Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 10
General Religious Discussion / Re: God vs Universe
« Last post by epidemic on Yesterday at 01:32:14 PM »
If you read my body of posts I do not in any way look like anything others than an agnostic atheist.

Is it really so hard to type "atheist"? It's even shorter than the intellectually dishonest term.

I may ask questions that a theist might ask but that is because I am an agnostic atheist.

Again, FTFY.

But the vast majority of what I say puts me clearly in a non theist category.

Whatever you say.

If you get theist from what I write then you probably are a very selective reader and miss the main idea frequently.

It's possible I just don't remember it was you who wrote what you posted. All self-proclaimed "agnostics"' writings look alike to me.

I am not sure why you want to put me into the atheist category?  Not long ago you were calling me a theist.

What is so wrong with Agnostic that you feel compelled to put me into a theist or atheist category?  I am just trying to understand why you don't like agnostic leaning toward atheist. 

To me that means I am not sure but I lean towards no god.
General Religious Discussion / Re: Young Earth per Answers in Genesis
« Last post by YRM_DM on Yesterday at 01:26:21 PM »
All other documents written by man are fallible, unlike the “God-breathed” infallible Word (2 Timothy 3:16). The Bible clearly and unmistakably describes the creation of the universe, the solar system, and the earth around six thousand years ago. We know that it’s true based on the authority of God’s own character. “Because He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself” (Hebrews 6:13).

It's a good thing that the Bible tells us that it's a perfect book, and that God, through the bible, proves himself by swearing by himself.

Thank goodness that's a reliable method.   How do we know God is real?  It says so in the bible!   How do we know the bible is true?  The bible sas God wrote it!   How do we know God wrote the bible?  It says in the Bible!   How do we know the bible is real?  God wrote it!  Yay!   Are we dizzy yet?

I'm going to write a book that says I'm god and everything that I say is true... it'll be more accurate than the bible, and you'll know it's true because it says so.   In this very internet POST, I swear by myself that it's true that god is imaginary.   How do you know that's true?  It says so!  Right in this post!

But wait... what God says in the Bible about Creation is SO FRIGGIN ACCURATE  LETS ALL BE AMAZED!

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

So before the sun and stars, we had a ball of water with a spirit over it... got it...

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

So then day and night were created a few days before the sun and stars were created... this is useful.  What caused it to be day and night again?

6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

The sky is apparently blue because there is water above it, and god split up the water from the water and that's how come we live in fishbowl earth.

9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

Cool stuff... so, land formed out of this giant ball of water where there was no land at all.

11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

Sweet, I am so glad those sun-feeding plants are in good shape... than you God for creating them.
14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

Hang on a second... how was there day and night and plants and whatnot and then after that the sun and stars were created?   Oh, and all the stars live in the vault of the sky between the water below and the water above, did you know that?

Yes, clearly, the Biblical creation story is INFALLABLE... fellow atheists, lest ye not be converted to belief based on this so obvious true story?

I call upon ye... be convinced by such a marvelous and perfect account from the divine creator's hand!

FYI - I know you don't believe this crap OCG, it's just frustrating that anyone can believe it.
General Religious Discussion / Re: Young Earth per Answers in Genesis
« Last post by OldChurchGuy on Yesterday at 01:18:05 PM »
Did you bring this as comedy or are you serious

Serious only in the sense that here is another example where faith is presented as irrefutable fact.  Once the faith is in place, then all science must be reverse-engineered to conform with that faith or is to be ignored or attempts are made to discredit the science. 

I hadn't seen all the ideas put together in one article before. 

As always,

How about just this?

At those Christian vs atheist debates where the Christian always gets pwned?   What if God stepped in and gave a very specific answer to a question posed by the atheist during the debate?

Sam Harris - "It's pretty clear that this belief in god is delusional..."

Ray Comfort - "Ask me any question that only you would know the answer to, I've got a personal relationship with God, I'll ask him, he'll give me the answer, and then you confirm or deny it... how about that?"

Sam Harris - "I had a puppy as a kid and that puppy chewed up something very valuable to me... what was it?"

Ray Comfort - "Get that Jesus?   Ok... yeah, Jesus said your puppy named Lance (after the astronaut) chewed up your Stretch Armstrong doll and got goop all over your Roberto Clemente baseball card from the insides of the doll.   Jesus also wanted you to know that the puppy did not destroy your Raquel Welsh poster as your mom said, but she ripped it down and blamed the puppy because she thought you were masturbating to it... can you call your mom and verify that second thing right now?"

Sam Harris... "but... I, I, I... how did you know that?"

Ray - "Jesus told me.  We have a personal relationship."

Audience Member - "I wrote a number down on a piece of paper in my wallet, can you tell me what it is?"

Ray - "Jesus told me that fake mentalists can do this trick, but he said you put a really big number on the card as a guard against that... it's 9,563,789.0013 correct?"

Ray - "Now I'm going to go out there and do this with people on the street that you pick out and bring to me.   After that, I'll answer any and all questions that don't make sense about the Bible.   After that I'll go demonstrate this power to the JREF foundation, win a million dollars, and give it to Seventh-Day-Adventists because they're the ones who got it right by the way."

Would it be enough to prove Christian God?  Probably not... but I bet we'd all be waiting to see what Ray said next right?

is this still ongoing, or may I lock this thread?
Debate Room / Re: Lukvance and OAA debate the existence of a god
« Last post by screwtape on Yesterday at 12:56:12 PM »
is this still ongoing, or may I lock this thread?
Formal Debates / Re: Debate Challenges
« Last post by screwtape on Yesterday at 12:55:23 PM »
Debate Room / commentary thread - Anfauglir & Lukvance
« Last post by screwtape on Yesterday at 12:55:15 PM »
This thread is for everyone to post comments regarding Anfauglir and Lukvance's debate whether the RCC is a force of good. 
This thread is for Anfauglir and Lukvance to argue whether the Roman Catholic Church is a force of good.  Posts from anyone other than the two of them will be removed.  Bystanders may post in the comments thread.
General Religious Discussion / Re: Why [God] made me with a fallible brain?
« Last post by SevenPatch on Yesterday at 12:38:02 PM »
I can probably help with this discussion.


When Lukvance responded to your question he tried to give two different answers, one based on the English definition of infallible and one based on his definition of infallible.  It would seem that Lukvance is contradicting himself but really, at least he is trying to communicate based on the English definition of words and how he understands words.

The English definition of “Infallible” is a person not capable of making a mistake or error.  Morality is subjective so stealing to feed a starving child may or may not be wrong depending on perspective and it is not clear if a mistake was made one way or the other again depending on perspective.  Therefore a person doesn’t need to know what is objectively moral (if such a thing exists) in order to be infallible.  Additionally, not knowing something isn’t necessarily a mistake or error either, so one doesn’t need to be omniscient to be infallible either. <--- This was my general interpretation of the word infallible.  Lukvance was able to understand this and then submitted his idea that “God” made us with a brain not capable of making a mistake or error (an infallible brain) which then evolved into a fallible brain for some reason (I didn’t even bother continuing the discussion after that point).

Anyway, Lukvance’s definition of “infallible” includes absolute knowledge of objective morality and omniscience.  For him, in order to be infallible, a person must know everything and know objective morality.  I would assume, only “God” would be infallible.  Based on this definition, “God” did not create humans with omniscience and knowledge of objective morality.

UNFORTUNATELY, Lukvance is either avoiding the problem or doesn’t even recognize the problem.

If “God” created humans with an infallible brain (English definition) and now we have fallible brains (for an unknown reason or perhaps evolution as Lukvance claims) then having fallible brains must have been “God’s” plan all along.  Lukvance GUESSES that it wasn’t “God’s” plan, so then another problem arises where things happen that aren’t part of “God’s” plan.  If that is the case then “God” is no longer infallible and omniscient and not worthy of being described as a god.  Long story short, the question in the thread title means that “God” if it exists has to be considered evil or a trickster god (no if’s, and’s or but’s).   

The definition used by Lukvance is kind of useless as it doesn’t really address the question which is intended to be asked.  I suppose that maybe the use of the word fallible is confusing to Lukvance.  To him, the thread title is like asking “Why didn’t “God” make me a god”?  It is kind of a boring question not really worth discussing unless maybe you’re already bored.

To me, it is far more interesting to ask “why would “God” make us with brains capable of making mistakes and/or being tricked?” which is how I interpret the thread title question.

It would appear that when Lukvance says “and we rejected him (sin)” that “the fall” is the explanation for why our brains are now capable of making mistakes, although that would imply that rejecting “God” was not a mistake (perhaps Kcrady would agree lol), this would then support the hypothesis that if “God” exists then it is an evil or trickster god. 

This whole thread is another futile exercise of Lukvance avoiding having to come to rational or logical conclusions that he doesn’t like. 
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 10