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm (http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm)

I'm told that they are serious.

Okay, I consider the matter cleared up. I was reading your words to mean that our claim of atheism wasn't possible because we couldn't prove that there is no god, and that you were insisting we all change into agnostics (some of us here are agnostics, by the way. Not me though).

I'm fine with you having misconceptions, as long as you don't insist that we have to share them.

You of course think I have misconceptions, but I'm sure that you don't want me to insist that my interpretation of your religion is more accurate than your own. I'll settle for a stalemate in this department.

I think that religion is illogical. You feel the same about us. Our differences are why we disagree. As long as you'll let me be an atheist, I'll let you be a theist, and the conversations can continue.

Carry on.

Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: harbinger77 on December 30, 2013, 01:33:21 AM
come on..  really... I don't even think there are people who believe the earth is flat. I guess it's possible though. I would say since we have pictures of earth from space among other things we can logically reduce the odds to 0 therefore you are a moron if you think it's flat.
I'm pretty sure the definition I used was neutral not an "opposing force"
 
I'm not saying that you cant be true in your disbelief not even you are not allowed. believe what you want.

I simply said Atheism is illogical. I also took the position that Theism is also illogical. That side gets no play though. To say there are degrees of unbelief within Atheism is wrong. Only the term agnostic allows for degree of belief or unbelief.
These arguments have 0 to do with emotion or my own system of belief. I'm focused on the definition of terms. I'm not suggesting that because I believe a certain way you can't believe whatever you want.

Irrelevant except I used it as an example: http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm (http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm)

I'm told that they are serious.

Okay, I consider the matter cleared up. I was reading your words to mean that our claim of atheism wasn't possible because we couldn't prove that there is no god, and that you were insisting we all change into agnostics (some of us here are agnostics, by the way. Not me though).

I'm fine with you having misconceptions, as long as you don't insist that we have to share them.

You of course think I have misconceptions, but I'm sure that you don't want me to insist that my interpretation of your religion is more accurate than your own. I'll settle for a stalemate in this department.

I think that religion is illogical. You feel the same about us. Our differences are why we disagree. As long as you'll let me be an atheist, I'll let you be a theist, and the conversations can continue.

Carry on.

I too think religion is illogical. Not in the same way I say theism is illogical. These are different topics. To me but I assume they are one and the same to at least some if not most of you.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: ParkingPlaces on December 30, 2013, 02:13:03 AM
I too think religion is illogical. Not in the same way I say theism is illogical. These are different topics. To me but I assume they are one and the same to at least some if not most of you.

I can only say that presumably religion, or theism or whatever any given believer wants to label their beliefs, makes sense to the various believers, and hence is in some sense also logical for them. But logic may be the wrong word, since faith is most often called upon to explain beliefs, and by definition, faith does not include logic.

I may have used the wrong word. To me, religion makes no sense. And perhaps that is what I should have said instead of saying it was not logical. And clearly that is my atheist point of view. So I could be wrong. At this moment, however, I don't think I am.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Anfauglir on December 30, 2013, 03:16:15 AM
Oh my.  You'd actually prefer to state your wife could be having an affair than admit you could be wrong in an internet discussion?  And you have the nerve to call ME disrespectful, distasteful, and disgusting? 

I think we're done here - I've now seen how far you will go in order not to have to admit you could be wrong.

I almost didn't comment but from experience that's just as bad. i discussed this with my wife. We had a good laugh.
What you see here is logic with no emotion to cloud it. I'm sorry I didn't fight you on the logic side of things.

I'm so sorry to hear your wife thought it was funny that you would rather admit she could be cheating then consider that you might be wrong in an internet argument with strangers.

Like I say, I'm done.  I see the kind of person you are now.  I won't be reading any more of your posts. 
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Willie on December 30, 2013, 08:16:24 AM
To say there are degrees of unbelief within Atheism is wrong. Only the term agnostic allows for degree of belief or unbelief.

We've already established otherwise, so I won't bother repeating it. It is increasingly evident that you are a dishonorable debate opponent, and therefore that there is no possibility of having an honest debate with you. I'm done with you.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: harbinger77 on December 31, 2013, 02:58:22 AM
I too think religion is illogical. Not in the same way I say theism is illogical. These are different topics. To me but I assume they are one and the same to at least some if not most of you.

I can only say that presumably religion, or theism or whatever any given believer wants to label their beliefs, makes sense to the various believers, and hence is in some sense also logical for them. But logic may be the wrong word, since faith is most often called upon to explain beliefs, and by definition, faith does not include logic.

I may have used the wrong word. To me, religion makes no sense. And perhaps that is what I should have said instead of saying it was not logical. And clearly that is my atheist point of view. So I could be wrong. At this moment, however, I don't think I am.

I agree with it makes no sense too. This is the difference though. When you say religion you have a broad term. Catholic, Baptist, Hindu, Muslim you fill it in. When I say religion I mean ritual. All those crazy things people do to make themselves right with God. for example. Muslims pray 5 Times per day. They say a specific prayer I think every time. I may be wrong and it depends on time of day. either way it's daily ritual. Been a while since I studied Islam. It's nonsense there is nothing we do that can make us right with God. That's why it's called Grace. Humans sure want to try though don't they.

Eph2:8-9
 8God saved you by his grace when you believed. And you can’t take credit for this; it is a gift
from God.
9 Salvation is not a reward for the good things we have done, so none of us can boast about it.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: wheels5894 on December 31, 2013, 04:56:34 AM
Harbinger,

Are you re-defining words? This is what Dictionary.com says about religion -

Quote
religion
Use Religion in a sentence
re·li·gion
[ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4.
the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5.
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

The rituals are only a part of a religion.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Nam on December 31, 2013, 01:31:05 PM
after all gays (1% of pop) for example need to be out there openly practicing their lifestyle. I supose I should hide everything I hold sacred cause lord knows unless it's Christian we should be free to practice and display it.

Religion is a choice.

Religion for some people, I feel, is a choice, for others: not so much.

If one is born Into a secular and/or accepting and open-minded society then one who conveys the spirituality of religion (god/less) is, ultimately, choosing to (unless mental defect[1]) unlike in a non-secular and/or non-accepting and close-minded society where it, ultimately, could cause not only ostracizement but also one's life, literally. Those people usually do not have a choice. It's forced on them whether they want it, or not.

People think that one could just move away but most people do not have the means to do that, or the emotional intelligence, either.

-Nam
 1. schizophrenia etc.,
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: harbinger77 on December 31, 2013, 08:05:30 PM
Harbinger,

Are you re-defining words? This is what Dictionary.com says about religion -

Quote
religion
Use Religion in a sentence
re·li·gion
[ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4.
the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5.
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

The rituals are only a part of a religion.

Redefine? No.
In a sentence I might say, "My faith is not in religion."
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: harbinger77 on December 31, 2013, 11:26:40 PM
He gave everything for you.. even His Son tasted our death. Providence, common grace, be thankful. :)

Harbinger

I trust that we can all agree that that our both our planet and the universe are complex places. If you look out in the night sky without the aid of a telescope, you can see planets and stars. Some of the planets are relatively small, others are huge. Some of the stars are yellow, some are red, some are blue. Some are small, some are humongous. You can see our moon, and we know that some of the other planets have moons as well. In some cases, large numbers of moons. We've found 67 so far around Jupiter, 52 around Saturn.

And with a sufficiently powerful telescope, we can see not only our galaxy, but far, far away galaxies. And see that the universe is an incredibly huge and complex place.

On earth, we have wonder after wonder. We live amongst an amazing assortment of plants, animals, bacteria and viruses. Biologists who study such things find astonishing connections between the life forms. We have moths that eat only hair and fur, and without them the planet would be several feet deep in fuzzies because neither of those two things decompose. We have a wide variety of plants that can only be fertilized by very specific species of insects or birds. We have ecosystem complexities in our great coral reefs that are fragile, and that are sadly falling apart because the planet has warmed but a few degrees.

Everywhere you look you see complexity. And if your god had a hand in it, it means that he took great care to create the conditions and situations I have described. It would not be a casual act to create the naked mole rat, an animal that can only live in its underground tunnels, replete with high methane levels from passing gas and high carbon dioxide levels because of their lack of air circulation. But they thrive. And if your god was involved, he paid attention to that detail, as well as every other detail on this planet and in the universe.

And he only managed to come up with two options for humans after death. He was capable of making the rings around Saturn, but didn't come up with any other choices for us besides heaven and hell. He figured out how to deal with excessive hair but he can't allow for good people who don't accept his kid, he can't allow for people who were good but in a moment of frustration or fear acted out of character. He can't allow for people like me who need more proof than people like you. He can't allow for differences in intelligence, temperament, social conditions, political realities, fear, or misinformation.

He couldn't design a list of criteria which would differentiate between Hitler and my non-born again grandmother. When a person otherwise fails to pass his "get on your knees" test, it is all over. There is nothing complex about it.  He took the time to make sure that 30% of humans had harmless little Demonex folliculorum mites living in the follicles of their eyelashes, but he couldn't take the time to either make his message clear to all (rather than just those susceptible to it) or offer up a variety of afterlife scenarios, based on one's overall behavior. It is either the streets of gold or the pits of fire.

And that is one of the reasons that I know that religion is a human invention. Infinite beings would, by definition, be a bit more understanding of us puny humans, because as being who enjoyed complexity, they would know that our weaknesses (when compared to their strengths) were such that we were prone to misunderstanding obscure instruction sets. Humans, on the other hands, who for whatever reason want to control others, are prone to indeed go with the extremes, the black and white choices that are clearly human scenarios. Come with us or suffer for an eternity! What could be more human than that?

What you don't seem to take into account is that when people evolved to be smart enough to realize that they didn't know everything, they started making stuff up. They started finding links that weren't there, because humans evolved to see patterns. And the imagined started becoming the real because it probably made existence a bit easier. And what probably started off as an explanation as to why the cave gods let Junior be eaten by a saber toothed tiger eventually became your god sending down his kid to help define evil and how to combat it.

No, JC didn't taste death. Storytellers made it sound like he did, but there was no JC, just like there is no god. Humans, intervening in life by trying to redefine it as something it is not, have distorted human existence far more than necessary. Especially in 2013. And people such as yourself, prone to accepting the story (which was written specifically for those who are, you know, prone to accepting the story), swallow it lock, stock and barrel, again for very human reasons. And some of you show up on our site and tell us how wrong we are, because you honestly believe that we are. And if we can't communicate the futility of your belief system adequately, you may be stuck with it the rest of your life.

The subject of this thread, whether god is moral if he lets bad things happen, is of interest only to you. We atheists understand that there is no god, so the question is moot. But theists, who insist that there is, need to play games with our heads and their own to keep the otherwise precarious definition of their god intact. And we atheists tend to ask things like "Why would your god do this or that?" in an effort to get you to think about it.

But I think you're old enough for the truth. The people who told you that there is a god were wrong. And your world is distorted because of it.

It is fixable. Stop seeing the light. It isn't there.

First, this is beautifully written. I can really see The glory of God in the creation you describe. I say Praise God and Bravo, Sir!

I see where you're gong with this though. Heaven and Hell are to simple. If the concept is simple does that mean the place must be simple too? After all there is indication of levels of punishment and reward to say the least.
If you fail to complete a task would you not receive punishment? If you complete a task would there be a reward? It seems to me the punishment is deserved while the reward is a bonus. Is it not Grace if you do receive a reward for something you are expected, nay commanded to do? God is complex and likes complexity, as you say, so maybe there should be options aside from just reward and punishment? Can you give a third option? At any rate to say man is so simple he can only pose 2 Options, I think you sale the mind of man a bit short. What of the astronomy and mathematics of the ancient days or the philosophy that people still treasure some 2500 years after Greece? As far as thought goes men tend to over think and then over complicate things. Which to me is obvious to me in the 100s of Christian denominations.

What about the Offensive nature of Hell or the cross and Jesus crucified, Total depravity of man, or election to salvation? I bet you agree it's mostly offensive. If not all. Wouldn't men write something that may ease the mind and heart of others or themselves? Especially If the whole point is to just get the whole world to follow their Holy book with hopes of controlling? If the thought of Hell is only to scare people to follow.  What about the rest that is offensive? 

 The true nature of man is prideful, boastful, I can do it all myself, I don't need God or even my neighbor.

I'm responding to post #90 For the perfect example of the nature of man see post #91. I don't intend to single out the poster or even make comment on the post. That's all irrelevant. I only call attention to the nature of the post. The second entry in particular.

I was never told what I should believe. I figured it out but only by the grace of God. It's not faith it's salvation. When you wake up a new man one that you hardly recognize, changes made by no decision of your own, you can't deny the power of Christ and The Lord's salvation.

If you want the answer to Grandmother vs Hitler check this out:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_Election

and this:
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/misunderstandings.html
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Graybeard on January 01, 2014, 12:20:54 PM
Redefine? No.
In a sentence I might say, "My faith is not in religion."
But I would be right in thinking that your faith is within the tenets of a religion?
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Hatter23 on January 02, 2014, 10:49:16 AM
Harbinger,

Are you re-defining words? This is what Dictionary.com says about religion -

Quote
religion
Use Religion in a sentence
re·li·gion
[ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4.
the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5.
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

The rituals are only a part of a religion.

Redefine? No.
In a sentence I might say, "My faith is not in religion."

And by that, you are redefining. Please review the above.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: harbinger77 on January 02, 2014, 09:58:56 PM
Redefine? No.
In a sentence I might say, "My faith is not in religion."
But I would be right in thinking that your faith is within the tenets of a religion?

Yes, as you understand it.
 My faith is in Christ. Not in for example being Church of Christ, Mormon, Catholic or JW. All of those (plus some) believe they are the one true religion and all others are damned. We could further expand to include completely opposing  forms of religion. They all base faith in something other than God. I say my faith is in God. You say God IS religion.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: ParkingPlaces on January 02, 2014, 10:32:51 PM
Yes, as you understand it.
 My faith is in Christ. Not in for example being Church of Christ, Mormon, Catholic or JW. All of those (plus some) believe they are the one true religion and all others are damned. We could further expand to include completely opposing  forms of religion. They all base faith in something other than God. I say my faith is in God. You say God IS religion.

Accepting that what you say above is true, how do you square your ability (which would almost have to be miraculous), to get it right while millions of others who call themselves Christians look at religion/god in different ways? Ways that you apparently often disagree with.

How come you know you have it right and also know that so many of them have it wrong.

And how are we, as atheists, supposed to differentiate between your version of "right" and the many other theists who have come here, also claiming to have it "right", but whose take on religion differs from your version in substantial ways?

This is a curiosity question, not a challenge.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: wheels5894 on January 03, 2014, 07:24:33 AM
Redefine? No.
In a sentence I might say, "My faith is not in religion."
But I would be right in thinking that your faith is within the tenets of a religion?

Yes, as you understand it.
 My faith is in Christ. Not in for example being Church of Christ, Mormon, Catholic or JW. All of those (plus some) believe they are the one true religion and all others are damned. We could further expand to include completely opposing  forms of religion. They all base faith in something other than God. I say my faith is in God. You say God IS religion.

Hold on a sec! Didn't you say in another thread you were a Calvinist? Isn't Calvinsim a religion?
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: jynnan tonnix on January 03, 2014, 01:13:26 PM
Yes, as you understand it.
 My faith is in Christ. Not in for example being Church of Christ, Mormon, Catholic or JW. All of those (plus some) believe they are the one true religion and all others are damned. We could further expand to include completely opposing  forms of religion. They all base faith in something other than God. I say my faith is in God. You say God IS religion.

Accepting that what you say above is true, how do you square your ability (which would almost have to be miraculous), to get it right while millions of others who call themselves Christians look at religion/god in different ways? Ways that you apparently often disagree with.

How come you know you have it right and also know that so many of them have it wrong.

And how are we, as atheists, supposed to differentiate between your version of "right" and the many other theists who have come here, also claiming to have it "right", but whose take on religion differs from your version in substantial ways?

This is a curiosity question, not a challenge.

This really does seem to be one of the single least-answered questions out there. Every Christian seems to think that by answering that THEY simply stick to what the Bible says makes it somehow clear. None of them will entertain the thought that if misinterpretation (running the gamut from demonic influence to simple SPAG) is possible for one person reading the very same book, then it is possible for anyone else including themselves.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: harbinger77 on January 04, 2014, 01:33:11 PM
Yes, as you understand it.
 My faith is in Christ. Not in for example being Church of Christ, Mormon, Catholic or JW. All of those (plus some) believe they are the one true religion and all others are damned. We could further expand to include completely opposing  forms of religion. They all base faith in something other than God. I say my faith is in God. You say God IS religion.

Accepting that what you say above is true, how do you square your ability (which would almost have to be miraculous), to get it right while millions of others who call themselves Christians look at religion/god in different ways? Ways that you apparently often disagree with.

How come you know you have it right and also know that so many of them have it wrong.

And how are we, as atheists, supposed to differentiate between your version of "right" and the many other theists who have come here, also claiming to have it "right", but whose take on religion differs from your version in substantial ways?

This is a curiosity question, not a challenge.

This really does seem to be one of the single least-answered questions out there. Every Christian seems to think that by answering that THEY simply stick to what the Bible says makes it somehow clear. None of them will entertain the thought that if misinterpretation (running the gamut from demonic influence to simple SPAG) is possible for one person reading the very same book, then it is possible for anyone else including themselves.

I'll concede to that being possible. The   heart is deceitful above all things. That's why as far as reading the bible goes you use Hermaneutics. If your interpretation contradicts the bible then your wrong. Personally I think it's related to what a person WANTS to believe rather than what the txt says. For example "god loves you" maybe he does but when we read ROM 9:13 we see that we can't say that absolutely.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics

can you provide me with an example of doctrine that we may discuss?
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: nogodsforme on January 05, 2014, 04:26:05 PM
Here's an example of doctrine that is confusing at best: why do so many people have faith while the rest of us just cannot get there? For us atheists, the world is like being the only sober person at a party where everyone else is high on drugs.

All around us people are pointing at stuff we can't see, dancing to music we can't hear, and laughing at things that aren't funny. However, unlike the drug party, there is nothing we can take to make us like the rest of the folks. There is no "god pill".[1]

Some people have the faith thing down easy; they read something in the bible or went to church and that did it for them. No matter how much what they learn flies in the face of objective reality, they manage to believe.

Others say that they did not believe, but then one day, in jail or at a revival meeting or just walking down the street, god slapped faith into them and they became religious overnight. Again, even though reality does not match up, they are able to believe and attribute it all to god's grace.

It appears that god grants some people this faith thing without them going through much effort. But what about the rest of us-- many of us have read various religious books, thought about god,  and attended various services. And nada.

So, does god alone decide who is to be given the gift of faith and therefore be saved? Or can we somehow persuade or convince god that we are among those who deserve to be saved? We get varying answers from believers, sometimes different answers from the same believer. I can recall a few who contradicted themselves in the same posting!

Most of us here were religious/god believers at some point in our lives. We started to question our beliefs, found too many holes and contradictions, and therefore became atheists. We lost our faith, and evidently god does not give a damn. Instead of giving us the evidence that we would need to believe, we get to interact with people who, in giving us lame old arguments full of illogic, re-convince us that there is probably no god.

For me, gods, religion, and all supernatural stuff are equally unproven and as unlikely as fairies, vampires, werewolves, ghosts, Santa and the Easter Bunny. Most people here on this site are in somewhat the same boat. So, we are still waiting, still not believing.

Not because we have found absolute proof of no god, since, as you say, such proof does not exist. Not because we worship Satan at cannibal orgies, or are evil psychos who torture puppies--most of us are pretty normal, incredibly law-abiding and rather boring. But we found not a bit of evidence that there was such a being.

We keep asking believers to present us with their evidence. In response, they point at stuff we cannot see and dance to music we can't hear. In other words, none so far.  :P
 1. I know there is research on the brain where scientists say they can reproduce religious feelings. That is not what I am talking about. I am assuming for the sake of argument that there is really a god person out there who wants to communicate with all humans.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: harbinger77 on January 06, 2014, 10:43:05 PM
Here's an example of doctrine that is confusing at best: why do so many people have faith while the rest of us just cannot get there? For us atheists, the world is like being the only sober person at a party where everyone else is high on drugs.

All around us people are pointing at stuff we can't see, dancing to music we can't hear, and laughing at things that aren't funny. However, unlike the drug party, there is nothing we can take to make us like the rest of the folks. There is no "god pill".[1]

Some people have the faith thing down easy; they read something in the bible or went to church and that did it for them. No matter how much what they learn flies in the face of objective reality, they manage to believe.

Others say that they did not believe, but then one day, in jail or at a revival meeting or just walking down the street, god slapped faith into them and they became religious overnight. Again, even though reality does not match up, they are able to believe and attribute it all to god's grace.

It appears that god grants some people this faith thing without them going through much effort. But what about the rest of us-- many of us have read various religious books, thought about god,  and attended various services. And nada.

So, does god alone decide who is to be given the gift of faith and therefore be saved? Or can we somehow persuade or convince god that we are among those who deserve to be saved? We get varying answers from believers, sometimes different answers from the same believer. I can recall a few who contradicted themselves in the same posting!

Most of us here were religious/god believers at some point in our lives. We started to question our beliefs, found too many holes and contradictions, and therefore became atheists. We lost our faith, and evidently god does not give a damn. Instead of giving us the evidence that we would need to believe, we get to interact with people who, in giving us lame old arguments full of illogic, re-convince us that there is probably no god.

For me, gods, religion, and all supernatural stuff are equally unproven and as unlikely as fairies, vampires, werewolves, ghosts, Santa and the Easter Bunny. Most people here on this site are in somewhat the same boat. So, we are still waiting, still not believing.

Not because we have found absolute proof of no god, since, as you say, such proof does not exist. Not because we worship Satan at cannibal orgies, or are evil psychos who torture puppies--most of us are pretty normal, incredibly law-abiding and rather boring. But we found not a bit of evidence that there was such a being.

We keep asking believers to present us with their evidence. In response, they point at stuff we cannot see and dance to music we can't hear. In other words, none so far.  :P
 1. I know there is research on the brain where scientists say they can reproduce religious feelings. That is not what I am talking about. I am assuming for the sake of argument that there is really a god person out there who wants to communicate with all humans.
You didn't propose a doctrine for discussion but I do have comments.

This post makes me a little sad. I mean you live a wonderful life That's good. I don't think all atheists are out running amok either. I'll bet some of you may even live a life that would make some Christians look like the Grinch. I get that. Your post drips with a spiritual sadness to me. Maybe these are my "God colored glasses" though. I believe you when you say SOME are truly looking for these contradictions to be rectified in a satisfactory way. I'm curious why the seekers went to the philosopher not the Man of God for the answers about God. Especially the ones who fell away. I know each story is different. Hanging out here and asking us to explain something to you is a bit like going to a university and asking the student to teach you physics when the professor sits across the room. Are you seeking what great men have taught over the years? sitting here and waiting for "the chosen one" is a bit like me sitting in my easy chair waiting for stephen hawking to pop in and teach me something. How do you know none of us are sent anyway?
I also see the other side of things. No matter how logical I speak. No matter the idea I present. Rather than check it out in an open minded fashion, it's dismissed in a knee jerk fashion. with a bit of ridicule and mudslinging most of the time. I recently had one disagree with his own theory. I used it as a tool we agree on to explain the answer to HIS question. Only one example, but this makes for a horrible atmosphere if one intends to learn something. Or teach for that matter.

  Aside from that as I've said many times if you really seek an answer ask me through PM It's been my experience that the conversation actually makes progress. The atmosphere in private is one of conversation rather than debate. Also neither of us can "dodge a question" I see that on both sides. This is not a declaration of innocence either.

 You see and maybe know people who have changed over night. How is that not the hint of the sign you seek? What happened to these people? What happened to Saul of Taurus?
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Saint_Paul
 
what about those early church fathers or the apostles even out of all the men who saw Jesus why did not one of them break and "tell the truth" so that he could live? Have you ever read Fox's Book of Martyrs? What happened to these guys?
http://m.ccel.org/ccel/foxe/martyrs/home.html
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: nogodsforme on January 06, 2014, 11:11:17 PM
People have "changed overnight" due to Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Santeria, psychotherapy, medication and AA.  Either all of them are true, or people just sometimes "change overnight". I have known of people who changed overnight (stopped running with gangs, drinking, smoking or using drugs, for example) with no religious influence at all--usually when they get a bit older, have children and/or need to straighten out their lives. Funny how people are so much more likely to "change overnight" in their 30's and 40's than in their teens and 20's.

Then there are many people who keep on doing bad stuff even to the point of losing their jobs, homes and families. Such out of control self-destruction is found in people of every culture and religious faith. I am inclined to believe that some people are able to change when they are ready to change, whether or not there is a religion involved. Some people, unfortunately, are not able to change and eventually die from alcoholism or drugs. It may be more related to genetics and brain chemistry than a "desire to sin", and science may someday find cures for it.[1]

As for why people become martyrs, when disavowing their faith would save their lives, again, people have died for Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. etc. Atheists have died for causes as well, like to defend their country or to save another's life.

If the only people who changed overnight or were willing to die for a cause were Christians, you might have a point. But it seems that a lot of people do the same.
 1. In ancient times, people thought that epilepsy and schizophrenia were caused by demons. Thanks to science, we are able to treat and help folks with these conditions.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: xyzzy on January 06, 2014, 11:57:39 PM
If the only people who changed overnight or were willing to die for a cause were Christians, you might have a point. But it seems that a lot of people do the same.

Interesting glasses, harbinger. I wonder if you wouldn't be able to see more clearly without them? Actually, nogodsforme makes the same kind of point as I was driving of when bringing up the Jesus-powered rose-coloured glasses.

Perhaps you've explained this and I missed it. But, consistently, you raise points that you claim support your position, yet seem unwilling to consider that the same things happen outside of your religion. It's a massive example of confirmation bias and of ignoring the counter-evidence all rolled into one.

Additionally, when you use "in-group" language, words and phrases that have no meaning to those of us that don't believe, it could just as well be goobledegook for the meaning it doesn't convey.

I mean, what on earth is "spiritual sadness"? That sounds like a made-up term so you can maintain your group-identity, and to allow you to dismiss counter-evidence on account of people not having this undefined thing that doesn't actually exist. I can only think it is Jesus-speak for "don't believe", but invoking "spiritual sadness" is probably as good as applying full power to the forward shields when it comes to deflecting incoming evidence.

So, please. Why do you want people to supply explanation for things to that happen to Christians in a manner other than being some proof of their faith, when the same things happen to everyone else? Using your examples, how do explain those folks who flew their planes into the World Trade Center. Were they secretly Christians in that they were willing to die for their cause?[1]

edit: Punctuation. How does it work?
 1. I'm not actually suggesting that they were Christian, just using your example to make a point
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: harbinger77 on January 07, 2014, 12:57:59 AM
People have "changed overnight" due to Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Santeria, psychotherapy, medication and AA.  Either all of them are true, or people just sometimes "change overnight". I have known of people who changed overnight (stopped running with gangs, drinking, smoking or using drugs, for example) with no religious influence at all--usually when they get a bit older, have children and/or need to straighten out their lives. Funny how people are so much more likely to "change overnight" in their 30's and 40's than in their teens and 20's.

Then there are many people who keep on doing bad stuff even to the point of losing their jobs, homes and families. Such out of control self-destruction is found in people of every culture and religious faith. I am inclined to believe that some people are able to change when they are ready to change, whether or not there is a religion involved. Some people, unfortunately, are not able to change and eventually die from alcoholism or drugs. It may be more related to genetics and brain chemistry than a "desire to sin", and science may someday find cures for it.[1]

As for why people become martyrs, when disavowing their faith would save their lives, again, people have died for Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. etc. Atheists have died for causes as well, like to defend their country or to save another's life.

If the only people who changed overnight or were willing to die for a cause were Christians, you might have a point. But it seems that a lot of people do the same.
 1. In ancient times, people thought that epilepsy and schizophrenia were caused by demons. Thanks to science, we are able to treat and help folks with these conditions.
I do not disagree with you. My point is  A change happens overnight literally overnight. This change was not due to any thoughts or ideas of the person changed. You offer life course scenarios that develop over time.

as for martyrdom being of all faiths. I think you're guessing. Aside from say war where the emotions are running high and it's kill or be killed. I don't think that makes a true martyr. It's the torture before the killing. The failed breaking of the will that results in the death by burning. Not saying I'm wrong. Can you provide cross faith references to such deaths?
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: harbinger77 on January 07, 2014, 01:18:13 AM
If the only people who changed overnight or were willing to die for a cause were Christians, you might have a point. But it seems that a lot of people do the same.

Interesting glasses, harbinger. I wonder if you wouldn't be able to see more clearly without them? Actually, nogodsforme makes the same kind of point as I was driving of when bringing up the Jesus-powered rose-coloured glasses.

Perhaps you've explained this and I missed it. But, consistently, you raise points that you claim support your position, yet seem unwilling to consider that the same things happen outside of your religion. It's a massive example of confirmation bias and of ignoring the counter-evidence all rolled into one.

Additionally, when you use "in-group" language, words and phrases that have no meaning to those of us that don't believe, it could just as well be goobledegook for the meaning it doesn't convey.

I mean, what on earth is "spiritual sadness"? That sounds like a made-up term so you can maintain your group-identity, and to allow you to dismiss counter-evidence on account of people not having this undefined thing that doesn't actually exist. I can only think it is Jesus-speak for "don't believe", but invoking "spiritual sadness" is probably as good as applying full power to the forward shields when it comes to deflecting incoming evidence.

So, please. Why do you want people to supply explanation for things to that happen to Christians in a manner other than being some proof of their faith, when the same things happen to everyone else? Using your examples, how do explain those folks who flew their planes into the World Trade Center. Were they secretly Christians in that they were willing to die for their cause?[1]

edit: Punctuation. How does it work?
 1. I'm not actually suggesting that they were Christian, just using your example to make a point

Muslim is a whole other ball game. These were not martyred people. Dripping with religious conviction maybe... even willing to die for a cause I guess so... but NOT martyrs.

Spiritual sadness it's sadness on a spiritual level. Forgetting for a second you don't believe in a spirit so it was lost.. I'm sorry I'll keep that in mind.

As for evidence given.... I hardly think faith is not real for me and some people I know is evidence. In fact it fits my theology. I'm quoting sources other than the Bible all the time. The only thread I can think of at the moment where I have seen a source used for evidence is when related to evolution or snake bites. Claims based on your idea of how the story would make sense does nothing for me. Claims based on what you see in your life or others? nope. Unsupported conjecture. If you seek to proselytize. I'm going to need to be presented with more than a personal story... Just like you.
That being said I'm always more than will to consider the other side... That's why i study other religions.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: xyzzy on January 07, 2014, 01:58:35 AM
Muslim is a whole other ball game. These were not martyred people. Dripping with religious conviction maybe... even willing to die for a cause I guess so... but NOT martyrs.
Gosh, are you going to continue in this mode forever? Throwing the field wide open when it suits you (recover from GERD, for example) then wanting a really narrow definition so that you can avoid answering the question, again?

Here are some Martyrs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martys) of different flavours. Now will you explain how you get to use this double standard of an act supporting Christianity yet the same act elsewhere is what? I don't know, I'm either not aware of your answer or I didn't understand it.

These other people above died as Martyrs. What does that tell us about their faith and yours? Their religion is true now? Yes?

Quote
Spiritual sadness it's sadness on a spiritual level. Forgetting for a second you don't believe in a spirit so it was lost.. I'm sorry I'll keep that in mind.
So, what does it mean? How does one determine spiritual sadness? Or, as above, is this just code for "non-believer" but expressed in a way that allows you to discount their legitimacy?

Quote
As for evidence given.... I hardly think faith is not real for me and some people I know is evidence. In fact it fits my theology. I'm quoting sources other than the Bible all the time. The only thread I can think of at the moment where I have seen a source used for evidence is when related to evolution or snake bites. Claims based on your idea of how the story would make sense does nothing for me. Claims based on what you see in your life or others? nope. Unsupported conjecture. If you seek to proselytize. I'm going to need to be presented with more than a personal story... Just like you.
That being said I'm always more than will to consider the other side... That's why i study other religions.
I'm sorry, harbinger, but I'm not sure what you are saying here in total and, specifically, I can't parse the part in bold. Would you please rephrase this entire paragraph in another manner?
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: nogodsforme on January 07, 2014, 04:23:18 PM
A martyr is an person who suffers greatly or dies, willingly, for a cause or belief, usually religious or political in nature. I just read four different definitions and have never seen a definition of martyr that says, and btw, the person has to be a Christian.

But even putting that silly factual information aside, do all Christian groups count in the martyr world?  Mormons or JW's have been persecuted for their faith and even died for it;  both groups consider themselves Christians. For example, Hitler and other dictators have imprisoned, tortured and killed JW's over the years for not submitting to any worldly authority. I clearly remember lists of countries with JW martyrs being read out so we could pray for them in the Kingdom Hall.

Lots of breakaway Protestants and others considered heretics by the Catholic church were tortured and killed in the Middle Ages. Many other Christians, including Catholics, have been imprisoned, tortured and killed by Soviet, Chinese and North Korean authorities in modern times. Some of the people who died at Jonestown in Guyana and members of the Branch Davidians considered themselves to be Christians-- the only true Christians in the world, of course.

If the argument is that the real martyrs are those who died willingly for their Christian religion, seem to me that you have to include an awful lot of folks who aren't thought of as Christians by most people. Unless you, harbinger, accept Mormons, JW's, various cultists and Catholics as Christians.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: harbinger77 on January 07, 2014, 07:47:54 PM
Ok. I'll agree my idea of martyer may be a bit different. Let's chalk it up to the way Atheists want to redefine the word atheist. A martyer does not have to be Christian. I never made that claim. For me There is a certain level of honor and dignity that martyrdom  requires. Torture must be present otherwise it's not all that impressive. These are the cases that speak to me. AND the ones I claim are unique and speak to the Christian truth. The out must be to simply renounce your god and or Jesus. The death must be at the hands of another. So strapping a bomb on and blowing yourself up does not make one a martyer. War is most often political. When one dies in battle it is not in the the defense of a god. or even religious beliefs. It's not a refusal to denounce your god. it's political. If you disagree name a war and lets study the religious roots of that war. You will need to supply some reference material though. Again, All I see is a bunch of conjecture. I said what a martyer is to me in the previous post. I tell you the aspect that speaks. I'm willing to see evidence of this happening  across all faiths.. it's your claim. You prove it. I already asked for evidence and have gotten none. I did look up WWII JW killed by the Nazis guess what  found...

Similarly, in the 20th century, thousands of Witnesses died at the hands of Hitler’s henchmen FOR maintaining their neutrality in political and nationalistic issues.
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2002082

This was political... NOT religious.
I won't do all the homework here. Not my burden. As I never claimed nor believe it happens accross the board with the same criteria. War is to closely related to national pride. 

Oh and Mormans.. Joseph smith getting killed by the angry mob was political NOT religious.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: ParkingPlaces on January 07, 2014, 07:57:08 PM
Ok. I'll agree my idea of martyer may be a bit different. Let's chalk it up to the way Atheists want to redefine the word atheist. A martyer does not have to be Christian. I never made that claim. For me There is a certain level of honor and dignity that martyrdom  requires. Torture must be present otherwise it's not all that impressive. These are the cases that speak to me. AND the ones I claim are unique and speak to the Christian truth. The out must be to simply renounce your god and or Jesus. The death must be at the hands of another. So strapping a bomb on and blowing yourself up does not make one a martyer. War is most often political. When one dies in battle it is not in the the defense of a god. or even religious beliefs. It's not a refusal to denounce your god. it's political. If you disagree name a war and lets study the religious roots of that war. You will need to supply some reference material though. Again, All I see is a bunch of conjecture. I said what a martyer is to me in the previous post. I tell you the aspect that speaks. I'm willing to see evidence of this happening  across all faiths.. it's your claim. You prove it. I already asked for evidence and have gotten none. I did look up WWII JW killed by the Nazis guess what  found...

Similarly, in the 20th century, thousands of Witnesses died at the hands of Hitler’s henchmen FOR maintaining their neutrality in political and nationalistic issues.
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2002082

This was political... NOT religious.
I won't do all the homework here. Not my burden. As I never claimed nor believe it happens accross the board with the same criteria. War is to closely related to national pride. 

Oh and Mormans.. Joseph smith getting killed by the angry mob was political NOT religious.

How about the Jews that the Germans worked to death during WWII? Or the ones hustled into gas chambers and killed? Do they qualify as martyrs by your definition? Or do they not count because they could not renounce their Judaism anyway?

And when Bruno was burned at the stake for daring to suggest that maybe the earth wasn't the center of the universe. By catholics? Was he a martyr?

What about the buddhist monks who burned themselves to death in protest of the war and their crooked government in S. Vietnam? Were they martyrs by your definition?

I'm guessing it is safe to assume that girls stoned to death by fellow muslims for having the temerity to get raped certainly are martyrs in your world.

I'm just trying to figure out exactly what your definition covers.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: harbinger77 on January 07, 2014, 10:33:37 PM
The holocaust really had nothing to do with religion rather bloodline. You could have been a Jewish atheist and still be worked to death. So yes they could not renounce the blood. Ever read Mein Kampf? That dude had some crazy Ideas about pure blood.. nothing really about religion... interesting to note Hitler was catholic though.

Bruno was burned for political reasons by the catholic church. If he could be called a martyer He would be a martyer for science not religion. At any rate whatever he started as in the end he was no Christian or even Catholic for that matter.

"In particular Bruno held firm to his belief
in the plurality of worlds, although he was admonished to abandon it. His trial was overseen by the Inquisitor Cardinal Bellarmine , who demanded a full recantation, which Bruno eventually refused."
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno

The monks killed themselves as a way to bring the worlds attention to what was going on in their country. Their death was not only at their own hands but was political not religious. Buddhist monks don't even believe in God by the way. Buddhism is called religion but it's really more of a philosophy.

The girl who was stoned for being raped... sad huh? She was killed because of the twisted beliefs of the muslims who threw the stones. she could have been hindu living under shria law. Her personal beliefs had nothing to do with her death.

I gave exactly what I consider a martyer to be. The ones we are talking about are the ones who didn't give up their religion even when tortured and facing a nasty death
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: nogodsforme on January 07, 2014, 10:45:49 PM
No, see people who are killed because they are Sikhs, Bahai's, Buddhists or Muslims can't possibly be religious martyrs. Only Christians can be real religious martyrs because only Christians have real religious beliefs. The millions of native folks, pagans and animists who were killed by Christians for not giving up their beliefs were actually political martyrs as well. Who cares whether they could have saved themselves by renouncing their religious beliefs. They are really dying for political reasons, so they don't count.  And atheists cannot be martyrs no matter what the circumstances--atheists have no beliefs, so they clearly can't die for them.....[1]  &)

Protestants and other heretics burned at the stake by the Catholic Church were not martyrs, either, because Europe was always having wars, so that makes all the deaths political. If a war or a government is involved in any way, that makes it political. Even if the people are clearly being tortured or killed because they are holding their contrary views due to their religion, or lack of the appropriate religion....

You know that is ridiculous, harbinger. You are working way too hard to try to prove that your religion is special, when it is not. When you have to keep on re-defining words until they fit your version of reality, you have already lost your argument. If a Buddhist monk calmly meditating and then immolating himself in a public square to protest an unjust war is not a martyr, then we have no useful definition of a martyr.

And I can't think of a better definition of a political martyr than a guy who pissed off the Roman Empire, became a political prisoner, and then along with a handful of other criminals, got himself executed by the government. &)
 1. The elderly Japanese engineers who bravely came out of retirement to enter the radioactive Fukushima reactor-- so the younger engineers could be saved from the radiation-- were atheist martyrs. They faced certain death from radiation poisoning, with no promise of a glorious reward in heaven, either. But I guess harbinger would say they were politically motivated or something, since atheists don't believe in anything.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: harbinger77 on January 07, 2014, 10:53:05 PM
No, see people who are killed because they are Sikhs, Bahai's, Buddhists or Muslims can't possibly be religious martyrs. Only Christians can be real religious martyrs because only Christians have real religious beliefs. The millions of native folks, pagans and animists who were killed by Christians for not giving up their beliefs were actually political martyrs as well. Who cares whether they could have saved themselves by renouncing their religious beliefs. They are really dying for political reasons, so they don't count.  And atheists cannot be martyrs no matter what the circumstances--atheists have no beliefs, so they clearly can't die for them.....[1]  &)

Protestants and other heretics burned at the stake by the Catholic Church were not martyrs, either, because Europe was always having wars, so that makes all the deaths political. If a war or a government is involved in any way, that makes it political. Even if the people are clearly being tortured or killed because they are holding their contrary views due to their religion, or lack of the appropriate religion....

You know that is ridiculous, harbinger. You are working way too hard to try to prove that your religion is special, when it is not. When you have to keep on re-defining words until they fit your version of reality, you have already lost your argument. If a Buddhist monk calmly meditating and then immolating himself in a public square to protest an unjust war is not a martyr, then we have no useful definition of a martyr.

And I can't think of a better definition of a political martyr than a guy who pissed off the Roman Empire, became a political prisoner, and then along with a handful of other criminals, got himself executed by the government. &)
 1. The elderly Japanese engineers who bravely came out of retirement to enter the radioactive Fukushima reactor-- so the younger engineers could be saved from the radiation-- were atheist martyrs. They faced certain death from radiation poisoning, with no promise of a glorious reward in heaven, either. But I guess harbinger would say they were politically motivated or something, since atheists don't believe in anything.

All claims and no links.... post some evidence so I can be shown I'm wrong.. don't just sit and post opinion.... It's not my claim the burden is not mine this time.

what about the atheist who redefines the word atheist to better describe a degree of non belief that was already represented by the word agnostic..

Are you not a little pot calling the kettle black there?
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: nogodsforme on January 07, 2014, 10:56:33 PM
If I posted links, would you believe them? The fact is, your religion is just one among many.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: harbinger77 on January 07, 2014, 11:00:04 PM
If I posted links, would you believe them? The fact is, your religion is just one among many.

I've been asking for you or anyone to do it... Sure I'll believe. My mind is not as closed as some are.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: jaimehlers on January 08, 2014, 12:38:48 AM
Muslim is a whole other ball game. These were not martyred people. Dripping with religious conviction maybe... even willing to die for a cause I guess so... but NOT martyrs.
You do not get to redefine the word "martyr" for your convenience.  A martyr, simply, is someone who dies because of their beliefs.  They don't have to be Christian beliefs, they don't even have to be religious beliefs.  They just have to be beliefs that someone thinks are worth dying for.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: xyzzy on January 08, 2014, 01:39:07 AM
If I posted links, would you believe them? The fact is, your religion is just one among many.

I've been asking for you or anyone to do it... Sure I'll believe. My mind is not as closed as some are.

Except that I did, and you continued to avoid answering the questions I have been asking of you.

Here it is, post #161
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,25096.msg593691.html#msg593691

Here's the link that was in there called out to be clearer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyr

The thing is, though, you seem to want to define things to fit your purpose so as to exclude counter examples as my post above explains.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Fiji on January 08, 2014, 03:38:38 AM
^^ But xyzzy, you don't understand, you see, Muslim martyrs weren't born in SCOTLAND.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Ivellios on January 08, 2014, 06:54:52 AM
Let's not forget the Spanish Inquisition either.

Jews were tortured and killed for the sake they were Jews. If they renounced thier heritage and religion and adopted Catholicism as thier One True Religion they would have been spared. I guess thier deaths were political, too.

If I don't post a link, are you going to say the Spanish Inquistion didn't happen either?

And I can't think of a better definition of a political martyr than a guy who pissed off the Roman Empire, became a political prisoner, and then along with a handful of other criminals, got himself executed by the government. &)

Harbinger for 'links' to this, how about open your bible and read Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. If Jesus was professing Jewish beliefs, they wouldn't have branded him a heretic. However, it wasn't the Pharisies and Sadducess that executed him. He was handed off to the Roman Government that Tried him, Scourged him, then executed him. See? Purely Political because the Government was involved.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Graybeard on January 08, 2014, 10:18:19 AM
harbinger77 ,
I have three of your answers here:
Redefine? No.
In a sentence I might say, "My faith is not in religion."
But I would be right in thinking that your faith is within the tenets of a religion?

Yes, as you understand it.
 My faith is in Christ. Not in for example being Church of Christ, Mormon, Catholic or JW. All of those (plus some) believe they are the one true religion and all others are damned. We could further expand to include completely opposing  forms of religion. They all base faith in something other than God. I say my faith is in God. You say God IS religion.

Redefine? No.
In a sentence I might say, "My faith is not in religion."
But I would be right in thinking that your faith is within the tenets of a religion?

Yes, as you understand it.
 My faith is in Christ. Not in for example being Church of Christ, Mormon, Catholic or JW. All of those (plus some) believe they are the one true religion and all others are damned. We could further expand to include completely opposing  forms of religion. They all base faith in something other than God. I say my faith is in God. You say God IS religion.

Hold on a sec! Didn't you say in another thread you were a Calvinist? Isn't Calvinsim a religion?

Yes, as you understand it.
 My faith is in Christ. Not in for example being Church of Christ, Mormon, Catholic or JW. All of those (plus some) believe they are the one true religion and all others are damned. We could further expand to include completely opposing  forms of religion. They all base faith in something other than God. I say my faith is in God. You say God IS religion.

Accepting that what you say above is true, how do you square your ability (which would almost have to be miraculous), to get it right while millions of others who call themselves Christians look at religion/god in different ways? Ways that you apparently often disagree with.

How come you know you have it right and also know that so many of them have it wrong.

And how are we, as atheists, supposed to differentiate between your version of "right" and the many other theists who have come here, also claiming to have it "right", but whose take on religion differs from your version in substantial ways?

This is a curiosity question, not a challenge.

This really does seem to be one of the single least-answered questions out there. Every Christian seems to think that by answering that THEY simply stick to what the Bible says makes it somehow clear. None of them will entertain the thought that if misinterpretation (running the gamut from demonic influence to simple SPAG) is possible for one person reading the very same book, then it is possible for anyone else including themselves.

I'll concede to that being possible. The   heart is deceitful above all things. That's why as far as reading the bible goes you use Hermaneutics. If your interpretation contradicts the bible then your wrong. Personally I think it's related to what a person WANTS to believe rather than what the txt says. For example "god loves you" maybe he does but when we read ROM 9:13 we see that we can't say that absolutely.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics

can you provide me with an example of doctrine that we may discuss?

This is all quite important. A simple reading of the above would seem to indicate that you are “simply a Christian” with no allegiance to any complete set of doctrines and dogma as professed by any established church.

If this is so, are you basically saying you are a prophet of God able to discern what it is He wants of mankind[1]?
 1. and also give a reasoned answer to any doctrine proposed by any other religion
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: jaimehlers on January 08, 2014, 10:27:53 AM
That strikes me more as typical Christian cherry-picking, Graybeard, than him getting a direct feed from God.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: nogodsforme on January 08, 2014, 04:12:42 PM
A link about the elderly Japanese engineers who are atheist martyrs, volunteering to face death for the cause of protecting the younger generation:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13598607

Christian engineers should have jumped at the chance to help out at Fukushima. Why didn't they? I have asked many times, why committed Christians do not routinely volunteer to do that kind of dangerous work in the service of all humanity.[1] There should be Christians by the millions working in the UN land mine removal program in Laos. Where are the pregnant Christian women lining up to let doctors test new AIDS or malaria drugs on them?  That would be an incredible boon to science and would save millions of babies in poor countries.

There are 2 billion people who claim to be some sort of Christian. There should be no shortage people to do the dangerous work of society. I have never gotten a single good answer from a theist, only excuses.

People who know for a fact that they are going to be with god for all eternity should make themselves useful in some really practical way here on earth, become martyrs, and get on with their trip to heaven. Instead, they make themselves annoying, serving as missionaries, bugging the poor people of the world about their religion. &)
 1. I am not saying that people should just kill themselves outright and go to heaven--that would only make them look crazy. I am saying they should perform useful but deadly work and go to heaven. What could be more convincing of their true faith than that?
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Hatter23 on January 08, 2014, 04:26:41 PM

There are 2 billion people who claim to be some sort of Christian. There should be no shortage people to do the dangerous work of society. I have never gotten a single good answer from a theist, only excuses.

People who know for a fact that they are going to be with god for all eternity should make themselves useful in some really practical way here on earth, become martyrs, and get on with their trip to heaven. Instead, they make themselves annoying, serving as missionaries, bugging the poor people of the world about their religion. &)

I was driving home from the goth club one foggy night. I saw a strange light up ahead. I slowed down and looked around the corner to see a car upside down on fire. A family was pounding on the windows as the roll had crushed the door handles. I ran up with my cane, broke the window and pulled the father from the car, and then others.

When that was done people who been watching from the darkness, came forth, their little gold crosses on their neck and "Thank God" on their lips, stating they were afaid to approch because the fire was on the gas tank.

Yet this little Atheist, who didn't think he would have gotten a sweet afterlife special, took the risk.

Telling, isn't it?
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: nogodsforme on January 08, 2014, 06:33:31 PM
^^^Good on you, Hatter. I once did something similar, pulling an old woman to safety out of the window of a bus with an exploding radiator. This was after I broke my toe jumping out the window myself. I went back for the old woman, who was sitting there going "Ay, dios, Jesus, Jesus" and waiting to die. The rest of the bus passengers, presumably Christians in this Hispanic country, stood by and watched, also going, "Ay, dios, Jesus, Jesus." It took this atheist to actually do something. Everyone else waited for Jesus.  &)
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: jaimehlers on January 08, 2014, 07:44:01 PM
I've never been in a situation like that, so I simply don't know.  I'm also rather cautious, but I have stopped to help people in less dire situations (like someone stopped by the side of the road because of car problems), and I also stopped to try to rescue a dying cat (as in, so badly starved/dehydrated that it wouldn't have lasted the day - sadly, I was too frantic to think clearly, so I didn't think to take him to the vet for advice, and he ended up dying anyway), so I'd like to think I would stop to help people in a dangerous situation.

I don't necessarily think it has anything to do with whether someone is Christian or not, though.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: harbinger77 on January 08, 2014, 08:54:47 PM
I'm not talking about martyrdom in general rather a specific aspect of it. Links that define Martyer are not what I was asking for. I mentioned the apostles and other Christians being tortured and put to death in horrid ways. I claim that this is compelling evidence for me. I even supplied a link for a whole book of examples that support my claim.

You made the counterclaim that people of all faiths are tortured yet never give up their gods or religion or even lack of even unto a horrid death. I want to read personal examples not conjecture... from the way you describe it, it should take a few seconds... So where is it?

 As for redefining words why does the Atheist get yo do it, but not the Christian?
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: jaimehlers on January 08, 2014, 09:34:45 PM
Not trying to be rude, harbinger, but you're basically nitpicking at this point.  If you mean a Christian martyr, then say that - but you don't get to define what early Christians supposedly went through as martyrdom and then act as if other martyrs don't count because their experiences weren't as severe, or whatever it is that you're trying to claim.  Besides, there are non-Christian figures who went through just as awful of experiences as Christian martyrs.  For example, the Greek philosopher Hypatia was pretty brutally murdered by a mob of Christians - clothing torn off, dragged through the streets, probably raped, torn to pieces, with the pieces being incinerated.  It's pretty obvious that she was a martyr, too.  I'm sure she could have 'repented' and saved her life from those Christian fanatics, but she clearly chose to put her beliefs above her life.

By the way, if an atheist were to redefine some word for their convenience, I'd call them on it too.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: nogodsforme on January 08, 2014, 09:36:15 PM
Before I or anyone else goes through the trouble of researching religious martyrs from non-Christian faiths (when it seems like you have already decided that anyone who seems to be a non-Christian martyr actually isn't one) a couple more questions.

1)Why would you assume that there would not be martyrs from other faiths?

You continue to maintain that your faith and yours alone invites believers so committed they are willing to give their lives. Even if you think their religions are false, the people within those traditions believe in them. People throughout history have died (and killed) because they thought their religion was true, even when it was clearly false to outsiders.

2) Do you accept Catholic martyrs as legit or do the Christian martyrs have to be Protestant Christians? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_martyrs_of_the_English_Reformation

3) Do you accept that most of the indigenous people who died for their faith did not leave records? History is written by the winners, and the Christians won.

However, there is this famous story: The Caribbean Taino cacique (chief) Hatuey fled with his people but was captured by Christians and burned alive. As they were tying him to the stake a Franciscan friar urged him to take Jesus to his heart so that his soul might go to heaven, rather than descend into hell. Hatuey replied that if heaven was where the Christians went, he would rather go to hell. Now, that's a martyr. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatuey

Here are a whole bunch of Sikh people in India who were tortured and killed for not renouncing their faith and accepting Islam. The stories are quite detailed and the tortures are pretty graphic. Some are embellished with supernatural stuff, like the guy who continued to fight even after his head was severed. In other words, every bit as believable as all the stories of Christian martyrs. http://greatsikhism.com/sikhmartyrs.html

The Maya and Aztec of Mexico believed, for hundred of years, that the gods needed human sacrifices to keep the universe going. I don't doubt that there were people who offered themselves for the ceremonies if there weren't enough slaves and prisoners to make all the gods happy.[1] Native Americans thought that their gods would protect them if they did the ghost dance. They rode straight into the US Calvary bullets and died. Christians murdered thousands of people accused of witchcraft, as did the Crusaders, thinking that god wanted them to do it.

These people were all wrong. So are you, but that does not mean you are not sincerely committed to your beliefs, just as they were.
 1. The people of Mexico don't do human sacrifices anymore, and yet the universe is still going. I guess the "human sacrifice" thing was a metaphor or a parable.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: harbinger77 on January 09, 2014, 01:09:59 AM
harbinger77 ,
I have three of your answers here:
Redefine? No.
In a sentence I might say, "My faith is not in religion."
But I would be right in thinking that your faith is within the tenets of a religion?

Yes, as you understand it.
 My faith is in Christ. Not in for example being Church of Christ, Mormon, Catholic or JW. All of those (plus some) believe they are the one true religion and all others are damned. We could further expand to include completely opposing  forms of religion. They all base faith in something other than God. I say my faith is in God. You say God IS religion.

Redefine? No.
In a sentence I might say, "My faith is not in religion."
But I would be right in thinking that your faith is within the tenets of a religion?

Yes, as you understand it.
 My faith is in Christ. Not in for example being Church of Christ, Mormon, Catholic or JW. All of those (plus some) believe they are the one true religion and all others are damned. We could further expand to include completely opposing  forms of religion. They all base faith in something other than God. I say my faith is in God. You say God IS religion.

Hold on a sec! Didn't you say in another thread you were a Calvinist? Isn't Calvinsim a religion?

Yes, as you understand it.
 My faith is in Christ. Not in for example being Church of Christ, Mormon, Catholic or JW. All of those (plus some) believe they are the one true religion and all others are damned. We could further expand to include completely opposing  forms of religion. They all base faith in something other than God. I say my faith is in God. You say God IS religion.

Accepting that what you say above is true, how do you square your ability (which would almost have to be miraculous), to get it right while millions of others who call themselves Christians look at religion/god in different ways? Ways that you apparently often disagree with.

How come you know you have it right and also know that so many of them have it wrong.

And how are we, as atheists, supposed to differentiate between your version of "right" and the many other theists who have come here, also claiming to have it "right", but whose take on religion differs from your version in substantial ways?

This is a curiosity question, not a challenge.

This really does seem to be one of the single least-answered questions out there. Every Christian seems to think that by answering that THEY simply stick to what the Bible says makes it somehow clear. None of them will entertain the thought that if misinterpretation (running the gamut from demonic influence to simple SPAG) is possible for one person reading the very same book, then it is possible for anyone else including themselves.

I'll concede to that being possible. The   heart is deceitful above all things. That's why as far as reading the bible goes you use Hermaneutics. If your interpretation contradicts the bible then your wrong. Personally I think it's related to what a person WANTS to believe rather than what the txt says. For example "god loves you" maybe he does but when we read ROM 9:13 we see that we can't say that absolutely.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics

can you provide me with an example of doctrine that we may discuss?

This is all quite important. A simple reading of the above would seem to indicate that you are “simply a Christian” with no allegiance to any complete set of doctrines and dogma as professed by any established church.

If this is so, are you basically saying you are a prophet of God able to discern what it is He wants of mankind[1]?
 1. and also give a reasoned answer to any doctrine proposed by any other religion

A prophet??! I didn't say anything prophetic there.  My answers are not all that unique.... I can support any one of those ideas with scripture. I'm simply a Christian yes sir! No true affiliation. Church the building is of man. Church is the fellowship of people. In a field or where ever the location even is not important. That's what God intends.

If I have any kind of prophetic message it's not for you. What could i say that hasn't been said before by men twice what I am. I  don't have enough pride to think I can convince any of you.

I think as Atheists you would all get a kick out of this. I'll share what's on my heart concerning the church.. prophetic? No.. main stream not even in a dream. This makes me cry sometimes..

2Tim3:1-6
 1 But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come.
2 For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money,
boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy,
3 unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good,…
4 treacherous, reckless, conceited,
lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of
God,
5 holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; Avoid such men as these.
6 For among them are those who enter into
households and captivate weak women weighed down with sins, led on by various impulses,

This is the "church" today. All this division. living like it's nobody's business. Even the atheist mocks your "Godly power" let alone your so called righteous living. WAKE UP! You are a stench unto your Lord!
If all the stories you all shared are correct in all detail then you see prophesy before you.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: harbinger77 on January 09, 2014, 01:46:43 AM
These people were all wrong. So are you, but that does not mean you are not sincerely committed to your beliefs, just as they were.

Thank you for doing a bit of home work. I concede the argument others have indeed faced brutality and clung fast to a belief. However, believing is one thing. We still have all the apostles who if they "made it up" would KNOW it was false. Now that we have established people all over die for opinions, traditions. The question is who dies knowingly for a lie?
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Foxy Freedom on January 09, 2014, 02:09:40 AM

Thank you for doing a bit of home work. I concede the argument others have indeed faced brutality and clung fast to a belief. However, believing is one thing. We still have all the apostles who if they "made it up" would KNOW it was false. Now that we have established people all over die for opinions, traditions. The question is who dies knowingly for a lie?

Name a lie that people have not died for.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Foxy Freedom on January 09, 2014, 02:31:16 AM
Thank you for doing a bit of home work. I concede the argument others have indeed faced brutality and clung fast to a belief. However, believing is one thing. We still have all the apostles who if they "made it up" would KNOW it was false. Now that we have established people all over die for opinions, traditions. The question is who dies knowingly for a lie?

Now for your other statement. The apostles did not make it up, Paul did. That is why the apostles fought against Paul and why the Christian church declared the original Jerusalem church of the apostles a heresy, or did you not know that?
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: harbinger77 on January 09, 2014, 02:50:42 AM
Thank you for doing a bit of home work. I concede the argument others have indeed faced brutality and clung fast to a belief. However, believing is one thing. We still have all the apostles who if they "made it up" would KNOW it was false. Now that we have established people all over die for opinions, traditions. The question is who dies knowingly for a lie?

Now for your other statement. The apostles did not make it up, Paul did. That is why the apostles fought against Paul and why the Christian church declared the original Jerusalem church of the apostles a heresy, or did you not know that?
not so fast.. the "it" that I'm referring to is the resurrection of Christ. I think it's pretty clear the apostles know something about that.
 show me where people died KNOWING what they die for is a lie...
Tell the truth and live or maybe at least die a quicker death type scenario.

If you are referring to Messianic Judaism doctrine on Paul I'm aware of it and it does not stand the hermanutical test. If not... lets see a link for such a claim.

Unsubstantiated claims do nothing for me...
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Foxy Freedom on January 09, 2014, 03:38:49 AM
Thank you for doing a bit of home work. I concede the argument others have indeed faced brutality and clung fast to a belief. However, believing is one thing. We still have all the apostles who if they "made it up" would KNOW it was false. Now that we have established people all over die for opinions, traditions. The question is who dies knowingly for a lie?

Now for your other statement. The apostles did not make it up, Paul did. That is why the apostles fought against Paul and why the Christian church declared the original Jerusalem church of the apostles a heresy, or did you not know that?
not so fast.. the "it" that I'm referring to is the resurrection of Christ. I think it's pretty clear the apostles know something about that.
 show me where people died KNOWING what they die for is a lie...
Tell the truth and live or maybe at least die a quicker death type scenario.

If you are referring to Messianic Judaism doctrine on Paul I'm aware of it and it does not stand the hermanutical test. If not... lets see a link for such a claim.

Unsubstantiated claims do nothing for me...

Why do people have to know it is a lie? People can convince themselves of anything. Think of the flat earth society which still exists, the UFO abductions which people claim to have experienced and countless other nonsense which is still around even in today's age of information technology.

Now for the resurrection. Jesus was not the only person to have a botched crucifixion. No one dies on a cross in a six hours, it takes three to four days to die of exhaustion. His followers could convince themselves of whatever they wanted.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Ivellios on January 09, 2014, 06:50:14 AM
Not only that, people in the old days knew sometimes when someone was thought to be dead they might not be[1]. That's why it was traditionaly held that in order to be considered 'dead', they had to be dead for 72 hours. Jesus was barely "dead" 36 hours. If this happened a few centuries later, someone would have still been on 'bell' watch. That's what they started doing because sometimes when a body was exhumed it became clear they were buried alive.
 1. they didn't have the sophisicated instrements we have today
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Fiji on January 09, 2014, 08:37:25 AM
That's the reason Jonah was said to have been in the whale for 3 days. It happened often enough that someone got up after being in a coma for two days that, had the story been that Jonah was in the whale for two days, people would just go, "yeah, so what, people do that sometimes ... get up after two days, what's the miracle".

But as written, the story becomes a miracle ... three days in a whale? Oh, he's dead. There ain't no coming back from that!
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Hatter23 on January 09, 2014, 08:40:09 AM
I don't necessarily think it has anything to do with whether someone is Christian or not, though.

I'm not stating their Christianity prevented or dissuaded them from risking their lives. Not at all. After all their are plenty  of  Volunteer fire men who are Catholics, for instance. What I am saying is the man with no hope or belief in a reward took the risk for others, and those who supposedly had said belief didn't.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: harbinger77 on January 09, 2014, 09:30:36 AM
Thank you for doing a bit of home work. I concede the argument others have indeed faced brutality and clung fast to a belief. However, believing is one thing. We still have all the apostles who if they "made it up" would KNOW it was false. Now that we have established people all over die for opinions, traditions. The question is who dies knowingly for a lie?

Now for your other statement. The apostles did not make it up, Paul did. That is why the apostles fought against Paul and why the Christian church declared the original Jerusalem church of the apostles a heresy, or did you not know that?
not so fast.. the "it" that I'm referring to is the resurrection of Christ. I think it's pretty clear the apostles know something about that.
 show me where people died KNOWING what they die for is a lie...
Tell the truth and live or maybe at least die a quicker death type scenario.

If you are referring to Messianic Judaism doctrine on Paul I'm aware of it and it does not stand the hermanutical test. If not... lets see a link for such a claim.

Unsubstantiated claims do nothing for me...

Why do people have to know it is a lie? People can convince themselves of anything. Think of the flat earth society which still exists, the UFO abductions which people claim to have experienced and countless other nonsense which is still around even in today's age of information technology.

Now for the resurrection. Jesus was not the only person to have a botched crucifixion. No one dies on a cross in a six hours, it takes three to four days to die of exhaustion. His followers could convince themselves of whatever they wanted.

This is a specific event not a generalization.
You provide examples of things people have convinced themselves of by collecting "evidence." UFO abductions for example. These people already believe "they are out there" so to laps into some crazy hallucination based on something you believe to be true is not a long shot. I really think the flat earth guys must be akin to the spaghetti monster guys. It's gotta be a joke. Even  so  these conspiracy types have never been to space. How can they KNOW they believe a lie?

Jesus was not allowed to hang till death they didn't want him up there during the pass over. He was stabbed in his lung to induce a quicker death. Some would even say Jesus was never Killed. Rather He decided when he was done. He gave up His own ghost. No man could take it from Him.

The apostles, and jews still, believed the Messiah would come in power and over throw the Roman empire to establish His kingdom on earth. They never did believe, and still don't, that Jesus would die on a cross. This is what Jews believe and what the apostles were looking for in the Messiah. When jesus died they thought they had the wrong guy.

That being true, and it is. They would KNOW for a fact they made it up. First hand account. Why would they die for a KNOWN lie? Why would a jew run around telling people the Messiah came when it was totally contrary to what the jews held about the Messiah?

stabbed in the lung, beaten to near death, hung on a cross. and survived with no medical attention. You still have the ascension to account for. Also witnessed by the apostles.

Can someone provide evidence for this 2 day comma thing? And botched crucifictions too. It sounds like speculation to me.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: xyzzy on January 09, 2014, 10:01:06 AM
harbinger, you must be one of the fittest Christian's I've met - what with all that goalpost shifting that you do on a regular basis.

In the subject in general, we've covered healing, Martyrs, your definition of Martyrs who can only be Christian, now we're at not just dying for a lie, but knowingly (purposefully?) dying for a lie.

As above, this seems to be your common response - redefine what you want, but refuse to accept any counter examples. And it won't stop, will it? Shall we just proceed to "well, show me an example exactly like the apostles, using only the apostles, described exactly as I believe it to have happened, then we can talk?".

Now, I'm not being as flippant as it seems. This point has been made by others, but its almost as if nothing else matters other than you having your examples to make your point? It seems that you are less interested in this being a Christian-only example, than you are of it being an argument to defend your faith? The requests for examples then serve as diversions that allow you to dismiss the counterexamples, rather than your taking a step back and critically comparing the claims?

After all, you've been given a lot of different examples, but none seem to serve to get you to reconsider that we started with what seemed to be the allusion that these things were only to be found in Christianity.

On and thank you for continuing not to clearly answer the question about why the events that you claim as supporting Christianity in general, happen outside of Christianity, sometimes being used to justify other beliefs, or simply happening with equal probability to believers and nonbelievers alike. I'm guessing, as alluded by Fiji, that they didn't involve enough Scotsmen?[1]
 1. Fallacy of no true Scotsman - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: jaimehlers on January 09, 2014, 11:24:05 AM
This is a specific event not a generalization.
You have to prove that this "specific event" actually happened, not just take what's written in the Bible as the Gospel truth.  More to the point, for someone who claims to have been abducted by a UFO, it was a specific event, not a generalization.  Not only that, but it was a specific event for them - something they claim happened to them personally.  I'll throw in another one as well, people who claim to be the reincarnation of Jesus.  For them, it's a specific event, not a generalization.  The fact remains that it's up to them to prove that those things are actually true - and it's up to you to prove that your own "specific event" happened, even though it was two thousand years ago and occurred to someone else.

Quote from: harbinger77
You provide examples of things people have convinced themselves of by collecting "evidence." UFO abductions for example. These people already believe "they are out there" so to laps into some crazy hallucination based on something you believe to be true is not a long shot. I really think the flat earth guys must be akin to the spaghetti monster guys. It's gotta be a joke. Even  so  these conspiracy types have never been to space. How can they KNOW they believe a lie?
Granted.  But the same goes for you.  You've convinced yourself of something based on the supposed eyewitness testimony in the Bible - which you can't even verify was written by the same people who supposedly witnessed it, let alone whether it actually happened.  So how do you get around this very same problem?  Your own faith can't prove it happened; the faith of every Christian put together can't do that..

Quote from: harbinger77
Jesus was not allowed to hang till death they didn't want him up there during the pass over. He was stabbed in his lung to induce a quicker death. Some would even say Jesus was never Killed. Rather He decided when he was done. He gave up His own ghost. No man could take it from Him.
I thought the Bible said he was stabbed in the side?  Regardless, the whole story of the crucifixion is apocryphal.  The nails that were supposedly used on him (instead of the ropes used to tie ordinary criminals to their own crosses), being stabbed, all of it - it's based on stuff written in the Bible and has no corroborating evidence, let alone verification.  We don't even know for sure who actually wrote those stories down.

Quote from: harbinger77
The apostles, and jews still, believed the Messiah would come in power and over throw the Roman empire to establish His kingdom on earth. They never did believe, and still don't, that Jesus would die on a cross. This is what Jews believe and what the apostles were looking for in the Messiah. When jesus died they thought they had the wrong guy.
I thought the apostles were swiftly converted once Jesus "rose from the dead"?  Which is another apocryphal story.  We don't even know if there was a tomb, let alone if anyone was ever buried there.

Quote from: harbinger77
That being true, and it is. They would KNOW for a fact they made it up. First hand account. Why would they die for a KNOWN lie? Why would a jew run around telling people the Messiah came when it was totally contrary to what the jews held about the Messiah?
I think the point that other people are trying to make to you is that it doesn't matter whether someone knows that something is a lie or not.  If it is a lie, then them believing it true doesn't make it any less of a lie.

Quote from: harbinger77
stabbed in the lung, beaten to near death, hung on a cross. and survived with no medical attention. You still have the ascension to account for. Also witnessed by the apostles.
Assuming any of it ever happened in the first place.  Assuming the apostles were real people, and that they witnessed a real event.

Quote from: harbinger77
Can someone provide evidence for this 2 day comma thing? And botched crucifictions too. It sounds like speculation to me.
First off, the whole point of crucifixion was to deliver a slow, agonizing death.  That's why this business of Jesus being stabbed to hasten his death is so suspect.  If anything, the usual method to hasten death was breaking the legs.  Stabbing was usually reserved for ensuring that someone was already dead and not faking it[1].

Second, considering that people have survived firing squads, hangings, electrocution, and even being impaled, why would you assume that crucifixion was somehow a foolproof way to kill someone?  Some people can just take a lot of punishment without dying from it, to the point where they look dead.  If you then assume they are dead and, say, bury them, they could wake up later on.

I don't have anything regarding delaying three days to declare someone dead, so I'll leave that for someone else.  However, even modern doctors have occasionally declared someone dead who isn't, so it's not hard to believe that ancient doctors, with far less medical knowledge, could do the same thing.
 1. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080528084041AA6Znch (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080528084041AA6Znch)
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: harbinger77 on January 09, 2014, 11:26:11 AM
harbinger, you must be one of the fittest Christian's I've met - what with all that goalpost shifting that you do on a regular basis.

In the subject in general, we've covered healing, Martyrs, your definition of Martyrs who can only be Christian, now we're at not just dying for a lie, but knowingly (purposefully?) dying for a lie.

As above, this seems to be your common response - redefine what you want, but refuse to accept any counter examples. And it won't stop, will it? Shall we just proceed to "well, show me an example exactly like the apostles, using only the apostles, described exactly as I believe it to have happened, then we can talk?".

Now, I'm not being as flippant as it seems. This point has been made by others, but its almost as if nothing else matters other than you having your examples to make your point? It seems that you are less interested in this being a Christian-only example, than you are of it being an argument to defend your faith? The requests for examples then serve as diversions that allow you to dismiss the counterexamples, rather than your taking a step back and critically comparing the claims?

After all, you've been given a lot of different examples, but none seem to serve to get you to reconsider that we started with what seemed to be the allusion that these things were only to be found in Christianity.

On and thank you for continuing not to clearly answer the question about why the events that you claim as supporting Christianity in general, happen outside of Christianity, sometimes being used to justify other beliefs, or simply happening with equal probability to believers and nonbelievers alike. I'm guessing, as alluded by Fiji, that they didn't involve enough Scotsmen?[1]
 1. Fallacy of no true Scotsman - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
no... AN example would suffice. I've seen nothing but unsupported story telling so far.
I never once said a martyer can only be christian. Aside from that I've conceded the argument. I was wrong.

defending a position.. that's kind of the heart of debate. I gave an idea that is supported. I have read nothing but stories of speculation. I want examples.

The claim of things happening outside Christianity was not directed at me, so far as I'm aware. Unless healing is the case? I gave that up a while back. The only thing I can say is even the devil poses as an angel of light that he may trick who he will. If it was directed to me concerning people who Die a death clinging to what they KNOW is a lie, my answer remains a simple show your evidence and we can discuss these things.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Mrjason on January 09, 2014, 11:40:54 AM

Can someone provide evidence for this 2 day comma thing?

Quote
A coma can last hours, days or even months. Some people remain in a coma for years, although this is unusual
[1]
Being in a coma for 2 days is entirely feasible and within the realms of known medicine.
Surviving in a coma, without being fed or watered, for more than 2 days is unlikely.
Back in the day people would not have known that they were supposed to feed these apparently dead people.
Hence any longer than a couple of days and the people in coma's that were though to be dead would actually have died from dehydration and all the stuff associated with it.

 
 1. http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/coma/Pages/Introduction.aspx (http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/coma/Pages/Introduction.aspx)
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: harbinger77 on January 09, 2014, 11:41:33 AM
This is a specific event not a generalization.
You have to prove that this "specific event" actually happened, not just take what's written in the Bible as the Gospel truth.  More to the point, for someone who claims to have been abducted by a UFO, it was a specific event, not a generalization.  Not only that, but it was a specific event for them - something they claim happened to them personally.  I'll throw in another one as well, people who claim to be the reincarnation of Jesus.  For them, it's a specific event, not a generalization.  The fact remains that it's up to them to prove that those things are actually true - and it's up to you to prove that your own "specific event" happened, even though it was two thousand years ago and occurred to someone else.

Quote from: harbinger77
You provide examples of things people have convinced themselves of by collecting "evidence." UFO abductions for example. These people already believe "they are out there" so to laps into some crazy hallucination based on something you believe to be true is not a long shot. I really think the flat earth guys must be akin to the spaghetti monster guys. It's gotta be a joke. Even  so  these conspiracy types have never been to space. How can they KNOW they believe a lie?
Granted.  But the same goes for you.  You've convinced yourself of something based on the supposed eyewitness testimony in the Bible - which you can't even verify was written by the same people who supposedly witnessed it, let alone whether it actually happened.  So how do you get around this very same problem?  Your own faith can't prove it happened; the faith of every Christian put together can't do that..

Quote from: harbinger77
Jesus was not allowed to hang till death they didn't want him up there during the pass over. He was stabbed in his lung to induce a quicker death. Some would even say Jesus was never Killed. Rather He decided when he was done. He gave up His own ghost. No man could take it from Him.
I thought the Bible said he was stabbed in the side?  Regardless, the whole story of the crucifixion is apocryphal.  The nails that were supposedly used on him (instead of the ropes used to tie ordinary criminals to their own crosses), being stabbed, all of it - it's based on stuff written in the Bible and has no corroborating evidence, let alone verification.  We don't even know for sure who actually wrote those stories down.

Quote from: harbinger77
The apostles, and jews still, believed the Messiah would come in power and over throw the Roman empire to establish His kingdom on earth. They never did believe, and still don't, that Jesus would die on a cross. This is what Jews believe and what the apostles were looking for in the Messiah. When jesus died they thought they had the wrong guy.
I thought the apostles were swiftly converted once Jesus "rose from the dead"?  Which is another apocryphal story.  We don't even know if there was a tomb, let alone if anyone was ever buried there.

Quote from: harbinger77
That being true, and it is. They would KNOW for a fact they made it up. First hand account. Why would they die for a KNOWN lie? Why would a jew run around telling people the Messiah came when it was totally contrary to what the jews held about the Messiah?
I think the point that other people are trying to make to you is that it doesn't matter whether someone knows that something is a lie or not.  If it is a lie, then them believing it true doesn't make it any less of a lie.

Quote from: harbinger77
stabbed in the lung, beaten to near death, hung on a cross. and survived with no medical attention. You still have the ascension to account for. Also witnessed by the apostles.
Assuming any of it ever happened in the first place.  Assuming the apostles were real people, and that they witnessed a real event.

Quote from: harbinger77
Can someone provide evidence for this 2 day comma thing? And botched crucifictions too. It sounds like speculation to me.
First off, the whole point of crucifixion was to deliver a slow, agonizing death.  That's why this business of Jesus being stabbed to hasten his death is so suspect.  If anything, the usual method to hasten death was breaking the legs.  Stabbing was usually reserved for ensuring that someone was already dead and not faking it[1].

Second, considering that people have survived firing squads, hangings, electrocution, and even being impaled, why would you assume that crucifixion was somehow a foolproof way to kill someone?  Some people can just take a lot of punishment without dying from it, to the point where they look dead.  If you then assume they are dead and, say, bury them, they could wake up later on.

I don't have anything regarding delaying three days to declare someone dead, so I'll leave that for someone else.  However, even modern doctors have occasionally declared someone dead who isn't, so it's not hard to believe that ancient doctors, with far less medical knowledge, could do the same thing.
 1. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080528084041AA6Znch (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080528084041AA6Znch)

yes the same goes for me... I'm not the focus here. The focus is the apostles.

I suppose I could search for the works and quotes of the historians... but I think this is pretty fair. Do I need to go deeper?

http://www.evidenceforchristianity.org/what-is-the-evidence-for-the-martyrdom-of-the-apostles-which-is-often-used-to-support-the-believability-of-the-resurrection/

You supply only a good story. I think your weak link lies in the Romans. They would have killed the surviving criminal. Just as we do today. His legs remained  unbroken fulfilling prophesy.
36 These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: "Not one of his bones will be broken

His death was hastened because of the pass over being the next day. I've already covered that though. Even if he didn't really die. Which i won't concede. You still have the ascension....
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: nogodsforme on January 09, 2014, 11:50:04 AM
I guess now that we have some bona fide examples of non-Christian martyrs, harbinger has dropped that as a topic......oookay then. &)

harbinger, are you going to answer my questions about who qualifies as a martyr?
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Hatter23 on January 09, 2014, 11:59:03 AM
You made the counterclaim that people of all faiths are tortured yet never give up their gods or religion or even lack of even unto a horrid death. I want to read personal examples not conjecture... from the way you describe it, it should take a few seconds... So where is it?


Every Jew that didn't convert during the inquistion is a nice IIRC 20,000 examples to start with.
The victims of King Harald of Norway also come to mind
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Foxy Freedom on January 09, 2014, 12:37:07 PM
1) I really think the flat earth guys must be akin to the spaghetti monster guys. It's gotta be a joke. Even  so  these conspiracy types have never been to space. How can they KNOW they believe a lie?

2) stabbed in the lung, beaten to near death, hung on a cross. and survived with no medical attention. You still have the ascension to account for. Also witnessed by the apostles.

3) Can someone provide evidence for this 2 day comma thing? And botched crucifictions too. It sounds like speculation to me.

1) It is always easier to see other people's mistakes than your own. Other people can see that your ideas and religion are a joke more easily than you can.

2) You really don't want to move on to the ascension as evidence do you? It is such an obvious literary device based on biblical cosmology. You can modernise it if you want to, by saying that Jesus was beamed up to a UFO. Some people say that. No doubt you think they are joking.

3) You are setting up a mental block against ideas, which you don't like. Be more aware of your own emotional reasons and motives for your beliefs. I think you implied earlier that you had been in dangerous situations where you had to kill people. I totally understand why military people have a psychological need to lessen the impact of their situation through religion and through the belief that there is more than just this life.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: jaimehlers on January 09, 2014, 12:55:07 PM
yes the same goes for me... I'm not the focus here. The focus is the apostles.

I suppose I could search for the works and quotes of the historians... but I think this is pretty fair. Do I need to go deeper?

http://www.evidenceforchristianity.org/what-is-the-evidence-for-the-martyrdom-of-the-apostles-which-is-often-used-to-support-the-believability-of-the-resurrection/
That isn't even close to evidence.  First off, it provides no sources whatsoever for its information, meaning that it's questionable at best.  Second, it refers to things which might or might not be true - such as James being executed by Herod Antipas.  Third, it doesn't even attempt to corroborate things the Bible claims with things written about in contemporary accounts.  In short, it's just his opinion - and given how cavalierly he treats the whole thing, it isn't what I'd call an informed opinion.

Quote from: harbinger77
You supply only a good story. I think your weak link lies in the Romans. They would have killed the surviving criminal. Just as we do today. His legs remained  unbroken fulfilling prophesy.
36 These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: "Not one of his bones will be broken
Haven't you realized that the authors of the Bible would have been well aware of what the prophecies said and very likely would have modified things to account for them, whether or not they were actually true?  There are plenty of recorded instances of ancient scribes modifying their transcriptions of more ancient writings in order to make more sense.

And that's just one kind of intentional scribal error.  Here's a good article which gives information on several kinds of scribal errors, both intentional and not:  http://blog.ancientlives.org/2013/05/06/scribal-error-in-biblical-manuscripts/ (http://blog.ancientlives.org/2013/05/06/scribal-error-in-biblical-manuscripts/)

Quote from: harbinger77
His death was hastened because of the pass over being the next day. I've already covered that though. Even if he didn't really die. Which i won't concede. You still have the ascension....
I say again, you have to prove that this whole crucifixion thing happened in the first place - not merely keep saying it did.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: harbinger77 on January 09, 2014, 03:44:31 PM
I guess now that we have some bona fide examples of non-Christian martyrs, harbinger has dropped that as a topic......oookay then. &)

harbinger, are you going to answer my questions about who qualifies as a martyr?

You missed Post #184.. the martyer question was answered several times as well...
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: harbinger77 on January 09, 2014, 03:53:02 PM
1) I really think the flat earth guys must be akin to the spaghetti monster guys. It's gotta be a joke. Even  so  these conspiracy types have never been to space. How can they KNOW they believe a lie?

2) stabbed in the lung, beaten to near death, hung on a cross. and survived with no medical attention. You still have the ascension to account for. Also witnessed by the apostles.

3) Can someone provide evidence for this 2 day comma thing? And botched crucifictions too. It sounds like speculation to me.

1) It is always easier to see other people's mistakes than your own. Other people can see that your ideas and religion are a joke more easily than you can.

2) You really don't want to move on to the ascension as evidence do you? It is such an obvious literary device based on biblical cosmology. You can modernise it if you want to, by saying that Jesus was beamed up to a UFO. Some people say that. No doubt you think they are joking.

3) You are setting up a mental block against ideas, which you don't like. Be more aware of your own emotional reasons and motives for your beliefs. I think you implied earlier that you had been in dangerous situations where you had to kill people. I totally understand why military people have a psychological need to lessen the impact of their situation through religion and through the belief that there is more than just this life.

We are not quite ready for the ascension yet. I suppose we will get there though. If you want to start preparing a supported case though That may be nice.
 I've set up a mental block against unsupported story telling... This much is true... Why do I have to prove my ideas while you all get to make stuff up with no support?
I guess what my question would really be how do you KNOW these things??
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: jdawg70 on January 09, 2014, 04:19:42 PM
We are not quite ready for the ascension yet. I suppose we will get there though. If you want to start preparing a supported case though That may be nice.
 I've set up a mental block against unsupported story telling... This much is true... Why do I have to prove my ideas while you all get to make stuff up with no support?
I guess what my question would really be how do you KNOW these things??
I'm not sure what claims you're referring to, but let's just say I don't know these things, or am just wrong about these things.

Why would that change the fact that you still have the burden of proof for your claims?
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: harbinger77 on January 09, 2014, 09:16:48 PM
We are not quite ready for the ascension yet. I suppose we will get there though. If you want to start preparing a supported case though That may be nice.
 I've set up a mental block against unsupported story telling... This much is true... Why do I have to prove my ideas while you all get to make stuff up with no support?
I guess what my question would really be how do you KNOW these things??
I'm not sure what claims you're referring to, but let's just say I don't know these things, or am just wrong about these things.

Why would that change the fact that you still have the burden of proof for your claims?

someone else did the work. Do I need to dig deeper to find the actual documents?

http://knowwhatyoubelieve.com/believe/evidence/external_evidence_test.htm

I'm still waiting for something that supports your own claims. Making a claim creates the burden of proof. I've been doing my part. What of your claims?
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: jdawg70 on January 09, 2014, 11:13:47 PM
someone else did the work. Do I need to dig deeper to find the actual documents?

http://knowwhatyoubelieve.com/believe/evidence/external_evidence_test.htm

I'm still waiting for something that supports your own claims. Making a claim creates the burden of proof. I've been doing my part. What of your claims?
Seeing as how I didn't make any claim at all, I think we can both agree that I have no burden of proof.  I was merely clarifying the fact that, since you are making claims, you do indeed have the burden of proof.

I find it weird that you simultaneously say that you've "been doing your part" and asking:

Why do I have to prove my ideas while you all get to make stuff up with no support?

By all means continue calling others out if they make a claim that you feel needs to be better substantiated.  That's fine.  For example, you had asked for someone to provide evidence for 'this 2 day coma thing'.  Mrjason was kind enough to provide some evidence that 2 day comas are occurrences that are known to happen.  I doubt anyone would be able to produce any evidence that Jesus specifically suffered from a 2 day coma, but it is something that is known to occur, so it goes into the category of 'reasonable realm of possibility'.

A man dying and coming back to life is something that is not an occurrence known to happen, and in fact there is evidence to suggest that dead people do not resurrect.  That you claim that a man in the distant past did indeed rise from the dead is rather extraordinary, so that specific claim needs a little more than anecdotal stories in an old book to back that claim up before it becomes remotely believable.

If I handed you a book that had 37 eyewitness signatures on the front of it attesting to the authenticity of someone translating old golden tablets by poking his head into a hat, and that these translations were the word of god, wouldn't you need just a *tad* more evidence before you believed that?

Again, if you feel someone makes a claim that needs to be better substantiated, go ahead and ask.  Just don't think that claim that 'some dudes back in the day could sometimes f**k up crucifixions' requires the same level of evidence as 'the son of the all-powerful master of the universe died and was resurrected to pay the price for your sins'.  You'll either end up believing all sorts of kooky stuff (god's gonna be pissed if you drink coffee), or you'll drive yourself insane deriving proof that you hitting the 'i' key on your keyboard will produce an 'i' on the monitor you're looking at right now.

Perhaps some here are 'making stuff up', but they're making up believable stuff (i.e. perhaps Jesus was in a coma for 2 days).  Perhaps you are 'making stuff up', but you're making up rather unbelievable stuff (i.e. the lord and master of the universe magicked his son into human form on Earth 2000+ years ago in order to suffer and die, so that he could be subsequently resurrected to cleanse mankind of sin).  Both sides have the burden of proof, but the further detached from reality the claim is, the further you need to go to provide evidence for it.  And stories from an old-a** book simply are not going to cut it.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Ivellios on January 09, 2014, 11:27:15 PM
If I was to say that I have a dog at my house. People having dogs in thier house is a common occurance, so most people would accept it, but clearly you would not. You would demand proof.

If there was a dusty old book from 2,000 years ago that claimed that there was a purple pony that the equivelant of a John Smith rode into town one day, would you believe it? Considering that you believe something even more outlandish, I'm guessing you would.

I think you have your priorieties backwards.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: harbinger77 on January 10, 2014, 10:18:38 AM
If I was to say that I have a dog at my house. People having dogs in thier house is a common occurance, so most people would accept it, but clearly you would not. You would demand proof.

If there was a dusty old book from 2,000 years ago that claimed that there was a purple pony that the equivelant of a John Smith rode into town one day, would you believe it? Considering that you believe something even more outlandish, I'm guessing you would.

I think you have your priorieties backwards.

Mormonism was actually something that required very fine study. Is the story at face value believable? Sure is. Do the 8 EYE witnesses do a lot to substantiate the claim? I do think it so. Note: Not 37 I would  have to check my copy but it's 2 Categories of people no more than 12 in total, I believe. However when you study the 3 Separate and different  visions of John smith given by Smith himself. It becomes doubtful. Also "witnesses" later came forward and said they never saw such things. If one admits the truth the testimony of the other 7 becomes questionable.

Are claims in the Bible outlandish and hard to believe. Yes I agree. That's why it requires in depth study. What bothers me is people who have done no study. Yet speak as though they have. If I claim these things are true and offer evidence they are as I have. (we are on the topic of the apostles) If you make the counter claim then I would expect you can support the counter claim

For example.. You claim you have a dog. Lets say my claim is you have no dog. If I have a picture of your back yard and see no evidence of a dog being present, you would need to support your claim as I have supported mine. Perhaps a picture of you with your dog would support your claim? Going deeper still, If I just didn't want to believe you own a dog I may claim something like that's the neighbors dog. Whatever my counter claim shouldn't there be some evidence to support it? That's all I'm asking support your counter claim.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Hatter23 on January 10, 2014, 10:49:36 AM

Are claims in the Bible outlandish and hard to believe. Yes I agree. That's why it requires in depth study. What bothers me is people who have done no study. Yet speak as though they have. If I claim these things are true and offer evidence they are as I have.

So how do you treat the Iliad? Do you apply the same standards?
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: jaimehlers on January 10, 2014, 11:37:11 AM
harbinger, eyewitnesses are not particularly reliable as a source of testimony.  It's been shown time and again that an eyewitness's memory can and does change based on what they believe to be true.  This article (http://www.apa.org/monitor/apr06/eyewitness.aspx) examines just how unreliable eyewitness testimony can be, especially the last section.  I especially liked the following quote, from Dr. Gary Wells, a member of a panel commissioned by the Department of Justice to establish guidelines of eyewitness testimony:  "Like trace evidence, eyewitness evidence can be contaminated, lost, destroyed or otherwise made to produce results that can lead to an incorrect reconstruction of the crime."

There's also the fact that simple changes in how a question is phrased to an eyewitness can change their answers, as reported in this article (http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/the_memory_doctor/2010/05/leading_the_witness.html).  Think about it - simply changing the verb used can cause people to report different things.  There's an even more disturbing point on the second page - if you show people series of pictures while telling them a story about a crime (with a suspect and several innocent characters), and then show them a picture of one of the innocents plus three unrelated people several days later, 60% of them will misidentify the innocent as the suspect, and another 16% will pick one of the unrelated people as the suspect.  That's over 75% - three out of four.

Worse, after watching a mock crime and then being shown a police lineup that doesn't include the actual perpetrator, 33% of people will pick someone anyway - and that goes up to 78% if the police express confidence that they have the perpetrator in the lineup.

And on top of that, eyewitnesses who discuss their recollections with each other will tend to conform their memories to each other - even if that changes their recollections from what actually happened.  This article's (http://www.simplypsychology.org/eyewitness-testimony.html) section on reconstructive memory touches on that - people who all heard a story remembered it slightly differently, and as they were allowed to recount and discuss it with each other, they changed the stories, usually by simplifying or omitting details.

So, no, having eyewitnesses to something who all claim to remember it the same way is pure hogwash.  So those eight eyewitnesses to John Smith, the founder of Mormonism, actually reduce the likelihood that things happened the way they claimed.  Most likely, they all talked about it afterward (and with John Smith, to boot), and ultimately talked themselves into believing that something miraculous had happened.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: xyzzy on January 10, 2014, 12:30:38 PM
harbinger, eyewitnesses are not particularly reliable as a source of testimony.  It's been shown time and again that an eyewitness's memory can and does change based on what they believe to be true. 
Oh my gosh, yes.

harbinger, jamiehlers point really needs pressing home. In the real world people's lives and liberty can be irreversibly altered through misidentification, false-memories, and a whole slew of associated issues. That this can happen as a result of the actions of good, honest, truly well-meaning people, ought to give you cause for concern.

In your case, you're basing some other form of life-or-death decision on a process that we know can be so prone to error that sometimes even no evidence might be preferable to incorrect, although well-intentioned, eyewitness testimony.

All of this, and we're still not touching the question of if such testimony is real or manufactured in the first place.

I won't quote from it so as not to detract from the excellent post above. But please read the following from the American Bar Association. If they are concerned about it, and it's a fundamental part of American jurisprudence, then so too should you.

http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/trialevidence/articles/winterspring2012-0512-eyewitness-testimony-unreliable.html
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: wheels5894 on January 10, 2014, 12:43:53 PM
Mormonism was actually something that required very fine study. Is the story at face value believable? Sure is. Do the 8 EYE witnesses do a lot to substantiate the claim? I do think it so. Note: Not 37 I would  have to check my copy but it's 2 Categories of people no more than 12 in total, I believe. However when you study the 3 Separate and different  visions of John smith given by Smith himself. It becomes doubtful. Also "witnesses" later came forward and said they never saw such things. If one admits the truth the testimony of the other 7 becomes questionable.

So some of the witnesses retracted their statements later did they? We no doubt know about it as in the days of Joseph Smith, there was a lively press who reported everything going to the populace. The problem with it is that it is quite possible that the same things happened at the time of Jesus but that because of any significant media no one managed to report and save the details. Thus the church could go its merry way and ignore those those who spoke against it.

Are claims in the Bible outlandish and hard to believe. Yes I agree. That's why it requires in depth study. [/quote]
 And how does in depth study help? Outlandish claims as outlandish claims studied or not studied. The bible presents these outlandish claims, offers nothing more to back them up than Joseph Smith and his witnesses but you believe one but not the other. Why is that?

A religion like Mormonism can easily  demonstrate errors that kill itself - like telling us the the Native Americans are really Jews who crossed in 600BCE when DNA testing shows they came over from Russia 13,000 years ago. We have ofund this stuff out recently. It is quite likely that if we have access to the early church we might also have found things that would have shown thier religion was false, just like the witnesses.

Quote
What bothers me is people who have done no study. Yet speak as though they have. If I claim these things are true and offer evidence they are as I have. (we are on the topic of the apostles) If you make the counter claim then I would expect you can support the counter claim

Many people here are ex-Christians and are actually quite knowledgeable about the bible and Christian doctrines.

Quote
For example.. You claim you have a dog. Lets say my claim is you have no dog. If I have a picture of your back yard and see no evidence of a dog being present, you would need to support your claim as I have supported mine. Perhaps a picture of you with your dog would support your claim? Going deeper still, If I just didn't want to believe you own a dog I may claim something like that's the neighbors dog. Whatever my counter claim shouldn't there be some evidence to support it? That's all I'm asking support your counter claim.

Perfect example with the dog, Harbinger. We could use pictures, we might use a vets bill or even a certificate of vaccination to show that the dog existed and was real as claimed. Yet when it comes to god its, 'mysterious' and so forth. That's the problem with claims about god. If there really was a god who created everything and who loves and cares for his creatures it is impossible to think that he would be so unwilling to give us the evidence of this.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: harbinger77 on January 10, 2014, 04:02:14 PM

Are claims in the Bible outlandish and hard to believe. Yes I agree. That's why it requires in depth study. What bothers me is people who have done no study. Yet speak as though they have. If I claim these things are true and offer evidence they are as I have.

So how do you treat the Iliad? Do you apply the same standards?

I love that story. I believe there could possibly SOME truth to it although some is rather wild.

I'll ask a question concerning this literary work. Do you believe this story is handed down just the way Homer wrote it. Or was there undoubtedly changes made over the 2500 years or so? Also what if any proof do you have of your position?
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: harbinger77 on January 10, 2014, 05:04:55 PM
I'll tell you what each and every one of you are good at... Misdirection...
claim: (obviously false) the moon is made of cheese.
I submit item x as my evidence.

Counter claim: the moon is not made of cheese I submit my laughter and further more there are lots of rocks in space. and as proof of rocks I offer item x...

At least you support your misdirection though.
I did feel the liberty to pull a quote from the link Provided:
http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/trialevidence/articles/winterspring2012-0512-eyewitness-testimony-unreliable.html

...imprisoned in Texas for a 1979 rape and robbery he did not commit, largely due to a SINGLE eyewitness identification.
Violence, stress, and the presence of a weapon during an incident actually weaken
memory. Racial differences between the witness and the suspect can impair identifications.
Unconscious transference, or confusing someone seen in one place with someone seen in another place, is common. Identification can also be impaired by how long the witness is exposed to the suspect, the delay between the incident and the identification, and post-event information, such as feedback from the police or other witnesses.

This is all VICTIM eyewitness testimony. I guess if The apostles were victims, or if the historians were victims maybe you would have something. Even then the rape victim knows she was raped. Just uncertain of the details up to and including the criminal. Jesus was a close friend in the least. I think The 12 eyewitnesses knew who was on the cross. They also knew who he was when he returned.



who will be the first to quote me as saying the moon is made of cheese? who is willing to admit the thought crossed their mind? I know it crossed mine.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: jdawg70 on January 10, 2014, 05:09:25 PM

Are claims in the Bible outlandish and hard to believe. Yes I agree. That's why it requires in depth study. What bothers me is people who have done no study. Yet speak as though they have. If I claim these things are true and offer evidence they are as I have.

So how do you treat the Iliad? Do you apply the same standards?

I love that story. I believe there could possibly SOME truth to it although some is rather wild.

I'll ask a question concerning this literary work. Do you believe this story is handed down just the way Homer wrote it. Or was there undoubtedly changes made over the 2500 years or so? Also what if any proof do you have of your position?
Hatter23's position of...

This is the second time that you've asked someone to 'back their claim' when they didn't make a claim.  I know that 'turning someone's argument against them' is a very useful and effective tactic, but you've got to do it right.  For example:

I love that story.  I believe there could possibly be SOME truth to it, although some is rather wild.

I'll ask a question concerning this literary work.  Do you believe this story is handed down just the way the biblical authors wrote it?  Or was there undoubtedly changes made over the last 2500 years or so?  Also, what, if any, proof do you have of your position that god exists and the bible is his word?
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: harbinger77 on January 10, 2014, 05:19:52 PM



[1].

Second, considering that people have survived firing squads, hangings, electrocution, and even being impaled...
 1. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080528084041AA6Znch (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080528084041AA6Znch)

I don't know how I glossed over this... The link you provided was yahoo answers "has anyone ever survived a roman crucifixion?" best answer 6 yrs ago was "not really"

what I'm more surprised by, I glossed over impalement... a large shaft inserted anally until it comes out of the victim's mouth... You really think people survive that?
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: harbinger77 on January 10, 2014, 05:40:29 PM

Are claims in the Bible outlandish and hard to believe. Yes I agree. That's why it requires in depth study. What bothers me is people who have done no study. Yet speak as though they have. If I claim these things are true and offer evidence they are as I have.

So how do you treat the Iliad? Do you apply the same standards?

I love that story. I believe there could possibly SOME truth to it although some is rather wild.

I'll ask a question concerning this literary work. Do you believe this story is handed down just the way Homer wrote it. Or was there undoubtedly changes made over the 2500 years or so? Also what if any proof do you have of your position?
Hatter23's position of...

This is the second time that you've asked someone to 'back their claim' when they didn't make a claim.  I know that 'turning someone's argument against them' is a very useful and effective tactic, but you've got to do it right.  For example:

I love that story.  I believe there could possibly be SOME truth to it, although some is rather wild.

I'll ask a question concerning this literary work.  Do you believe this story is handed down just the way the biblical authors wrote it?  Or was there undoubtedly changes made over the last 2500 years or so?  Also, what, if any, proof do you have of your position that god exists and the bible is his word?

I most certainly do plan to answer the question you have turned back on me. However, could you allow the first question to be answered... first?
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Ivellios on January 10, 2014, 06:19:36 PM
Mormonism was actually something that required very fine study.

If you say so...  :?

Is the story at face value believable? Sure is.

Clearly you do not live in the the same USA I do, if you live in the USA. I thought that's where you're from, but with a whole world out there... I could be wrong.

Do the 8 EYE witnesses do a lot to substantiate the claim? I do think it so. Note: Not 37 I would  have to check my copy but it's 2 Categories of people no more than 12 in total, I believe.

Have you ever heard of someone being paid to endorse something? Just because some actor may say that [brand][something] is better than every other [different brand][something] does that necessarialy make it so? Maybe they were in a room where someone was cooking off Halluccinagens, err "incense" and were primed to see whatever JS wanted them to? Who knows? Point is, people will say anything, if the price is right, or under the influence of something.

However when you study the 3 Separate and different  visions of John smith given by Smith himself. It becomes doubtful. Also "witnesses" later came forward and said they never saw such things. If one admits the truth the testimony of the other 7 becomes questionable.


You just stated that 8 EYE witnesses do a lot to substantiate a claim and here you acknowledge, that it could all be made up! Mormanism isn't the only religion where people were making stuff up and trying to get other people to believe thier crap.

Are claims in the Bible outlandish and hard to believe. Yes I agree. That's why it requires in depth study.


Been there, done that. Read the entire, Bible I have. Did you know in Aramaic there is no 'juh' or 'jee' sounds associated to any 'letter?' Each and every name in the bible that starts with 'J' is certainly not as it seems. 

  What bothers me is people who have done no study. Yet speak as though they have.


Yeshua - 'God is salvation' If 'Jesus' really lived, this would have been his name. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshua_%28name%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshua_%28name%29) But any Greek would know, only a manly man would have an 'S' or 'N' at the end of thier name. Jesus is derived from Iesoûs which is greek for 'Hail Zues' http://www.hiddenbible.com/jesuszeus/jesuszeus.html (http://www.hiddenbible.com/jesuszeus/jesuszeus.html)


If I claim these things are true and offer evidence they are as I have. (we are on the topic of the apostles) If you make the counter claim then I would expect you can support the counter claim

Yet, you claim that you are saved and cannot provide proof, other than you 'feel' it?

For example.. You claim you have a dog. Lets say my claim is you have no dog. If I have a picture of your back yard and see no evidence of a dog being present, you would need to support your claim as I have supported mine.

It's an indoor dog.

Perhaps a picture of you with your dog would support your claim? Going deeper still, If I just didn't want to believe you own a dog I may claim something like that's the neighbors dog.


Of course, no matter how much evidence I can give you. If you don't want to believe it, you're not going to.

Whatever my counter claim shouldn't there be some evidence to support it? That's all I'm asking support your counter claim.


a) If I propose that I have a dog, you don't have to prove I do not have one. The burden of proof is upon me. You can accept that people having dogs is common enough that you do not require proof. However, should you decide that you do need proof, it is upon me to show evidence.

b) If I were to propose that I have a purple pony. Purple ponies are not common, or even rare, so I would expect that you demand proof before you believe my claim. If you were to believe it outright I would think of you as gullible. Would you need to 'prove' that the purple pony does not exist? No, of course not. It a futile endevour. You cannot prove the nonexistence of something. There could be purple ponies on another planet that we have not discovered. So, it would be upon me, to prove it to you, that I have a purple pony.

So therefore, I would be simply supporting my own claim. It is not a "counter claim." I propose a claim, then I support if asked for evidence. No countering anything. If there was a counter, it would be from you, but since it is my claim, I'd have to provide the evidece to convince you. You countering my claim about a purple pony is as futile as countering that I have coins in my pocket, or that I have a dog. You cannot prove to me that I do not have a dog, if I state that I do. I will always find a way that I can have a dog that beats your 'evidence/proof.'

If I cannot provide evidence that I have a dog, then if I'm intellecually honest with myself, I have to determine 'why' I cannot provide proof. Maybe I just have an overactive imagination and just don't want to admit that I have an imaginary friend. Or, I find someone that can take a picture of my dog and I.  Maybe I just made it all up, just to make a point?

Edit: forums turned the greek e into a ?.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: jdawg70 on January 10, 2014, 06:49:32 PM
I most certainly do plan to answer the question you have turned back on me. However, could you allow the first question to be answered... first?
Which question exactly are you talking about?
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: harbinger77 on January 10, 2014, 07:58:46 PM
I most certainly do plan to answer the question you have turned back on me. However, could you allow the first question to be answered... first?
Which question exactly are you talking about?
Quote from: harbinger77
I'll ask a question concerning this literary work. Do you believe this story is handed down just the way
Homer wrote it. Or was there undoubtedly changes made over the 2500 years or so? Also what if any
proof do you have of your position?

that one
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Foxy Freedom on January 10, 2014, 08:38:37 PM
I most certainly do plan to answer the question you have turned back on me. However, could you allow the first question to be answered... first?
Which question exactly are you talking about?
Quote from: harbinger77
I'll ask a question concerning this literary work. Do you believe this story is handed down just the way
Homer wrote it. Or was there undoubtedly changes made over the 2500 years or so? Also what if any
proof do you have of your position?

that one

The poems which are known under the name of Homer were never the products of a single author. They are oral tradition. The standard text was written later.

Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Hatter23 on January 11, 2014, 03:35:30 AM
I most certainly do plan to answer the question you have turned back on me. However, could you allow the first question to be answered... first?
Which question exactly are you talking about?
Quote from: harbinger77
I'll ask a question concerning this literary work. Do you believe this story is handed down just the way
Homer wrote it. Or was there undoubtedly changes made over the 2500 years or so? Also what if any
proof do you have of your position?

that one

The poems which are known under the name of Homer were never the products of a single author. They are oral tradition. The standard text was written later.

You mean not dissimilar to other known works of roughly the same age.  Yes H77, at the very least the translations between languages as well as the Vulgate versus the Ambrosian versions.

Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: harbinger77 on January 11, 2014, 12:10:21 PM
The original question was rather I hold the iliad to the same standard.
 "same standard" is the point. IF you hold that the iliad is true to it's text as passed down since it was penned, I would assume by surviving earliest documents. Then you must by the same standard conclude the same of the Bible based on the same evidence. Even more so. As one is a story and no one denies it. The other, Thought to be the word of God would have been treated with much more care.  So my real question is Do you hold the bible to the same standard by which you judge the text of the iliad?

Closest ancient work - Homer (Iliad) - 643 copies, 500 years between original and copy, internal consistency - 95%

 New Testament - 5,600 copies, less than 100 years between original and copy, internal consistency
- 99.5% In addition there are over 19,000 copies in the Syriac, Latin, Coptic, and Aramaic
languages.  The total supporting New Testament manuscript base is over 24,000.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110310112754AARjZB2

The New Testament is constantly under attack and its reliability and accuracy are often contested by
critics. But, if the critics want to disregard the New Testament, then they must also disregard other ancient writings by Plato, Aristotle, and Homer. This is because the New Testament documents are better-preserved and more numerous than any other ancient writings. Because they are so numerous, they can be cross checked for accuracy
http://carm.org/manuscript-evidence
Food for thought.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: wheels5894 on January 11, 2014, 12:28:52 PM
The original question was rather I hold the Iliad to the same standard.
 "same standard" is the point. IF you hold that the Iliad is true to it's text as passed down since it was penned, I would assume by surviving earliest documents. Then you must by the same standard conclude the same of the Bible based on the same evidence. Even more so. As one is a story and no one denies it. The other, Thought to be the word of God would have been treated with much more care.  So my real question is Do you hold the bible to the same standard by which you judge the text of the Iliad?

I'm glad you said 'thought to be the word of god'. The word 'thought' leads to other things. one of the problems of textual studies is that whilst we may be able to work out just what a document says, we are unable to work out why a person wrote the document or what the author was thinking when they wrote it.  Now although we can read Homer and the NT and we can decide what each says and means, that certainly does not mean we know why the author wrote the text or what it was supposed to be.

There are plenty of books of fiction where the author takes on the first person persona of one of the characters in the story. Reading a book like that hardly tell one anything about the author - only the character can be recovered. We only know that the book is fiction if the book tells us or by looking in what area of the shop or library the book is kept. To be honest I would say I would file both Home and the Bible on the same shelf.

Quote
Closest ancient work - Homer (Iliad) - 643 copies, 500 years between original and copy, internal consistency - 95%

 New Testament - 5,600 copies, less than 100 years between original and copy, internal consistency
- 99.5% In addition there are over 19,000 copies in the Syriac, Latin, Coptic, and Aramaic
languages.  The total supporting New Testament manuscript base is over 24,000.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110310112754AARjZB2

Are you trying to same might is right? That the book with the largest number of copies is true? I do hope not. Yes, we all know there are a lot of manuscripts of the bible - each church and synagogue had to have copies so of course there were a lot. Mind, I think you'll find that the dating for Homer means that it is very early for the creation of books and thus a fewer number is whta one would expect. It was likely an oral tale for years.

Quote
The New Testament is constantly under attack and its reliability and accuracy are often contested by
critics. But, if the critics want to disregard the New Testament, then they must also disregard other ancient writings by Plato, Aristotle, and Homer. This is because the New Testament documents are better-preserved and more numerous than any other ancient writings. Because they are so numerous, they can be cross checked for accuracy
http://carm.org/manuscript-evidence
Food for thought.

Now there is accuracy and accuracy isn't there? We can be sure that the texts were fairly well copied but that just means that late copies read much the same as early one. One the other hand, when we want to see if the text accurately reflects the history it claims to represent, then that is a different question entirely. Historically there are various problems with the NT texts as well as lack of outside support for the contents. All the major figures in the NT fail to put in an appearance in any contemporaneous documents.

We can mention Peter, Paul. Jesus, the gospel writers (whoever they were) are all known only in the NT texts. To anyone doing history, this sounds very odd. Of course if we are talking about texts that were written well after the events they claim to portray and if they were created to show that some OT prophecies were fulfilled, then that would make sense as, of course, the main characters would have been inventions (like Adam and Eve, Noah and the rest) and so would not appear in and outside source.

The fact is the need to believe has made people blind to the obvious textual and historical problems of these texts so that people would rather defend them that really research them. In fact, I wonder if we gave the NT and the Iliad to a person who had never seen either he would classify them differently - I rather think not.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Hatter23 on January 11, 2014, 03:22:49 PM
  So my real question is Do you hold the bible to the same standard by which you judge the text of the iliad?

Absolutely. They are both ancient tales written long ago. They may, and likely, contain mythologized history. The were/are groups that treated them as core documents that transmitted the values of their civilization and culture. They are therefore of enormous literary value.

However, they have within them fantastical tales of deities and magic. These tales do not correspond with what we observe in our day to day life. Since people are know to hallucinate, lie, and exaggerate, the claims made by each document should be treated with skepticism, particularly if the claim violate known physical laws. Internal consistency is irrelevant if the claims are not consistent with scientific and archeological record.

Furthermore some of the mores and values expressed within these documents do not match modern morality. This should be expected as the people who wrote them were from a different and more primitive culture.

Same standard.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: harbinger77 on January 11, 2014, 04:07:10 PM
Quote from: wheels
Historically there are various problems with the NT texts as well as lack of outside support for
the contents. All the major figures in the NT fail to put in an appearance in any contemporaneous
documents.

Your full post seems to both agree and disagree at the same time. My point was the value of the text alone, As I stated.
With that being said, which one historical location, person, or item would you like to start with. Or can we finally stop the misdirection and get back to the historians I have already presented as mentioning not only Jesus, but all 12 of the apostles and the martyrdom of some of these apostles?

Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: jaimehlers on January 11, 2014, 04:40:41 PM
I don't know how I glossed over this... The link you provided was yahoo answers "has anyone ever survived a roman crucifixion?" best answer 6 yrs ago was "not really"
Thus why I didn't actually use it to defend the proposition that people had survived crucifixions.  Though, in fact, they could - provided they were taken down before too much time had passed.  But my point was to show that people can and have survived every method of execution (except when it involves removing the head from the body).  It really depends on the person.  Some people die very quickly from shock, some people hang on for hours or days, and in the latter case, they can survive for a surprisingly long time.  Indeed, it's often lack of food/water that ends up killing them in that case.

Quote from: harbinger77
what I'm more surprised by, I glossed over impalement... a large shaft inserted anally until it comes out of the victim's mouth... You really think people survive that?
Ever hear of impaling someone on a short stake?  Indeed, one of the reasons people sometimes used short stakes for impalement was to lengthen the time it took the victim to die.  If you free someone from a short stake, they could very well survive - thus why impalement victims were guarded until they actually died - and like crucifixion, had extra damage done to them afterwards to make sure they were actually dead.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: jaimehlers on January 11, 2014, 04:59:17 PM
I'll tell you what each and every one of you are good at... Misdirection...
You might want to stop projecting your own foibles onto other people.  It's more than a little annoying.

Quote from: harbinger77
At least you support your misdirection though.
I did feel the liberty to pull a quote from the link Provided:
http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/trialevidence/articles/winterspring2012-0512-eyewitness-testimony-unreliable.html

...imprisoned in Texas for a 1979 rape and robbery he did not commit, largely due to a SINGLE eyewitness identification.
Violence, stress, and the presence of a weapon during an incident actually weaken
memory. Racial differences between the witness and the suspect can impair identifications.
Unconscious transference, or confusing someone seen in one place with someone seen in another place, is common. Identification can also be impaired by how long the witness is exposed to the suspect, the delay between the incident and the identification, and post-event information, such as feedback from the police or other witnesses.
What, you seriously think that the above are the only ways in which eyewitness testimony can be distorted?  By the way, you might note that they talk about witnesses here - not victims.

Quote from: harbinger77
This is all VICTIM eyewitness testimony. I guess if The apostles were victims, or if the historians were victims maybe you would have something. Even then the rape victim knows she was raped. Just uncertain of the details up to and including the criminal. Jesus was a close friend in the least. I think The 12 eyewitnesses knew who was on the cross. They also knew who he was when he returned.
This is nothing more than an attempt by you at misdirection.  Your suggestion that only victims are uncertain of the details is plainly wrong, as I noted above.  That's not all you got wrong, either; you imply that the twelve apostles were all eyewitnesses to the crucifixion, which is certainly not true.  Judas committed suicide and the other apostles attempted to hide from the authorities.  The likelihood of any of them going to watch the crucifixion would have been practically nonexistent.  Indeed, the only apostle even mentioned as being there was "John the Beloved", who oddly enough isn't mentioned anywhere outside of the Gospel of John[1].  Other than that, there were four women - his mother, his aunt, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.  Who would have been very badly stressed at watching him die and thus would have not been reliable eyewitnesses[2]
 1. Indeed, the way the text was written is very suggestive of someone who desperately wanted to be an apostle but wasn't - thus the repeated references to him being the apostle Jesus loved most.  The whole Gospel of John strikes me more like a self-insert fanfic than anything.
 2. And even more so when they found his tomb empty several days later.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: harbinger77 on January 11, 2014, 09:46:58 PM
I don't know how I glossed over this... The link you provided was yahoo answers "has anyone ever survived a roman crucifixion?" best answer 6 yrs ago was "not really"
Thus why I didn't actually use it to defend the proposition that people had survived crucifixions.  Though, in fact, they could - provided they were taken down before too much time had passed.  But my point was to show that people can and have survived every method of execution (except when it involves removing the head from the body).  It really depends on the person.  Some people die very quickly from shock, some people hang on for hours or days, and in the latter case, they can survive for a surprisingly long time.  Indeed, it's often lack of food/water that ends up killing them in that case.

Quote from: harbinger77
what I'm more surprised by, I glossed over impalement... a large shaft inserted anally until it comes out of the victim's mouth... You really think people survive that?
Ever hear of impaling someone on a short stake?  Indeed, one of the reasons people sometimes used short stakes for impalement was to lengthen the time it took the victim to die.  If you free someone from a short stake, they could very well survive - thus why impalement victims were guarded until they actually died - and like crucifixion, had extra damage done to them afterwards to make sure they were actually dead.

I guess it all depends on how you are using "survive." A short sharp shaft inserted anally... 
Do you mean wounds heal and this guy lives to ripe old age, or do mean live for a few days eventually killing over from blood loss or infection or  whatever?

Its length is reported to be from 6–15 feet, in one description as "four paces" in length. [21] Reported thickness of wooden stakes ranges from a man's thigh, a man's leg, a man's arm, or thick as the wrist or as thick as a foot at its thickest.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impalement
 
Survivability does NOT sound likly at all. I for one would rather die than live on with the damage this would cause.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: jaimehlers on January 11, 2014, 10:34:17 PM
harbinger, the wiki site itself cites several cases of the impaled surviving for days, while actually impaled[1].  It's well within the realm of possibility that someone who was impaled, then released from it before they died, could actually survive the experience.  Doesn't mean it'd be pleasant, or that they wouldn't end up being disfigured as a result, but impalement wasn't a guaranteed way to kill someone in and of itself.

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/339469/Builder-cheats-death-after-metal-bar-impales-him-from-anus-to-chest (http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/339469/Builder-cheats-death-after-metal-bar-impales-him-from-anus-to-chest) - a modern-day worker impaled by a metal bar that went out through his chest, and survived the experience, less than six months ago.

Now, I'll grant, he had the aid of modern medicine, but he clearly didn't die instantly, and it's entirely possible that he might have survived as long as they removed the bar without inflicting too much additional damage.  That's why they usually inflicted additional injuries on victims of impalement or crucifixion, because they would otherwise have to leave guards there to make sure someone didn't come along and free the victim.  Yeah, sure, their chances of survival probably weren't all that good, but there have been cases - even in antiquity - where people have been injured far worse and lived through it.

http://www.cracked.com/article_20068_5-absurdly-fatal-injuries-you-wont-believe-people-survived.html (http://www.cracked.com/article_20068_5-absurdly-fatal-injuries-you-wont-believe-people-survived.html) - A woman who fell into a frozen creek, stayed there for 80 minutes, her body temperature was down to 56 degrees when they finally got her out, whose heart started beating again three hours later and who survived with essentially no brain damage.  A man who took an industrial drill through the eye and brain, which exited through the top of his skull, who was fully conscious while they unscrewed it, who came out of the whole thing with little more than minor nerve damage.  A man who crash-landed in the Kalahari Desert, with his legs essentially destroyed in the crash, who managed to avoid being killed by wild animals, and who was found the next day (though, his legs are still essentially useless).  There's a couple other cases which are equally amazing, but aren't really about surviving catastrophic injuries, so I'm not going to list them here, but they're just flat out astounding.

My point is, don't ever, ever assume that someone is a goner simply because of a horrific injury.
 1. by following the spine and not penetrate the abdominal cavity
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: harbinger77 on January 12, 2014, 12:30:14 AM
I think we are talking about impalement as in a pole possibly as large as a mans leg or only a mans wrist being shoved into a persons anal cavity.

I'm not even trying to dispute instant death vs long slow death If that's what you think I mean. I am saying that impalement is not something you walk away from no matter how slow you die, you still die. As for capital punishment, my position is just as we do it today, you are sent to die. If it didn't work the first time, kill 'em again! Either way you still die.

You offer cases of lets call it "horizontal impalement" I don't disagree these are amazing cases. The Human body can take a lot of damage. I've seen it first hand in Iraq. seriously though. I'm still waiting for evidence of ANY crucifixion survival. survival meaning lived to tell grand kids the story. NOT survival as in it took 2-3 days to die. This impalement thing seems less likely to me though.

What ever happened to that 2 day comma comment too? I had a reply for it but I lost the post in the shuffle...
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: jaimehlers on January 12, 2014, 01:30:02 AM
I think we are talking about impalement as in a pole possibly as large as a mans leg or only a mans wrist being shoved into a persons anal cavity.

I'm not even trying to dispute instant death vs long slow death If that's what you think I mean. I am saying that impalement is not something you walk away from no matter how slow you die, you still die. As for capital punishment, my position is just as we do it today, you are sent to die. If it didn't work the first time, kill 'em again! Either way you still die.
Naturally, someone who's been impaled would need outside help to get free, just as someone who's been crucified would.  If they stay on the impaling spike or on the cross, they're not going to survive - if nothing else, lack of food or water would do them in.  My point is that you can take someone off of an impaling spike or a cross, and they have a chance of surviving.

Quote from: harbinger77
You offer cases of lets call it "horizontal impalement" I don't disagree these are amazing cases. The Human body can take a lot of damage. I've seen it first hand in Iraq. seriously though. I'm still waiting for evidence of ANY crucifixion survival. survival meaning lived to tell grand kids the story. NOT survival as in it took 2-3 days to die. This impalement thing seems less likely to me though.
You didn't even read that first link I put, did you?  It was a man who fell on top of a metal pole, had it rammed through his anus and up out of his chest on the other side.  It was not "horizontal impalement".  I purposefully skipped multiple other cases of someone being impaled in the way you describe because I knew you would claim it wasn't the same thing...and now you're trying to dismiss this without even reading it[1]?  I don't think so.

By the way, Josephus, a Jewish chronicler at the time of the Romans, wrote (http://clas-pages.uncc.edu/james-tabor/archaeology-and-the-dead-sea-scrolls/josephus-references-to-crucifixion/) how he came across three people, acquaintances of his, who had been crucified.  He went to talk to the leader of the Roman camp where this was happening, and the man commanded that they be taken down.  Two of them died anyway, one survived.  So, are you going to continue to claim that someone cannot survive being crucified or impaled, even though I've cited actual examples of someone surviving both, or are you willing to admit that you were wrong here?
 1. If you had read it, you would not have tried to claim it was a "horizontal impalement" - they have an x-ray picture showing how he was impaled.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: harbinger77 on January 12, 2014, 01:47:47 AM
I'm willing to admit I didn't read your link I thought your original description was from the link. I read it wrong. I was wrong people in modern times can survive impalement. especially if the pole is 1/2" electrical conduit.

Ancient times it was a mans wrist to a mans thigh in width. While this case is amazing It could be better. I was still wrong though. impalement goes to the atheist.

I see no supporting links for the 3 friends of the historian story. I'm still curious what would have happened to the third man if they wrapped him in a cloth and tossed him in a sealed tomb for three days with no food, water, or medical attention?
Citation still needed
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: jaimehlers on January 12, 2014, 02:50:18 AM
I'm willing to admit I didn't read your link I thought your original description was from the link. I read it wrong. I was wrong people in modern times can survive impalement. especially if the pole is 1/2" electrical conduit.
I'd be careful here - this is awfully close to moving the goalposts (ad hoc fallacy).  It's where a person tries to make exceptions so they can continue believing what they already believed, even though other people have provided specific counterexamples.

Quote from: harbinger77
Ancient times it was a mans wrist to a mans thigh in width. While this case is amazing It could be better. I was still wrong though. impalement goes to the atheist.
Thank you, but I do not consider myself an atheist.  I don't consider myself religious either.  I post here because I learn things.

Quote from: harbinger77
I see no supporting links for the 3 friends of the historian story.
Most historians consider Flavius Josephus (born Josephus ben Mattathias) to be pretty well authoritative.  You can easily find copies of his writings (the War of the Jews and the Antiquities of the Jews) online, as well as information about him personally.  As far as corroboration of that particular bit of writing goes, we simply don't have much writing from that time period.  But since it's reasonable to conclude that someone let down from a cross could survive, there's no particular reason to disallow it.

Quote from: harbinger77
I'm still curious what would have happened to the third man if they wrapped him in a cloth and tossed him in a sealed tomb for three days with no food, water, or medical attention?
Citation still needed
I don't think anyone has ever tried that experiment, nor do I think anyone is likely to.  I'll certainly acknowledge that the chances of surviving would (probably) be fairly small, but I don't think it would be impossible to survive.  I simply don't know for sure, so I'm not willing to make any definitive claims about it.

I have a question for you, though.  Can you cite any sources that support what was written in the Bible?  Considering that the Bible wasn't written down until decades after the fact, we don't actually know for sure who wrote the books, and we don't have the original manuscripts either, I hope you understand that it isn't an unimpeachable source - no matter what that verse in 2 Timothy claims.  Imagine if someone wrote in a book, "this book is true and describes what really happened".  You would want another source besides the book which supported what was written in it, right?
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: harbinger77 on January 12, 2014, 05:33:44 PM
Quote from: jaimehlers
where a person tries to make exceptions so they can continue believing what they already believed,

I'm only saying, and I'm sure you would agree, that to read a story of a guy impaled on a telephone pole and surviving would simply be more impressive. For that to have happened 1000 or even 500 years ago would also be more impressive. None the less I concede.
Quote
I do not consider myself an atheist. I don't consider myself religious

Off topic a bit. you're agnostic? If not agnostic and your definition of "religious" being obviously theist. How do you define Atheist?

Quote
Most historians consider Flavius Josephus (born Josephus ben Mattathias) to be pretty well authoritative. You can easily find copies of his writings

But since it's reasonable to conclude
that someone let down from a cross could survive, there's no particular reason to disallow it.
Are you suggesting I do your homework for you? This has never gone over well when I have suggested the same.

I agree to a point. Crucifixion was a capital punishment. When a criminal is ordered to a death the judge would say something like "..... shall be hung by the neck until death."  Death being the goal. Not the speed of death.
There was an American man (I'll cite if requested) He survived the electric chair. No one knew what to do with him. He was taken back to his cell. A pardon was requested because his sentence to the chair had been carried out. It was later ruled that the sentence was to death and he was sent back to the chair. Where he died. This, I'm sure, is THE reason no one would walk away from a Roman Crucifixion. Sentenced to die WILL result in death.

Quote
Can you cite any sources that support what was written in the Bible?
I think it would help if you narrowed the field a bit. Is there a certain event. I'm assuming crucifixion. Is there another? This is not a dodge. Just a request for clarity.

Quote
Imagine if someone wrote in a book, "this book is true and describes what really happened". You would
want another source besides the book which supported what was written in it, right?

Sure I would. My question  to you is would you do your own research and find proof for yourself, or just listen to some random dude spout off about how there is none and just believe him... on faith as some do? If there were two groups those who say yes and those who say no.. would you listen to both sides Before coming down on one side? Considering that an element of this evidence could well be archeology, would you continue to listen to the yes guys and look at evidence they submit with an open mind?
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: harbinger77 on January 13, 2014, 12:57:45 AM
Quote
Can you cite any sources that support what was written in the Bible?

I thought this was a good start especially for all those who say Jesus wasn't even a real person...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

What else would you like?
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Azdgari on January 13, 2014, 03:10:56 AM
^^ How about something you can actually cite?  There's no reason, given your record, to assume that you've even read the page you linked to.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: Mrjason on January 13, 2014, 05:54:46 AM
<snip>What ever happened to that 2 day comma comment too? I had a reply for it but I lost the post in the shuffle...

I replied.

A coma can last from between a few hours to a few years.

Death from dehydration can occur in a few days, especially in a hot country.

Basically, if a person didn't recover from their coma in a few days in the 1st century middle east they wouldn't recover at all.


Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: nogodsforme on January 13, 2014, 05:14:31 PM
This gruesome discussion is way off the rails. Impalement?  :o

Fact: If a guy really, truly and with believable documentation was killed dead by the authorities, and then magically came back to life, it would have been NEWS. You would not have been able to keep it a secret. The news would have spread like crazy from the Middle East to China, and from Egypt to the entire Roman Empire. It would have been more like the first "Ripley's Believe it or Not" story, and would be recorded everywhere there were any kind of records kept.[1]

Fact: We would not have to try to find accounts from different cultures, and always fail. It would be the resounding story everywhere in all the ancient world! It is not, it is missing in action, it is not found anywhere outside the bible, and this written years after the fact. This really happened and yet the Roman Empire had to have political meetings 300 years later to decide what they thought about it? You would think this would raise a bit of suspicion in Christian circles. Anything else is special pleading.

Fact: People in ancient times dating back to the Sumerian and Babylonians--bureaucrats, historians, nosy parkers-- wrote down all kinds of trivia, and kept all kinds of records. But this Jesus event (and all the other magical bible miracles, for that matter) somehow missed the cut.[2]

Fact: Meanwhile, we have papyrus scrolls detailing the fluctuating depth of the Nile, cuneiforms on who paid their taxes on time, stone tablet grocery lists and thread knots describing the sighting of random meteors. But we are supposed to think that none of the bible miracles, not even the Jesus one, got recorded at the time, not anywhere? By anyone? Really? Why? Because there was some bigger news that knocked it off the front pages/stone slabs?

What African or Chinese or Indian town crier, gossip or scribe would ignore the biggest news story of all time in favor of the equivalent of another farm report? Ignoring Jesus' resurrection would be like bumping the 9/11 terrorist attack off the front page to make room for a story about a local strip mall opening.  On 9/11.

Not. Possible.

Fact: Religions had stories of magical births, miracle recoveries and mystery deaths all the time. Hinduism has several about every god. Myths, we call them today. But an actual factual news account with sources that would pass muster at a modern junior high journalism class? Not so much.  So no surprise that other religious groups were not too impressed by yet another story about yet another culture's god rising from the dead.
 1.  It's like people saying there are aliens beaming around abducting people all the time--but the government (although supposedly incompetent at everything else) has managed to keep it a secret.
 2. And this is supposed to be the all-powerfullest god at work. He must have wanted to stay hidden, a spy with a trench coat and big floppy fedora. God Garbo, in a frilly negligee, just wanted to be alone. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sc7DaDYLqvw
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: jaimehlers on January 13, 2014, 06:19:27 PM
I'm only saying, and I'm sure you would agree, that to read a story of a guy impaled on a telephone pole and surviving would simply be more impressive. For that to have happened 1000 or even 500 years ago would also be more impressive. None the less I concede.
Well, I'd want to get independent verification of it first - preferably from one of the guy's worst enemies, because he'd be likely to understate things instead of overstate them.

Quote from: harbinger77
Off topic a bit. you're agnostic? If not agnostic and your definition of "religious" being obviously theist. How do you define Atheist?
I'm apathetic about theism, at least when it comes to what a person believes for themselves, or what they believe with other like-minded believers.  It's the fact that religious theists tend to cause problems for non-believers (whether they are believers in another religion or atheists) that I take exception to.

Quote from: harbinger77
Are you suggesting I do your homework for you? This has never gone over well when I have suggested the same.
No, I mean that it's incredibly easy to find his writings online, to the point where you could Google "Josephus Antiquities" and you'd trip over the pages and pages of translations that would show up as search results.  If you're interested in that time period, he's worth reading regardless of anything else - because he covers a lot of the interactions between the Jews and the Romans.

Quote from: harbinger77
I agree to a point. Crucifixion was a capital punishment. When a criminal is ordered to a death the judge would say something like "..... shall be hung by the neck until death."  Death being the goal. Not the speed of death.
There was an American man (I'll cite if requested) He survived the electric chair. No one knew what to do with him. He was taken back to his cell. A pardon was requested because his sentence to the chair had been carried out. It was later ruled that the sentence was to death and he was sent back to the chair. Where he died. This, I'm sure, is THE reason no one would walk away from a Roman Crucifixion. Sentenced to die WILL result in death.
This is true - though, as I'm sure you're aware, it does support my point that some people can survive experiences that should be lethal.  Also, something you should be aware of is that we take more care to ensure that people sentenced to execution actually die.  It is also not easy to tell that someone in a coma is actually alive, especially if you aren't trained in medicine.  If someone went into a shock-induced coma due to such an experience, they could conceivably come out of it some time later, perhaps even after they were buried.

Quote from: harbinger77
I think it would help if you narrowed the field a bit. Is there a certain event. I'm assuming crucifixion. Is there another? This is not a dodge. Just a request for clarity.
The crucifixion and resurrection would be good.  I can't think of any others off of the top of my head.

Quote from: harbinger77
Sure I would. My question  to you is would you do your own research and find proof for yourself, or just listen to some random dude spout off about how there is none and just believe him... on faith as some do? If there were two groups those who say yes and those who say no.. would you listen to both sides Before coming down on one side? Considering that an element of this evidence could well be archeology, would you continue to listen to the yes guys and look at evidence they submit with an open mind?
I often research things that I'm not sure about.  There's little point in being a skeptic if you just blindly listen to whatever happens to fit what you already believe.  But you also have to be willing to acknowledge that you might be wrong to begin with.
Title: Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
Post by: wheels5894 on January 14, 2014, 05:11:47 AM
Quote
Can you cite any sources that support what was written in the Bible?

I thought this was a good start especially for all those who say Jesus wasn't even a real person...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

What else would you like?

Have you done any research in the area of the historical Jesus, Harbinger, or are you just giving us a web page to read?  The fact is that, despite a vast body of published work on the subject, we are still really down to the bible as the only source of information about Jesus. Thus it is a matter of judgment whether what we read is actual history or not. There's no way to prove it either way and no supporting documents.

This comes down to belief - if you believe in Jesus, then you accept the historicity of the gospels and that's it.