Originally posted by Fishermage How many serious books on apologetics have you read? If you would "love to see" indisputable proof of God, I am sure you must have read several in your search for such proof. I'd like to know which books you have read in your search.
Don't worry, all of your so-called 'proof' is hidden under a couple of thousand years of obscurity. You'll never have real proof, but you won't have any real proof against it either. You can just ask people to disprove a negative, then laugh and say God is real because they can't. Isn't that convenient? Here, let's try it:
Fishermage: Jesus walked on water!
Sensible People: No he didn't. Prove it!
Fishermage: The Bible says so, and there were witnesses in the Bible! Prove it's not true!
Sensible People: The Bible isn't evidence, it's a storybook! Find an independent source!
Fishermage: I win!
Pretty cool, eh? And when they show you discrepancies in the Bible to show it is fallible, just tell them that proves the Bible is correct -- because if people were trying to fool you, wouldn't all the stories match up? Heh. This game is fun.
- LC
So in other words, you have read no serious books on apologetics. Thank you for your time.
Firstly, I wasn't the person you asked that question of, I was just a passerby sticking my nose in the situation. I enjoy doing that.
Secondly, you'll need to define serious. When it comes to fairy-tales, I have a hard time taking anything seriously from 'experts'. Not to hurt your feelings, but unicorns aren't real, and crypto-zoology isn't a real field of science.
- LC
Sorry, I made a mistake because YOU chose to chop the context out. Anyway, it seems you haven't read any serious books on apologetics either. I define serious as written by recognized scholars in the subject.
Oh, and you can't hurt my feelings. I am trying to have an intelligent discussion here, and all you do is divert.
I will however repeat the question: how many serious books on apologetics have you read? How many unserious ones? If you haven't read any, why argue from a position of ignorance? Why not learn the best arguments against your position and then debate?
For the record I have read most of the latest greatest atheist books, including The God Delusion, Breaking the Spell, The End of Faith, and quite a few less known books on the subject. I have also read most of the answers to those books. I have also read every book Christopher Hitchens has written. I always seek to challenge myself with the best I can find against me.
It seems you would prefer ridiculing the opposition.
Oh well.
Yes, I tend to chop when things get longish. As to what I have read, the classic Apologist were required reading in my Rhetoric class, as well as some Lewis, and McGrath, along with others that I would have to dig out their names. Not to mention the modern day bloggers who proclaim expert status in mythology and write apologetics. Those are always interesting, especially when you can debate them on their own forum.
The interesting thing is, there is always that moment in the books or papers where the author waves his hands and does the Jedi Mind trick of, "You will assume this one portion is true...", and then all of the remainder of the book goes from there. I don't assume anything is true, and find it insulting that fiction should be trusted as such. Remove that one pin and the entire argument falls apart -- but we're to assume.
For instance, we're always to assume that an eyewitness account is legitimate, because why would someone lie? First, we're to assume there was an actual witness and that witness is not a figment of the author's imagination. Second, we're to assume people don't lie, have ulterior motives, or didn't have a sickness of the mind. Claims of the fantastical require fantastical proof. Period. And proof is something none of the apologists have. But again, that's the fun of having thousands of years of obscurity to hide behind. You say it is true, I say mythology is not.
- LC
Now you are misrepresenting people. None of the people you mention have ever used the argument that "you assume this one portion is true in an a priori way -- however, YOU are assuming it is FICTION in an a priori way.
One establishes the credibility of a source through standard means, then one assumes that at least the SOURCE thinks it is true. YOU then establish if there is any other evidence from outside means and other disciplines that corroborate it. None of those people assumes anything; each establishes a careful case of crdibility that builds a very clear and convincing case -- one that I feel will convince anyone with an open mind.
If you start out ASSUMING the data is mythology, as you do, of course you can't be convinced. Anytime we lock ourselves into a certain worldview we can't be convinced of anything.
Why do claims of the fantastical require fantastic proof? I do not believe that is part of any standard evidenciary methods; again. that is a personal decision YOU make, since you decide to make up your own insurmountable rules of evidence. YOu have substituted rhetoric for reason, your own religion for reality.
In other words, you are unconvinced because you have willfully made yourself unconvincible. So much so that you falsify the arguments of others here.
Again, thank you for your time, now I see what the problem here is. I used to have the same one.
Yes, I tend to chop when things get longish. As to what I have read, the classic Apologist were required reading in my Rhetoric class, as well as some Lewis, and McGrath, along with others that I would have to dig out their names. Not to mention the modern day bloggers who proclaim expert status in mythology and write apologetics. Those are always interesting, especially when you can debate them on their own forum. The interesting thing is, there is always that moment in the books or papers where the author waves his hands and does the Jedi Mind trick of, "You will assume this one portion is true...", and then all of the remainder of the book goes from there. I don't assume anything is true, and find it insulting that fiction should be trusted as such. Remove that one pin and the entire argument falls apart -- but we're to assume. For instance, we're always to assume that an eyewitness account is legitimate, because why would someone lie? First, we're to assume there was an actual witness and that witness is not a figment of the author's imagination. Second, we're to assume people don't lie, have ulterior motives, or didn't have a sickness of the mind. Claims of the fantastical require fantastical proof. Period. And proof is something none of the apologists have. But again, that's the fun of having thousands of years of obscurity to hide behind. You say it is true, I say mythology is not. - LC
Lets not forget that the Gospels Christians hold dearly are all contradictory to one another, and the the original authorship of the Old Testament is still classified by letters J, D, P and etc. We still don't know who wrote/edited much of the Old Testament, and most of the New Testament was written well after JC's time, with nearly every story/fable contradicting another.
For instance, in Matthew, Jesus asks "Father, why have you forsaken me?" when on the cross. In Mark I believe, he says "Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do". This seems like a minor difference, but this is a glaring symbol of the Bible's hodge podge collection of false stories to suit the ultimate goal of brainwashing you as Christians. Anyone with any logic, reason and/or the ability to read critically will see the Bible for what it is: A text that has cherry-picked stories to make it convenient to enforce the idea of sin, repentence, afterlife and salvation. Its almost as though Christians view all of these contradtictions as part of God's greater plan, which is quite silly, since humans wrote all of these stories to begin with.
Show me a contradiction in the gospels.
What if Jesus said BOTH on the cross? No contradiction. Sorry, millions of critical thinking. scientific people believe the gospels -- in fact, critical thought is the product of Christian dialectic as much as it is the prodict of socraties, plato and aristotle.
I will ask what I asked the people above: how many serious books on apologetics have YOU read?
Yes, I tend to chop when things get longish. As to what I have read, the classic Apologist were required reading in my Rhetoric class, as well as some Lewis, and McGrath, along with others that I would have to dig out their names. Not to mention the modern day bloggers who proclaim expert status in mythology and write apologetics. Those are always interesting, especially when you can debate them on their own forum. The interesting thing is, there is always that moment in the books or papers where the author waves his hands and does the Jedi Mind trick of, "You will assume this one portion is true...", and then all of the remainder of the book goes from there. I don't assume anything is true, and find it insulting that fiction should be trusted as such. Remove that one pin and the entire argument falls apart -- but we're to assume. For instance, we're always to assume that an eyewitness account is legitimate, because why would someone lie? First, we're to assume there was an actual witness and that witness is not a figment of the author's imagination. Second, we're to assume people don't lie, have ulterior motives, or didn't have a sickness of the mind. Claims of the fantastical require fantastical proof. Period. And proof is something none of the apologists have. But again, that's the fun of having thousands of years of obscurity to hide behind. You say it is true, I say mythology is not. - LC
Lets not forget that the Gospels Christians hold dearly are all contradictory to one another, and the the original authorship of the Old Testament is still classified by letters J, D, P and etc. We still don't know who wrote/edited much of the Old Testament, and most of the New Testament was written well after JC's time, with nearly every story/fable contradicting another.
For instance, in Matthew, Jesus asks "Father, why have you forsaken me?" when on the cross. In Mark I believe, he says "Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do". This seems like a minor difference, but this is a glaring symbol of the Bible's hodge podge collection of false stories to suit the ultimate goal of brainwashing you as Christians. Anyone with any logic, reason and/or the ability to read critically will see the Bible for what it is: A text that has cherry-picked stories to make it convenient to enforce the idea of sin, repentence, afterlife and salvation. Its almost as though Christians view all of these contradtictions as part of God's greater plan, which is quite silly, since humans wrote all of these stories to begin with.
The Gospels aren't contradictory to one another, they give slightly different accounts from varying viewpoints.
As someone who has taken a REAL IQ test, been labeled a genius, and converted to Christianity much later in life (when I was 19) I take great offense to the idea that you have to be an illogical bonehead in order to believe what is in the Bible...I personally believe that you have to be an illogical bonehead without any critical thinking skills to believe in evolution...want to bring up some of the points from the Bible that you think are contradictory to science? Let's talk about this.
What is interesting is that all of the big atheists these days like Hitchens and such claim to have been atheists since they were twelve or so, while many of the great apologists are people who became Christians MUCH later, after much education, thought and experience.
No reason to take offense though my friend -- we have all been where they are at one time or another.
Good. Then maybe we can get back to teaching real science, not "intelligent design" theories.
Don't even say evolution is science, its just a theory too. View both sides of the coin evenly.
It is a one sided coin. Evolution is a scientific theory, and Intelligent Design is not.
- LC
Want to debate on the scientific merits of evolution versus intelligent design?
You're not going to be happy with what you find out about your precious evolution pseudoscience.
What I find out? I have never found a decent argument against the Theory of Evolution, nor a probable and well-supported alternative. If you're so sure of yourself, you should be publishing in scientific journals and not hiding out on a gaming forum where you can pat yourself on the back for knowing more than a 16 year old. Somehow, I imagine I've heard everything you're going to say. I'm not just sure, I am positive.
As for any merits Intelligent Design may carry, there are none that cross over into the realm of science. Intelligent Design is simply an attack, generated by fervent belief in a mythological being, on a well-thought and supported Scientific Theory. Don't act like you've got some grand weapon against it. I know better. And while we're at it, let's not call it Intelligent Design, let's call it what it really is: Creationism. Creationism is the idea that if you can find some error in Evolution, then Goddidit.
So yeah, I'll be back on Monday, let me know if you come up with something that isn't cut and pasted from a Creationist website. Cite your sources. No quote mining. And if it is the same old argument, that I've heard so many times it makes me want to punch puppies, then I'll just ignore you -- because I already know you're not as good as you imagine yourself, you're just blustering violently because you haven't done your homework.
I'll bring a mountain of evidence, you bring your god-in-the-gaps mentality.
- LC
edit: On second thought, I just saw you're 21 years old. You have nothing to bring to the table. No experience. No real intelligence (oh my, he took an IQ test... scary). And certainly no idea what you believe. I'll wait 5-6 years and see if you actually believe the same thing. Look me up then. I imagine you'll be an atheist by that time. Right now, you just -think- you know something.
Agnostic/soft atheist from the age of about 12 or 13, started to become a theist at around 30 or so, after studying world religions for over a decade, then embarked on more studies, eventually, after arguing with scholars for over a year on these subjects, became a Christian at 36. I am now 46 and have seen nothing that has even come close to challenging that.
My background however is purely scientific, however, and I still consider myself a very scientific person. I test everything, assume nothing other than a few basic axioms like A is A and such (which I throw out the window with higher mathematics and new physics, but that's another story).
My main field is economics but I study everything that interests me and am always looking to expand my world view.
I have debated with every type of atheist and read every book I can find on the subject.
I always accept a challenge -- in fact, I enjoy such things because they help me hone my views.
The point was not to build myself up, it was to provide a first hand example of someone who is certainly NOT incapable of critical thinking. Now write out some of the ways that they contradict eachother, stop claiming something and not actually providing reasons for it, all you're doing is building yourself a little wall so that you don't have to listen to or see the other side, which is exactly what people like you continually accuse Christians of doing.
Okay, here is a good excerpt from the book referred to in the article:
"In Matthew, Jesus comes into being when he is conceived, or born, of a virgin; in John, Jesus is the incarnate Word of God who was with God in the beginning and through whom the universe was made. In Matthew, there is not a word about Jesus being God; in John, that's precisely who he is. In Matthew, Jesus teaches about the coming kingdom of God and almost never about himself (and never that he is divine); in John, Jesus teaches almost exclusively about himself, especially his divinity. In Matthew, Jesus refuses to perform miracles in order to prove his identity; in John, that is practically the only reason he does miracles. "
If the gospels can't agree on the divinity of their leader, what are we supposed to think? Each of these four disciples have radically different views about Jesus, and write about him according to their own experiences. Not only do they contradict each other regularly, the whole concept of Jesus' existence is contradictory! Also, it looks as though Matthew doesn't regard Jesus as divine either. But you Christians will probably just gloss over that book, right?
Again that's not a contradiction. Do you know what a logical contradiction is. All of these things stated can be true. A contradiction is when both CAN NOT be true.
That last part about Miracles the two things are in different contexts. At certain times, jesus refuses to perform miracles because He doesn't want to reveal himself, at others, he does. Again only if we had the same INSTANCE he wouldn't do such would we have a contradiction.
Matthew certainly does regard Jesus as Divine, he just says it differently than John does. All the Gospels do.
They have different perspectives and different ways of saying things, probably because they are writing for different audiences.
Maybe try and show some quotes and contexts to prove your case because you haven't made it yet. I used to feel exactly as you do, and then I decided not to conform to agnostic/atheist dogma and actually evaluate the evidence myself.
Matthew 11:27. "All things have been handed over to Me by my Father: and no one knows the Son, except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father, except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him."
Here is one example of Matthew claiming Jesus to be divine.
Matthew 12:28; parallel in Luke 11:20. "If I cast out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you."
Here Jesus is using miracles to prove He is Divine, or at least to prove that He is God's representative of His Kingdom.
Agnostic/soft atheist from the age of about 12 or 13, started to become a theist at around 30 or so, after studying world religions for over a decade,
I was an athiest until I was 17. I wasn't one of those asshat athiests that put anyone down that did not believe what I believed in but I was an athiest nevertheless. I did not believe there was anything out there. I had this preconceived notion that when you died that was it.
When I went to college I started to learn philosophy, physics, music, etc and I started to believe in something ...agnostic if you will. Then after about a year or so after intense spiritual searching and through a critical viewpoint I found the Bible to be deadly accurate and became a Christian.
The more I learn about the world and the Universe and the more I know God, the more I realize I did not make a mistake. My only mistake was closing my mind and beinf self centered for the first 17 years of my life.
nd the funny thing is I can argue and debate until I am blue in the face but it all boils down to one point. We will both die. If the athiest is right, then there is nothing to loose because I wont even realize Im dead because I will no longer be self existant ...or existant in any form.
If I'm right, the Atheist has a rather interesting suprise awaiting.
People who have to create conspiracy and hate threads to further a cause lacks in intellectual comprehension of diversity.
Agnostic/soft atheist from the age of about 12 or 13, started to become a theist at around 30 or so, after studying world religions for over a decade,
I was an athiest until I was 17. I wasn't one of those asshat athiests that put anyone down that did not believe what I believed in but I was an athiest nevertheless. I did not believe there was anything out there. I had this preconceived notion that when you died that was it.
When I went to college I started to learn philosophy, physics, music, etc and I started to believe in something ...agnostic if you will. Then after about a year or so after intense spiritual searching and through a critical viewpoint I found the Bible to be deadly accurate and became a Christian.
The more I learn about the world and the Universe and the more I know God, the more I realize I did not make a mistake. My only mistake was closing my mind and beinf self centered for the first 17 years of my life.
nd the funny thing is I can argue and debate until I am blue in the face but it all boils down to one point. We will both die. If the athiest is right, then there is nothing to loose because I wont even realize Im dead because I will no longer be self existant ...or existant in any form.
If I'm right, the Atheist has a rather interesting suprise awaiting.
That is the very similar to the story of many of the educated Christians I know.
I do have to admit I was at times an asshat anti-Christian, and used the same appeals to ridicule that others did, the same bad assumptions, the same ad hominem attacks. All the stuff we see here on these forums. That stopped as I matured, and while still being a soft atheist I started treating people with more respect.
I had met too many intelligent, decent people who were also believers in the Divine. I also studied logic, philosophy and stuff like that, and realized that those attacks were childish defense mechanisms to hide my ignorance and inability to argue effectively.
What is funny is I do not consider myself much of an apologist -- it's not my calling. I personally find my place is to liberate the liberated -- in other words, to teach my fellow believers what Grace fully means and to help folks implement Galatians 5.1:
"It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery."
I find too many of us have enslaved ourselves to doctrines and denominations, and have lost the Liberty in Christ. God has called me, in my own small measure to restore that Liberty to the Free.
Still waiting for your reply Draenor. I believe we left off with you claiming that the gospels do not contradict each other? Maybe we can kill some time by having Lucky Curse research death totals from the Spanish Inquisition, Crusades and other holy bloodbaths? Or maybe we can talk about how the founder of the Lutheran church was a rabid anti-semite? "evangelical collapse"? 'bout damn time... Science & reason made humankind create airplanes. God & religion made humankind fly airplanes into skyscrapers.
Pardon me, I have this little thing called work that I had to attend to...i don't live on this forum.
It looks though, like I don't need to answer your supposed contradiction, as Fishermage has already done it for me...That's rather convenient, as I'm quite tired and need to rest a little bit before I go off to play basketball with some religious kook friends.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Good. Then maybe we can get back to teaching real science, not "intelligent design" theories.
Don't even say evolution is science, its just a theory too. View both sides of the coin evenly.
It is a one sided coin. Evolution is a scientific theory, and Intelligent Design is not.
- LC
Want to debate on the scientific merits of evolution versus intelligent design?
You're not going to be happy with what you find out about your precious evolution pseudoscience.
What I find out? I have never found a decent argument against the Theory of Evolution
Oh you haven't, huh? Well how about this? Mathmatically, evolution is impossible. Scientists say that the human race emerged about 200,00 years ago. Our closest animal relative is the chimpanzee. The percentage of DNA that humans and chimps share is not precisely known, but the most recent research indicates it's about 94%. The theory is that humans and chimps both branched off from a common ancestor about 6 million years ago.
Now, 94% shared genetic material sounds pretty close, but consider that there are three billion DNA strands in the human genome. So even with a 94% match, that still leaves a 180 million DNA strand difference between humans and chimps. I don't know how evolutionists divide the number of mutations each species made from that common ancestor, but to get the smallest number, let's divide it in half and say that each one made roughly 90 million. In all likelihood, since humans are considered the superior species, it went through a greater number of mutations than chimps.
So the question is, how could the human race possibly have gone through 90 million mutations in the last 6 million years to get from that common ancestor to where we are today? It's impossible. Considering that each generation could reproduce, at best, evey few years, and taking into account that every single mutation would have to be a positive one (the truth is that genetic mutations are far more likely to be negative, such as a cancer mutation), that would mean that there would have to be something on the order of about 60 positive mutations with each successive generation. And considering that modern science has observed no positive genetic mutations in the last one hundred years, I would call that mathmatically impossible.
So believing in evolution to explain the origin of life takes far more faith than to believe that we came into being much more dramatically, imo.
No, it doesn't take more faith. The theory of evolution has come from research, and the conclussion is drawn after mountains of overwhelming evidence. Religious faith has come in most cases from an old book that usually contains "Miracles" and other things that can't really happen.
Do you care about the evidence behind Evolution? No. You don't. Neither does Enigma.
The reason? Very simple:
Bertrand Russel:
""If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way.""
You just proved mr Russel to be correct by completely ignoring a good old fashioned common sense argument against Evolution and going back to the "but but but it's science" argument without so much as a mention of the content of his post.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Originally posted by Draenor You're right, I suppose a person who is only twenty one years old can't really know anything...I'm sure that once I become as experienced and wise as you are I'll see the light, that our universe just sprung up from nothingness, that everything is a result of chance and that our entire universe is ultimately meaningless. I'm sure that when I get as old as you are (however old that is) I'll manage to reason things out the way that you have, because it's not like there are millions of Christians who are both middle aged and old, and also possess considerable intelligence right? The argument was that someone who believes in the Bible cannot possibly have critical thinking skills, I shot that down with my own experience, you have nothing of substance to back up the things that the two of you have said...I offered to answer whatever questions that you had, instead of posing anything of worth you have decided to proclaim yourself so positive of your beliefs that you're unwilling to discuss anything...Once again the hypocrisy here is astounding...You atheists claim that Christians shelter themselves from debate with reasonable and scientifically minded people because we're scared...what I have always experienced is that the opposite is equally true for atheists...Some Christians are shut ins, this is true...but just as many atheists are as well...and for good reason, we wouldn't want anything to come between you and your belief in nothing.
What do you know, I have a bit of time. So, let's tackle this huge influx of comments...
The only comment I have to you is this: You assume that if there is no god(s), then that means the universe sprung up from nothingness and has no meaning.
I say this, and get used to it: I don't know.
Try it with me: I don't know.
There is no either/or, there is simply: I don't know.
Christians seem to think the default of failed science is a god or gods. That is not true. There is always the real alternative. We do not know how the universe came into existence, if it is infinite, and if it is eternal. Science may some day have the answer to the question. In the meantime, do we take our cues from Middle Eastern tribesmen who could only guess at the answers of the universe, or do we wait patiently for the answers, and possibly die without knowing?
I'm okay with not having a real answer. I've become okay with the realization that when I die nothing will happen. I've also, not easily, come to realize that I will never see the dead loved ones in my life again; my father, all of my grandparents, friends.
We atheists arguably have the hardest part in life. We know there is nothing, and even if we wanted to believe it, we cannot force ourselves to. Try to force yourself to believe in Santa again, and you'll see what it is like.
As to the rest of what you've written, I've heard it all, I've seen it all, and frankly, I'm tired of dealing with it. If you had been born 9,000 years ago in Asia, you would have believed something entirely different and would argue just as vehemently for it.
Old saying: You're just one religion short of being an Atheist.
I lost my religion in a Mythology class. Makes sense, doesn't it?
Originally posted by Zindaihas Oh you haven't, huh? Well how about this? Mathmatically, evolution is impossible. Scientists say that the human race emerged about 200,00 years ago. Our closest animal relative is the chimpanzee. The percentage of DNA that humans and chimps share is not precisely known, but the most recent research indicates it's about 94%. The theory is that humans and chimps both branched off from a common ancestor about 6 million years ago. Now, 94% shared genetic material sounds pretty close, but consider that there are three billion DNA strands in the human genome. So even with a 94% match, that still leaves a 180 million DNA strand difference between humans and chimps. I don't know how evolutionists divide the number of mutations each species made from that common ancestor, but to get the smallest number, let's divide it in half and say that each one made roughly 90 million. In all likelihood, since humans are considered the superior species, it went through a greater number of mutations than chimps. So the question is, how could the human race possibly have gone through 90 million mutations in the last 6 million years to get from that common ancestor to where we are today? It's impossible. Considering that each generation could reproduce, at best, evey few years, and taking into account that every single mutation would have to be a positive one (the truth is that genetic mutations are far more likely to be negative, such as a cancer mutation), that would mean that there would have to be something on the order of about 60 positive mutations with each successive generation. And considering that modern science has observed no positive genetic mutations in the last one hundred years, I would call that mathmatically impossible. So believing in evolution to explain the origin of life takes far more faith than to believe that we came into being much more dramatically, imo.
The chances of human existence are exactly 1:1. The chances of the Earth being suitable for life is exactly 1:1. The chances that we are exactly as we are today is 1:1.
You have misapplied math.
For instance, the chances that every one of your ancestors would meet, conceive exactly at the moment that they did, not die from an infinite number of circumstances and live to childbearing age, and then to finally see you born, is a mathematical impossibility. Yet, 1:1. Here you are, arguing poorly on a forum.
As to the massive number of mutations, let's not forget that the common cold alone can manipulate genes. Would you care to guess how many other causations exist? How many existed, disappeared, and will appear in the future?
Also, Evolution does not explain the origin of life. It was never theorized to do such. Are you under the impression that it does?
yeah, but the thing is, that would chaffs the evolutionists ass when you tell them it takes more faith to believe in evolution than in creationism. It just pisses them off like crazy! lol I personally believe in Evolution as much as I believe shit tastes like maple syrup and strawberry creme.
The last I heard, though, is that churches are doing better with the bad economy.
People have found faith.
One good thing about taking away peoples' jobs and houses is that they learn what they value:
faith, family, community, relationships, other.
Churches flourish under conditions of uncertainty and fear. They use superstitions and myths to protect themselves from the unknown. This happens in all cultures, and under all religions. I'm just glad that I don't suddenly throw money away or spend time on useless prayer when things start going bad. Nor do I visit palm readers, do ceremonial dances, or sacrifice a chicken.
Originally posted by Fishermage Now you are misrepresenting people. None of the people you mention have ever used the argument that "you assume this one portion is true in an a priori way -- however, YOU are assuming it is FICTION in an a priori way. One establishes the credibility of a source through standard means, then one assumes that at least the SOURCE thinks it is true. YOU then establish if there is any other evidence from outside means and other disciplines that corroborate it. None of those people assumes anything; each establishes a careful case of crdibility that builds a very clear and convincing case -- one that I feel will convince anyone with an open mind. If you start out ASSUMING the data is mythology, as you do, of course you can't be convinced. Anytime we lock ourselves into a certain worldview we can't be convinced of anything. Why do claims of the fantastical require fantastic proof? I do not believe that is part of any standard evidenciary methods; again. that is a personal decision YOU make, since you decide to make up your own insurmountable rules of evidence. YOu have substituted rhetoric for reason, your own religion for reality. In other words, you are unconvinced because you have willfully made yourself unconvincible. So much so that you falsify the arguments of others here. Again, thank you for your time, now I see what the problem here is. I used to have the same one.
Sorry, I was going to answer sooner, but my talking cat walked into my room and asked me for some tuna. So, I conjured a can from thin air and moved the contents with my mind to his plate. I then proceeded to visit a distant planet through teleportation, where I gathered some of my favorite alien fruits and had a snack. I am now back at my keyboard and ready to reply.
Wait, you don't believe me? I don't understand. I gave you a fantastical tale and you think I'm lying to you? But I thought you believed anything? This makes no sense to me. Hold on a second, my pink, invisible dragon needs to be taken for a walk.
I'm back.
Oh, the dragon thing? Yeah, I would let you touch him, but he is only solid when people truly believe in him and don't ask for proof. And yeah, wanting to touch him is asking for proof. So, sorry.
Well, guess I don't really have any answers to your pressing questions. Sorry again,
Maybe I wouldn't have ended up agnostic if I had grown up with a need to believe in something otherworldly.
For instance, if my family, friends, and other networks were all very religious, I bet they would have rubbed off religious hearsay on me. so many believers and so much religious knowledge would have influenced my mindset. As a susceptible child I would believe that the religion I was born into has many solid reasons as to why I must believe that religion true (one reason is that I would go to hell if if I was a nonbeliever - also all my peers would be convinced that the bible is mostly historical fact).
Eventually, because of my religious upbringing, I would become a man that has learned to never question my own faith because 'that's just the way it is'.
Nowadays there really isnt as much of a need to beleive in something otherworldly like in the olden days when life was much tougher. also, people have more networks that arent religious... the percentage of agnostics and atheists will continue to rise since more children will not have religious upbringings
Agnostic/soft atheist from the age of about 12 or 13, started to become a theist at around 30 or so, after studying world religions for over a decade,
I was an athiest until I was 17. I wasn't one of those asshat athiests that put anyone down that did not believe what I believed in but I was an athiest nevertheless. I did not believe there was anything out there. I had this preconceived notion that when you died that was it.
When I went to college I started to learn philosophy, physics, music, etc and I started to believe in something ...agnostic if you will. Then after about a year or so after intense spiritual searching and through a critical viewpoint I found the Bible to be deadly accurate and became a Christian.
The more I learn about the world and the Universe and the more I know God, the more I realize I did not make a mistake. My only mistake was closing my mind and beinf self centered for the first 17 years of my life.
nd the funny thing is I can argue and debate until I am blue in the face but it all boils down to one point. We will both die. If the athiest is right, then there is nothing to loose because I wont even realize Im dead because I will no longer be self existant ...or existant in any form.
If I'm right, the Atheist has a rather interesting suprise awaiting.
It's said that all people, including atheists, pray on an airplane which is about to crash. I've never been on a crashing plane, but I believe it. When faced with the prospect of their impending doom, every human suddenly comes face to face with mortality and what will happen when their life ends. It's too bad that too many people wait until that moment to try to make a deal with their creator.
Originally posted by Fishermage Now you are misrepresenting people. None of the people you mention have ever used the argument that "you assume this one portion is true in an a priori way -- however, YOU are assuming it is FICTION in an a priori way. One establishes the credibility of a source through standard means, then one assumes that at least the SOURCE thinks it is true. YOU then establish if there is any other evidence from outside means and other disciplines that corroborate it. None of those people assumes anything; each establishes a careful case of crdibility that builds a very clear and convincing case -- one that I feel will convince anyone with an open mind. If you start out ASSUMING the data is mythology, as you do, of course you can't be convinced. Anytime we lock ourselves into a certain worldview we can't be convinced of anything. Why do claims of the fantastical require fantastic proof? I do not believe that is part of any standard evidenciary methods; again. that is a personal decision YOU make, since you decide to make up your own insurmountable rules of evidence. YOu have substituted rhetoric for reason, your own religion for reality. In other words, you are unconvinced because you have willfully made yourself unconvincible. So much so that you falsify the arguments of others here. Again, thank you for your time, now I see what the problem here is. I used to have the same one.
Sorry, I was going to answer sooner, but my talking cat walked into my room and asked me for some tuna. So, I conjured a can from thin air and moved the contents with my mind to his plate. I then proceeded to visit a distant planet through teleportation, where I gathered some of my favorite alien fruits and had a snack. I am now back at my keyboard and ready to reply.
Wait, you don't believe me? I don't understand. I gave you a fantastical tale and you think I'm lying to you? But I thought you believed anything? This makes no sense to me. Hold on a second, my pink, invisible dragon needs to be taken for a walk.
I'm back.
Oh, the dragon thing? Yeah, I would let you touch him, but he is only solid when people truly believe in him and don't ask for proof. And yeah, wanting to touch him is asking for proof. So, sorry.
Well, guess I don't really have any answers to your pressing questions. Sorry again,
- LC
Your point? You have not established your credibility as a witness. Why should I believe you. Your example fails.
I never said I believed "anything." Once again, the straw man fallacy mixed with a bit of appeal to ridicule. Try again.
Originally posted by Fishermage Agnostic/soft atheist from the age of about 12 or 13, started to become a theist at around 30 or so, after studying world religions for over a decade, then embarked on more studies, eventually, after arguing with scholars for over a year on these subjects, became a Christian at 36. I am now 46 and have seen nothing that has even come close to challenging that. My background however is purely scientific, however, and I still consider myself a very scientific person. I test everything, assume nothing other than a few basic axioms like A is A and such (which I throw out the window with higher mathematics and new physics, but that's another story). My main field is economics but I study everything that interests me and am always looking to expand my world view. I have debated with every type of atheist and read every book I can find on the subject. I always accept a challenge -- in fact, I enjoy such things because they help me hone my views.
Interesting. You studied world religions, in which you would have met people just as dedicated to their religions as you are now, and yet you believe you are right and they are wrong. I mean, sure, I believe you are -all- wrong, but that is only because I am such a materialist and require proof.
I was raised Baptist from a young age, got heavily involved in the church in my teens, argued for a graduation prayer my senior year in high school (1400 signatures -- go me), and then turned Atheist in my mid 20's right in the middle of a mythology class. I'm now 34.
My background is Rhetoric. (some people call that my religion -- boy, the things some people say)
I don't have anything to lose by going from Atheist to Theist. Which is why I'm okay with reading religious material and actually hoping to find some glimmer of truth to the mythology (it irks Christians to hear me call their religion mythology, but I am just being honest). I'm serious: If I had proof of an afterlife, seeing family and friends again, and living forever, wouldn't that be the absolute coolest thing EVER? I have to say, I would have a LOT to gain.
So, when you read Atheist materials and debate religion, do you realize everything you have to lose? I think that would certainly put a crimp in just how open my mind is to the possibility of losing my faith. Man, that is SO much to lose. For someone who is completely engulfed in such a thing, it is hard to believe anyone could walk away from it, ya know?
Which is why I only get into passing debates on religion. I know what you have to lose, and I don't have anything of the sort to wager. Don't feel sad for me, I'm okay with it. Moving from non-religious to religious would be such a small step for me. I'm a good person. I help others. I give time and money to charitable causes. I treat others as they want to be treated (better than the golden rule, in my opinion). I doubt it would take much for me to move back into a religious life. Prayer. Church. Exclusion of certain groups, but saying you love them all the same. Sincere belief. Thinking about religion when fear is triggered.
Anyway, the religious say they have an open mind, but I know better. We're quite capable of filtering everything we see and hear when it suits us.
Some people might accuse me of this, but honestly, why wouldn't I WANT to believe in the fantastical? You guys got a sweet deal going on there. I would love it. I just can't make myself believe in it. I think people just don't understand that about Atheists.
i dont like how atheism and agnosticism have become interchangeable over the years.
in my opinion, atheists have faith or a strong belief that there is no god. this is just as proofless as believing that there is a god.
that's why I consider myself an agnostic. it's the only one where you don't beleive in anything.
and to the person who mentioned how even atheists pray when a plane is about to crash - why must praying that you will live have religious conotations? because of the word prayer? nahh you can pray that you will live and not be religious. pray that you'll get lucky or karma will see you through etc..
Agnostic/soft atheist from the age of about 12 or 13, started to become a theist at around 30 or so, after studying world religions for over a decade,
I was an athiest until I was 17. I wasn't one of those asshat athiests that put anyone down that did not believe what I believed in but I was an athiest nevertheless. I did not believe there was anything out there. I had this preconceived notion that when you died that was it.
When I went to college I started to learn philosophy, physics, music, etc and I started to believe in something ...agnostic if you will. Then after about a year or so after intense spiritual searching and through a critical viewpoint I found the Bible to be deadly accurate and became a Christian.
The more I learn about the world and the Universe and the more I know God, the more I realize I did not make a mistake. My only mistake was closing my mind and beinf self centered for the first 17 years of my life.
nd the funny thing is I can argue and debate until I am blue in the face but it all boils down to one point. We will both die. If the athiest is right, then there is nothing to loose because I wont even realize Im dead because I will no longer be self existant ...or existant in any form.
If I'm right, the Atheist has a rather interesting suprise awaiting.
It's said that all people, including atheists, pray on an airplane which is about to crash. I've never been on a crashing plane, but I believe it. When faced with the prospect of their impending doom, every human suddenly comes face to face with mortality and what will happen when their life ends. It's too bad that too many people wait until that moment to try to make a deal with their creator.
Yes, and there are no Atheists in foxholes. Utter rubbish. This is only more support for the fact that religion is fear-based superstition. When things get rough, be sure to knock on wood and do a little dance. Maybe that will save you, eh?
I find it too bad that so many people wasted the few moments of their life on prayer, religious study (although many Christians do not study the Bible), and groveling before a fictional being. At the end of your life, you'll wish you had those days, weeks, years back to do something more worthwhile. Or, more probably, you'll never realize they were gone when the nothingness takes you.
i dont like how atheism and agnosticism have become interchangeable over the years. in my opinion, atheists have faith or a strong belief that there is no god. this is just as proofless as believing that there is a god. that's why I consider myself an agnostic. it's the only one where you don't beleive in anything.
and to the person who mentioned how even atheists pray when a plane is about to crash - why does praying that will you have to have religious conotations? because of the word prayer? nahh you can pray that you will live and not be religious. pray that you'll get lucky or karma will see you through etc..
Atheism is a lack of belief in god(s). Period. I go so far as to say there are no god(s), because it is beyond the realm of possibility. But the normal Atheist is simply saying, "I have no god belief."
If you can imagine having no belief in fairies, you can imagine having no belief in god(s).
Hell, even Christians have no belief in Thor or the idea that the Japanese Emperor was a god. Why give their god special consideration? Atheism is the way, the truth, and the light. Embrace it.
Originally posted by Fishermage Agnostic/soft atheist from the age of about 12 or 13, started to become a theist at around 30 or so, after studying world religions for over a decade, then embarked on more studies, eventually, after arguing with scholars for over a year on these subjects, became a Christian at 36. I am now 46 and have seen nothing that has even come close to challenging that. My background however is purely scientific, however, and I still consider myself a very scientific person. I test everything, assume nothing other than a few basic axioms like A is A and such (which I throw out the window with higher mathematics and new physics, but that's another story). My main field is economics but I study everything that interests me and am always looking to expand my world view. I have debated with every type of atheist and read every book I can find on the subject. I always accept a challenge -- in fact, I enjoy such things because they help me hone my views.
Interesting. You studied world religions, in which you would have met people just as dedicated to their religions as you are now, and yet you believe you are right and they are wrong. I mean, sure, I believe you are -all- wrong, but that is only because I am such a materialist and require proof.
I was raised Baptist from a young age, got heavily involved in the church in my teens, argued for a graduation prayer my senior year in high school (1400 signatures -- go me), and then turned Atheist in my mid 20's right in the middle of a mythology class. I'm now 34.
My background is Rhetoric. (some people call that my religion -- boy, the things some people say)
I don't have anything to lose by going from Atheist to Theist. Which is why I'm okay with reading religious material and actually hoping to find some glimmer of truth to the mythology (it irks Christians to hear me call their religion mythology, but I am just being honest). I'm serious: If I had proof of an afterlife, seeing family and friends again, and living forever, wouldn't that be the absolute coolest thing EVER? I have to say, I would have a LOT to gain.
So, when you read Atheist materials and debate religion, do you realize everything you have to lose? I think that would certainly put a crimp in just how open my mind is to the possibility of losing my faith. Man, that is SO much to lose. For someone who is completely engulfed in such a thing, it is hard to believe anyone could walk away from it, ya know?
Which is why I only get into passing debates on religion. I know what you have to lose, and I don't have anything of the sort to wager. Don't feel sad for me, I'm okay with it. Moving from non-religious to religious would be such a small step for me. I'm a good person. I help others. I give time and money to charitable causes. I treat others as they want to be treated (better than the golden rule, in my opinion). I doubt it would take much for me to move back into a religious life. Prayer. Church. Exclusion of certain groups, but saying you love them all the same. Sincere belief. Thinking about religion when fear is triggered.
Anyway, the religious say they have an open mind, but I know better. We're quite capable of filtering everything we see and hear when it suits us.
Some people might accuse me of this, but honestly, why wouldn't I WANT to believe in the fantastical? You guys got a sweet deal going on there. I would love it. I just can't make myself believe in it. I think people just don't understand that about Atheists.
- LC
If your background is rhetoric, why do you use so many fallacies to make your points? Appeal to ridicule, straw men, psychoanalyzing your opposition instead of dealing with actual arguments. Where did you learn such rhetorical tactics are okay?
I don't think anyone has anything to lose by not believing, so no, that doesn't fit me at all. Again, you make false assumptions based upon ignorance, and then argue from there.
You are doing what you accuse me of.
I am simply following the evidence where it leads.
I don't believe in the fantastical, I believe in the logical and that which the evidence has proved. I believe in reality. My reality includes yours, and then goes a bit farther. That is the difference between us. Oh, that and I respect people who don't believe far more than you respect those who do.
Originally posted by Zindaihas Oh you haven't, huh? Well how about this? Mathmatically, evolution is impossible. Scientists say that the human race emerged about 200,00 years ago. Our closest animal relative is the chimpanzee. The percentage of DNA that humans and chimps share is not precisely known, but the most recent research indicates it's about 94%. The theory is that humans and chimps both branched off from a common ancestor about 6 million years ago. Now, 94% shared genetic material sounds pretty close, but consider that there are three billion DNA strands in the human genome. So even with a 94% match, that still leaves a 180 million DNA strand difference between humans and chimps. I don't know how evolutionists divide the number of mutations each species made from that common ancestor, but to get the smallest number, let's divide it in half and say that each one made roughly 90 million. In all likelihood, since humans are considered the superior species, it went through a greater number of mutations than chimps. So the question is, how could the human race possibly have gone through 90 million mutations in the last 6 million years to get from that common ancestor to where we are today? It's impossible. Considering that each generation could reproduce, at best, evey few years, and taking into account that every single mutation would have to be a positive one (the truth is that genetic mutations are far more likely to be negative, such as a cancer mutation), that would mean that there would have to be something on the order of about 60 positive mutations with each successive generation. And considering that modern science has observed no positive genetic mutations in the last one hundred years, I would call that mathmatically impossible. So believing in evolution to explain the origin of life takes far more faith than to believe that we came into being much more dramatically, imo.
The chances of human existence are exactly 1:1. The chances of the Earth being suitable for life is exactly 1:1. The chances that we are exactly as we are today is 1:1.
You have misapplied math.
For instance, the chances that every one of your ancestors would meet, conceive exactly at the moment that they did, not die from an infinite number of circumstances and live to childbearing age, and then to finally see you born, is a mathematical impossibility. Yet, 1:1. Here you are, arguing poorly on a forum.
As to the massive number of mutations, let's not forget that the common cold alone can manipulate genes. Would you care to guess how many other causations exist? How many existed, disappeared, and will appear in the future?
Also, Evolution does not explain the origin of life. It was never theorized to do such. Are you under the impression that it does?
- LC
So what you are saying then is that because we are here today and because evolution has to be true, then everything must have happened exactly as I described it because evolution is the only logical explanation, even though it is mathmatically impossible and there is no evidence that such mutations are taking place today? Sounds like you are trying to stick a square peg into a round hole.
Cold viruses are simple celled organisms which are suitably designed to adapt to their environment quickly in order to survive. Human beings consist of trillions of cells which are incapable of such adaptation. A comparison between the two cannot be drawn.
Well if evolution does not explain the origin of life, there is no contradiction with creationism which does, is there? Which means if you reject creationism you have no explanation for the origin of life, do you? And therefore, what good is evolution to begin with?
Agnostic/soft atheist from the age of about 12 or 13, started to become a theist at around 30 or so, after studying world religions for over a decade,
I was an athiest until I was 17. I wasn't one of those asshat athiests that put anyone down that did not believe what I believed in but I was an athiest nevertheless. I did not believe there was anything out there. I had this preconceived notion that when you died that was it.
When I went to college I started to learn philosophy, physics, music, etc and I started to believe in something ...agnostic if you will. Then after about a year or so after intense spiritual searching and through a critical viewpoint I found the Bible to be deadly accurate and became a Christian.
The more I learn about the world and the Universe and the more I know God, the more I realize I did not make a mistake. My only mistake was closing my mind and beinf self centered for the first 17 years of my life.
nd the funny thing is I can argue and debate until I am blue in the face but it all boils down to one point. We will both die. If the athiest is right, then there is nothing to loose because I wont even realize Im dead because I will no longer be self existant ...or existant in any form.
If I'm right, the Atheist has a rather interesting suprise awaiting.
It's said that all people, including atheists, pray on an airplane which is about to crash. I've never been on a crashing plane, but I believe it. When faced with the prospect of their impending doom, every human suddenly comes face to face with mortality and what will happen when their life ends. It's too bad that too many people wait until that moment to try to make a deal with their creator.
Yes, and there are no Atheists in foxholes. Utter rubbish. This is only more support for the fact that religion is fear-based superstition. When things get rough, be sure to knock on wood and do a little dance. Maybe that will save you, eh?
I find it too bad that so many people wasted the few moments of their life on prayer, religious study (although many Christians do not study the Bible), and groveling before a fictional being. At the end of your life, you'll wish you had those days, weeks, years back to do something more worthwhile. Or, more probably, you'll never realize they were gone when the nothingness takes you.
- LC
Prove the being is fictional. First you deny that you make unproveable assertions, then you return to your unprovable assertion. Do you consider that to be a rational way to approach the topic?
Comments
Don't worry, all of your so-called 'proof' is hidden under a couple of thousand years of obscurity. You'll never have real proof, but you won't have any real proof against it either. You can just ask people to disprove a negative, then laugh and say God is real because they can't. Isn't that convenient? Here, let's try it:
Fishermage: Jesus walked on water!
Sensible People: No he didn't. Prove it!
Fishermage: The Bible says so, and there were witnesses in the Bible! Prove it's not true!
Sensible People: The Bible isn't evidence, it's a storybook! Find an independent source!
Fishermage: I win!
Pretty cool, eh? And when they show you discrepancies in the Bible to show it is fallible, just tell them that proves the Bible is correct -- because if people were trying to fool you, wouldn't all the stories match up? Heh. This game is fun.
- LC
So in other words, you have read no serious books on apologetics. Thank you for your time.
Firstly, I wasn't the person you asked that question of, I was just a passerby sticking my nose in the situation. I enjoy doing that.
Secondly, you'll need to define serious. When it comes to fairy-tales, I have a hard time taking anything seriously from 'experts'. Not to hurt your feelings, but unicorns aren't real, and crypto-zoology isn't a real field of science.
- LC
Sorry, I made a mistake because YOU chose to chop the context out. Anyway, it seems you haven't read any serious books on apologetics either. I define serious as written by recognized scholars in the subject.
Oh, and you can't hurt my feelings. I am trying to have an intelligent discussion here, and all you do is divert.
I will however repeat the question: how many serious books on apologetics have you read? How many unserious ones? If you haven't read any, why argue from a position of ignorance? Why not learn the best arguments against your position and then debate?
For the record I have read most of the latest greatest atheist books, including The God Delusion, Breaking the Spell, The End of Faith, and quite a few less known books on the subject. I have also read most of the answers to those books. I have also read every book Christopher Hitchens has written. I always seek to challenge myself with the best I can find against me.
It seems you would prefer ridiculing the opposition.
Oh well.
Yes, I tend to chop when things get longish. As to what I have read, the classic Apologist were required reading in my Rhetoric class, as well as some Lewis, and McGrath, along with others that I would have to dig out their names. Not to mention the modern day bloggers who proclaim expert status in mythology and write apologetics. Those are always interesting, especially when you can debate them on their own forum.
The interesting thing is, there is always that moment in the books or papers where the author waves his hands and does the Jedi Mind trick of, "You will assume this one portion is true...", and then all of the remainder of the book goes from there. I don't assume anything is true, and find it insulting that fiction should be trusted as such. Remove that one pin and the entire argument falls apart -- but we're to assume.
For instance, we're always to assume that an eyewitness account is legitimate, because why would someone lie? First, we're to assume there was an actual witness and that witness is not a figment of the author's imagination. Second, we're to assume people don't lie, have ulterior motives, or didn't have a sickness of the mind. Claims of the fantastical require fantastical proof. Period. And proof is something none of the apologists have. But again, that's the fun of having thousands of years of obscurity to hide behind. You say it is true, I say mythology is not.
- LC
Now you are misrepresenting people. None of the people you mention have ever used the argument that "you assume this one portion is true in an a priori way -- however, YOU are assuming it is FICTION in an a priori way.
One establishes the credibility of a source through standard means, then one assumes that at least the SOURCE thinks it is true. YOU then establish if there is any other evidence from outside means and other disciplines that corroborate it. None of those people assumes anything; each establishes a careful case of crdibility that builds a very clear and convincing case -- one that I feel will convince anyone with an open mind.
If you start out ASSUMING the data is mythology, as you do, of course you can't be convinced. Anytime we lock ourselves into a certain worldview we can't be convinced of anything.
Why do claims of the fantastical require fantastic proof? I do not believe that is part of any standard evidenciary methods; again. that is a personal decision YOU make, since you decide to make up your own insurmountable rules of evidence. YOu have substituted rhetoric for reason, your own religion for reality.
In other words, you are unconvinced because you have willfully made yourself unconvincible. So much so that you falsify the arguments of others here.
Again, thank you for your time, now I see what the problem here is. I used to have the same one.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Lets not forget that the Gospels Christians hold dearly are all contradictory to one another, and the the original authorship of the Old Testament is still classified by letters J, D, P and etc. We still don't know who wrote/edited much of the Old Testament, and most of the New Testament was written well after JC's time, with nearly every story/fable contradicting another.
For instance, in Matthew, Jesus asks "Father, why have you forsaken me?" when on the cross. In Mark I believe, he says "Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do". This seems like a minor difference, but this is a glaring symbol of the Bible's hodge podge collection of false stories to suit the ultimate goal of brainwashing you as Christians. Anyone with any logic, reason and/or the ability to read critically will see the Bible for what it is: A text that has cherry-picked stories to make it convenient to enforce the idea of sin, repentence, afterlife and salvation. Its almost as though Christians view all of these contradtictions as part of God's greater plan, which is quite silly, since humans wrote all of these stories to begin with.
Show me a contradiction in the gospels.
What if Jesus said BOTH on the cross? No contradiction. Sorry, millions of critical thinking. scientific people believe the gospels -- in fact, critical thought is the product of Christian dialectic as much as it is the prodict of socraties, plato and aristotle.
I will ask what I asked the people above: how many serious books on apologetics have YOU read?
fishermage.blogspot.com
Lets not forget that the Gospels Christians hold dearly are all contradictory to one another, and the the original authorship of the Old Testament is still classified by letters J, D, P and etc. We still don't know who wrote/edited much of the Old Testament, and most of the New Testament was written well after JC's time, with nearly every story/fable contradicting another.
For instance, in Matthew, Jesus asks "Father, why have you forsaken me?" when on the cross. In Mark I believe, he says "Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do". This seems like a minor difference, but this is a glaring symbol of the Bible's hodge podge collection of false stories to suit the ultimate goal of brainwashing you as Christians. Anyone with any logic, reason and/or the ability to read critically will see the Bible for what it is: A text that has cherry-picked stories to make it convenient to enforce the idea of sin, repentence, afterlife and salvation. Its almost as though Christians view all of these contradtictions as part of God's greater plan, which is quite silly, since humans wrote all of these stories to begin with.
The Gospels aren't contradictory to one another, they give slightly different accounts from varying viewpoints.
As someone who has taken a REAL IQ test, been labeled a genius, and converted to Christianity much later in life (when I was 19) I take great offense to the idea that you have to be an illogical bonehead in order to believe what is in the Bible...I personally believe that you have to be an illogical bonehead without any critical thinking skills to believe in evolution...want to bring up some of the points from the Bible that you think are contradictory to science? Let's talk about this.
What is interesting is that all of the big atheists these days like Hitchens and such claim to have been atheists since they were twelve or so, while many of the great apologists are people who became Christians MUCH later, after much education, thought and experience.
No reason to take offense though my friend -- we have all been where they are at one time or another.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Don't even say evolution is science, its just a theory too. View both sides of the coin evenly.
It is a one sided coin. Evolution is a scientific theory, and Intelligent Design is not.
- LC
Want to debate on the scientific merits of evolution versus intelligent design?
You're not going to be happy with what you find out about your precious evolution pseudoscience.
What I find out? I have never found a decent argument against the Theory of Evolution, nor a probable and well-supported alternative. If you're so sure of yourself, you should be publishing in scientific journals and not hiding out on a gaming forum where you can pat yourself on the back for knowing more than a 16 year old. Somehow, I imagine I've heard everything you're going to say. I'm not just sure, I am positive.
As for any merits Intelligent Design may carry, there are none that cross over into the realm of science. Intelligent Design is simply an attack, generated by fervent belief in a mythological being, on a well-thought and supported Scientific Theory. Don't act like you've got some grand weapon against it. I know better. And while we're at it, let's not call it Intelligent Design, let's call it what it really is: Creationism. Creationism is the idea that if you can find some error in Evolution, then Goddidit.
So yeah, I'll be back on Monday, let me know if you come up with something that isn't cut and pasted from a Creationist website. Cite your sources. No quote mining. And if it is the same old argument, that I've heard so many times it makes me want to punch puppies, then I'll just ignore you -- because I already know you're not as good as you imagine yourself, you're just blustering violently because you haven't done your homework.
I'll bring a mountain of evidence, you bring your god-in-the-gaps mentality.
- LC
edit: On second thought, I just saw you're 21 years old. You have nothing to bring to the table. No experience. No real intelligence (oh my, he took an IQ test... scary). And certainly no idea what you believe. I'll wait 5-6 years and see if you actually believe the same thing. Look me up then. I imagine you'll be an atheist by that time. Right now, you just -think- you know something.
Agnostic/soft atheist from the age of about 12 or 13, started to become a theist at around 30 or so, after studying world religions for over a decade, then embarked on more studies, eventually, after arguing with scholars for over a year on these subjects, became a Christian at 36. I am now 46 and have seen nothing that has even come close to challenging that.
My background however is purely scientific, however, and I still consider myself a very scientific person. I test everything, assume nothing other than a few basic axioms like A is A and such (which I throw out the window with higher mathematics and new physics, but that's another story).
My main field is economics but I study everything that interests me and am always looking to expand my world view.
I have debated with every type of atheist and read every book I can find on the subject.
I always accept a challenge -- in fact, I enjoy such things because they help me hone my views.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Okay, here is a good excerpt from the book referred to in the article:
"In Matthew, Jesus comes into being when he is conceived, or born, of a virgin; in John, Jesus is the incarnate Word of God who was with God in the beginning and through whom the universe was made. In Matthew, there is not a word about Jesus being God; in John, that's precisely who he is. In Matthew, Jesus teaches about the coming kingdom of God and almost never about himself (and never that he is divine); in John, Jesus teaches almost exclusively about himself, especially his divinity. In Matthew, Jesus refuses to perform miracles in order to prove his identity; in John, that is practically the only reason he does miracles. "
If the gospels can't agree on the divinity of their leader, what are we supposed to think? Each of these four disciples have radically different views about Jesus, and write about him according to their own experiences. Not only do they contradict each other regularly, the whole concept of Jesus' existence is contradictory! Also, it looks as though Matthew doesn't regard Jesus as divine either. But you Christians will probably just gloss over that book, right?
Again that's not a contradiction. Do you know what a logical contradiction is. All of these things stated can be true. A contradiction is when both CAN NOT be true.
That last part about Miracles the two things are in different contexts. At certain times, jesus refuses to perform miracles because He doesn't want to reveal himself, at others, he does. Again only if we had the same INSTANCE he wouldn't do such would we have a contradiction.
Matthew certainly does regard Jesus as Divine, he just says it differently than John does. All the Gospels do.
They have different perspectives and different ways of saying things, probably because they are writing for different audiences.
Maybe try and show some quotes and contexts to prove your case because you haven't made it yet. I used to feel exactly as you do, and then I decided not to conform to agnostic/atheist dogma and actually evaluate the evidence myself.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Matthew 11:27. "All things have been handed over to Me by my Father: and no one knows the Son, except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father, except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him."
Here is one example of Matthew claiming Jesus to be divine.
Matthew 12:28; parallel in Luke 11:20. "If I cast out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you."
Here Jesus is using miracles to prove He is Divine, or at least to prove that He is God's representative of His Kingdom.
This took me about a minute to find with google.
Here's the page:
www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/miscclaims.html
fishermage.blogspot.com
I was an athiest until I was 17. I wasn't one of those asshat athiests that put anyone down that did not believe what I believed in but I was an athiest nevertheless. I did not believe there was anything out there. I had this preconceived notion that when you died that was it.
When I went to college I started to learn philosophy, physics, music, etc and I started to believe in something ...agnostic if you will. Then after about a year or so after intense spiritual searching and through a critical viewpoint I found the Bible to be deadly accurate and became a Christian.
The more I learn about the world and the Universe and the more I know God, the more I realize I did not make a mistake. My only mistake was closing my mind and beinf self centered for the first 17 years of my life.
nd the funny thing is I can argue and debate until I am blue in the face but it all boils down to one point. We will both die. If the athiest is right, then there is nothing to loose because I wont even realize Im dead because I will no longer be self existant ...or existant in any form.
If I'm right, the Atheist has a rather interesting suprise awaiting.
People who have to create conspiracy and hate threads to further a cause lacks in intellectual comprehension of diversity.
I was an athiest until I was 17. I wasn't one of those asshat athiests that put anyone down that did not believe what I believed in but I was an athiest nevertheless. I did not believe there was anything out there. I had this preconceived notion that when you died that was it.
When I went to college I started to learn philosophy, physics, music, etc and I started to believe in something ...agnostic if you will. Then after about a year or so after intense spiritual searching and through a critical viewpoint I found the Bible to be deadly accurate and became a Christian.
The more I learn about the world and the Universe and the more I know God, the more I realize I did not make a mistake. My only mistake was closing my mind and beinf self centered for the first 17 years of my life.
nd the funny thing is I can argue and debate until I am blue in the face but it all boils down to one point. We will both die. If the athiest is right, then there is nothing to loose because I wont even realize Im dead because I will no longer be self existant ...or existant in any form.
If I'm right, the Atheist has a rather interesting suprise awaiting.
That is the very similar to the story of many of the educated Christians I know.
I do have to admit I was at times an asshat anti-Christian, and used the same appeals to ridicule that others did, the same bad assumptions, the same ad hominem attacks. All the stuff we see here on these forums. That stopped as I matured, and while still being a soft atheist I started treating people with more respect.
I had met too many intelligent, decent people who were also believers in the Divine. I also studied logic, philosophy and stuff like that, and realized that those attacks were childish defense mechanisms to hide my ignorance and inability to argue effectively.
What is funny is I do not consider myself much of an apologist -- it's not my calling. I personally find my place is to liberate the liberated -- in other words, to teach my fellow believers what Grace fully means and to help folks implement Galatians 5.1:
"It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery."
I find too many of us have enslaved ourselves to doctrines and denominations, and have lost the Liberty in Christ. God has called me, in my own small measure to restore that Liberty to the Free.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Pardon me, I have this little thing called work that I had to attend to...i don't live on this forum.
It looks though, like I don't need to answer your supposed contradiction, as Fishermage has already done it for me...That's rather convenient, as I'm quite tired and need to rest a little bit before I go off to play basketball with some religious kook friends.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Don't even say evolution is science, its just a theory too. View both sides of the coin evenly.
It is a one sided coin. Evolution is a scientific theory, and Intelligent Design is not.
- LC
Want to debate on the scientific merits of evolution versus intelligent design?
You're not going to be happy with what you find out about your precious evolution pseudoscience.
What I find out? I have never found a decent argument against the Theory of Evolution
Oh you haven't, huh? Well how about this? Mathmatically, evolution is impossible. Scientists say that the human race emerged about 200,00 years ago. Our closest animal relative is the chimpanzee. The percentage of DNA that humans and chimps share is not precisely known, but the most recent research indicates it's about 94%. The theory is that humans and chimps both branched off from a common ancestor about 6 million years ago.
Now, 94% shared genetic material sounds pretty close, but consider that there are three billion DNA strands in the human genome. So even with a 94% match, that still leaves a 180 million DNA strand difference between humans and chimps. I don't know how evolutionists divide the number of mutations each species made from that common ancestor, but to get the smallest number, let's divide it in half and say that each one made roughly 90 million. In all likelihood, since humans are considered the superior species, it went through a greater number of mutations than chimps.
So the question is, how could the human race possibly have gone through 90 million mutations in the last 6 million years to get from that common ancestor to where we are today? It's impossible. Considering that each generation could reproduce, at best, evey few years, and taking into account that every single mutation would have to be a positive one (the truth is that genetic mutations are far more likely to be negative, such as a cancer mutation), that would mean that there would have to be something on the order of about 60 positive mutations with each successive generation. And considering that modern science has observed no positive genetic mutations in the last one hundred years, I would call that mathmatically impossible.
So believing in evolution to explain the origin of life takes far more faith than to believe that we came into being much more dramatically, imo.
No, it doesn't take more faith. The theory of evolution has come from research, and the conclussion is drawn after mountains of overwhelming evidence. Religious faith has come in most cases from an old book that usually contains "Miracles" and other things that can't really happen.
Do you care about the evidence behind Evolution? No. You don't. Neither does Enigma.
The reason? Very simple:
Bertrand Russel:
""If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way.""
You just proved mr Russel to be correct by completely ignoring a good old fashioned common sense argument against Evolution and going back to the "but but but it's science" argument without so much as a mention of the content of his post.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
What do you know, I have a bit of time. So, let's tackle this huge influx of comments...
The only comment I have to you is this: You assume that if there is no god(s), then that means the universe sprung up from nothingness and has no meaning.
I say this, and get used to it: I don't know.
Try it with me: I don't know.
There is no either/or, there is simply: I don't know.
Christians seem to think the default of failed science is a god or gods. That is not true. There is always the real alternative. We do not know how the universe came into existence, if it is infinite, and if it is eternal. Science may some day have the answer to the question. In the meantime, do we take our cues from Middle Eastern tribesmen who could only guess at the answers of the universe, or do we wait patiently for the answers, and possibly die without knowing?
I'm okay with not having a real answer. I've become okay with the realization that when I die nothing will happen. I've also, not easily, come to realize that I will never see the dead loved ones in my life again; my father, all of my grandparents, friends.
We atheists arguably have the hardest part in life. We know there is nothing, and even if we wanted to believe it, we cannot force ourselves to. Try to force yourself to believe in Santa again, and you'll see what it is like.
As to the rest of what you've written, I've heard it all, I've seen it all, and frankly, I'm tired of dealing with it. If you had been born 9,000 years ago in Asia, you would have believed something entirely different and would argue just as vehemently for it.
Old saying: You're just one religion short of being an Atheist.
I lost my religion in a Mythology class. Makes sense, doesn't it?
- LC
The chances of human existence are exactly 1:1. The chances of the Earth being suitable for life is exactly 1:1. The chances that we are exactly as we are today is 1:1.
You have misapplied math.
For instance, the chances that every one of your ancestors would meet, conceive exactly at the moment that they did, not die from an infinite number of circumstances and live to childbearing age, and then to finally see you born, is a mathematical impossibility. Yet, 1:1. Here you are, arguing poorly on a forum.
As to the massive number of mutations, let's not forget that the common cold alone can manipulate genes. Would you care to guess how many other causations exist? How many existed, disappeared, and will appear in the future?
Also, Evolution does not explain the origin of life. It was never theorized to do such. Are you under the impression that it does?
- LC
Don't eat feces.
- LC
Churches flourish under conditions of uncertainty and fear. They use superstitions and myths to protect themselves from the unknown. This happens in all cultures, and under all religions. I'm just glad that I don't suddenly throw money away or spend time on useless prayer when things start going bad. Nor do I visit palm readers, do ceremonial dances, or sacrifice a chicken.
- LC
Sorry, I was going to answer sooner, but my talking cat walked into my room and asked me for some tuna. So, I conjured a can from thin air and moved the contents with my mind to his plate. I then proceeded to visit a distant planet through teleportation, where I gathered some of my favorite alien fruits and had a snack. I am now back at my keyboard and ready to reply.
Wait, you don't believe me? I don't understand. I gave you a fantastical tale and you think I'm lying to you? But I thought you believed anything? This makes no sense to me. Hold on a second, my pink, invisible dragon needs to be taken for a walk.
I'm back.
Oh, the dragon thing? Yeah, I would let you touch him, but he is only solid when people truly believe in him and don't ask for proof. And yeah, wanting to touch him is asking for proof. So, sorry.
Well, guess I don't really have any answers to your pressing questions. Sorry again,
- LC
Maybe I wouldn't have ended up agnostic if I had grown up with a need to believe in something otherworldly.
For instance, if my family, friends, and other networks were all very religious, I bet they would have rubbed off religious hearsay on me. so many believers and so much religious knowledge would have influenced my mindset. As a susceptible child I would believe that the religion I was born into has many solid reasons as to why I must believe that religion true (one reason is that I would go to hell if if I was a nonbeliever - also all my peers would be convinced that the bible is mostly historical fact).
Eventually, because of my religious upbringing, I would become a man that has learned to never question my own faith because 'that's just the way it is'.
Nowadays there really isnt as much of a need to beleive in something otherworldly like in the olden days when life was much tougher. also, people have more networks that arent religious... the percentage of agnostics and atheists will continue to rise since more children will not have religious upbringings
I was an athiest until I was 17. I wasn't one of those asshat athiests that put anyone down that did not believe what I believed in but I was an athiest nevertheless. I did not believe there was anything out there. I had this preconceived notion that when you died that was it.
When I went to college I started to learn philosophy, physics, music, etc and I started to believe in something ...agnostic if you will. Then after about a year or so after intense spiritual searching and through a critical viewpoint I found the Bible to be deadly accurate and became a Christian.
The more I learn about the world and the Universe and the more I know God, the more I realize I did not make a mistake. My only mistake was closing my mind and beinf self centered for the first 17 years of my life.
nd the funny thing is I can argue and debate until I am blue in the face but it all boils down to one point. We will both die. If the athiest is right, then there is nothing to loose because I wont even realize Im dead because I will no longer be self existant ...or existant in any form.
If I'm right, the Atheist has a rather interesting suprise awaiting.
It's said that all people, including atheists, pray on an airplane which is about to crash. I've never been on a crashing plane, but I believe it. When faced with the prospect of their impending doom, every human suddenly comes face to face with mortality and what will happen when their life ends. It's too bad that too many people wait until that moment to try to make a deal with their creator.
Sorry, I was going to answer sooner, but my talking cat walked into my room and asked me for some tuna. So, I conjured a can from thin air and moved the contents with my mind to his plate. I then proceeded to visit a distant planet through teleportation, where I gathered some of my favorite alien fruits and had a snack. I am now back at my keyboard and ready to reply.
Wait, you don't believe me? I don't understand. I gave you a fantastical tale and you think I'm lying to you? But I thought you believed anything? This makes no sense to me. Hold on a second, my pink, invisible dragon needs to be taken for a walk.
I'm back.
Oh, the dragon thing? Yeah, I would let you touch him, but he is only solid when people truly believe in him and don't ask for proof. And yeah, wanting to touch him is asking for proof. So, sorry.
Well, guess I don't really have any answers to your pressing questions. Sorry again,
- LC
Your point? You have not established your credibility as a witness. Why should I believe you. Your example fails.
I never said I believed "anything." Once again, the straw man fallacy mixed with a bit of appeal to ridicule. Try again.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Interesting. You studied world religions, in which you would have met people just as dedicated to their religions as you are now, and yet you believe you are right and they are wrong. I mean, sure, I believe you are -all- wrong, but that is only because I am such a materialist and require proof.
I was raised Baptist from a young age, got heavily involved in the church in my teens, argued for a graduation prayer my senior year in high school (1400 signatures -- go me), and then turned Atheist in my mid 20's right in the middle of a mythology class. I'm now 34.
My background is Rhetoric. (some people call that my religion -- boy, the things some people say)
I don't have anything to lose by going from Atheist to Theist. Which is why I'm okay with reading religious material and actually hoping to find some glimmer of truth to the mythology (it irks Christians to hear me call their religion mythology, but I am just being honest). I'm serious: If I had proof of an afterlife, seeing family and friends again, and living forever, wouldn't that be the absolute coolest thing EVER? I have to say, I would have a LOT to gain.
So, when you read Atheist materials and debate religion, do you realize everything you have to lose? I think that would certainly put a crimp in just how open my mind is to the possibility of losing my faith. Man, that is SO much to lose. For someone who is completely engulfed in such a thing, it is hard to believe anyone could walk away from it, ya know?
Which is why I only get into passing debates on religion. I know what you have to lose, and I don't have anything of the sort to wager. Don't feel sad for me, I'm okay with it. Moving from non-religious to religious would be such a small step for me. I'm a good person. I help others. I give time and money to charitable causes. I treat others as they want to be treated (better than the golden rule, in my opinion). I doubt it would take much for me to move back into a religious life. Prayer. Church. Exclusion of certain groups, but saying you love them all the same. Sincere belief. Thinking about religion when fear is triggered.
Anyway, the religious say they have an open mind, but I know better. We're quite capable of filtering everything we see and hear when it suits us.
Some people might accuse me of this, but honestly, why wouldn't I WANT to believe in the fantastical? You guys got a sweet deal going on there. I would love it. I just can't make myself believe in it. I think people just don't understand that about Atheists.
- LC
i dont like how atheism and agnosticism have become interchangeable over the years.
in my opinion, atheists have faith or a strong belief that there is no god. this is just as proofless as believing that there is a god.
that's why I consider myself an agnostic. it's the only one where you don't beleive in anything.
and to the person who mentioned how even atheists pray when a plane is about to crash - why must praying that you will live have religious conotations? because of the word prayer? nahh you can pray that you will live and not be religious. pray that you'll get lucky or karma will see you through etc..
I was an athiest until I was 17. I wasn't one of those asshat athiests that put anyone down that did not believe what I believed in but I was an athiest nevertheless. I did not believe there was anything out there. I had this preconceived notion that when you died that was it.
When I went to college I started to learn philosophy, physics, music, etc and I started to believe in something ...agnostic if you will. Then after about a year or so after intense spiritual searching and through a critical viewpoint I found the Bible to be deadly accurate and became a Christian.
The more I learn about the world and the Universe and the more I know God, the more I realize I did not make a mistake. My only mistake was closing my mind and beinf self centered for the first 17 years of my life.
nd the funny thing is I can argue and debate until I am blue in the face but it all boils down to one point. We will both die. If the athiest is right, then there is nothing to loose because I wont even realize Im dead because I will no longer be self existant ...or existant in any form.
If I'm right, the Atheist has a rather interesting suprise awaiting.
It's said that all people, including atheists, pray on an airplane which is about to crash. I've never been on a crashing plane, but I believe it. When faced with the prospect of their impending doom, every human suddenly comes face to face with mortality and what will happen when their life ends. It's too bad that too many people wait until that moment to try to make a deal with their creator.
Yes, and there are no Atheists in foxholes. Utter rubbish. This is only more support for the fact that religion is fear-based superstition. When things get rough, be sure to knock on wood and do a little dance. Maybe that will save you, eh?
I find it too bad that so many people wasted the few moments of their life on prayer, religious study (although many Christians do not study the Bible), and groveling before a fictional being. At the end of your life, you'll wish you had those days, weeks, years back to do something more worthwhile. Or, more probably, you'll never realize they were gone when the nothingness takes you.
- LC
Atheism is a lack of belief in god(s). Period. I go so far as to say there are no god(s), because it is beyond the realm of possibility. But the normal Atheist is simply saying, "I have no god belief."
If you can imagine having no belief in fairies, you can imagine having no belief in god(s).
Hell, even Christians have no belief in Thor or the idea that the Japanese Emperor was a god. Why give their god special consideration? Atheism is the way, the truth, and the light. Embrace it.
- LC
Interesting. You studied world religions, in which you would have met people just as dedicated to their religions as you are now, and yet you believe you are right and they are wrong. I mean, sure, I believe you are -all- wrong, but that is only because I am such a materialist and require proof.
I was raised Baptist from a young age, got heavily involved in the church in my teens, argued for a graduation prayer my senior year in high school (1400 signatures -- go me), and then turned Atheist in my mid 20's right in the middle of a mythology class. I'm now 34.
My background is Rhetoric. (some people call that my religion -- boy, the things some people say)
I don't have anything to lose by going from Atheist to Theist. Which is why I'm okay with reading religious material and actually hoping to find some glimmer of truth to the mythology (it irks Christians to hear me call their religion mythology, but I am just being honest). I'm serious: If I had proof of an afterlife, seeing family and friends again, and living forever, wouldn't that be the absolute coolest thing EVER? I have to say, I would have a LOT to gain.
So, when you read Atheist materials and debate religion, do you realize everything you have to lose? I think that would certainly put a crimp in just how open my mind is to the possibility of losing my faith. Man, that is SO much to lose. For someone who is completely engulfed in such a thing, it is hard to believe anyone could walk away from it, ya know?
Which is why I only get into passing debates on religion. I know what you have to lose, and I don't have anything of the sort to wager. Don't feel sad for me, I'm okay with it. Moving from non-religious to religious would be such a small step for me. I'm a good person. I help others. I give time and money to charitable causes. I treat others as they want to be treated (better than the golden rule, in my opinion). I doubt it would take much for me to move back into a religious life. Prayer. Church. Exclusion of certain groups, but saying you love them all the same. Sincere belief. Thinking about religion when fear is triggered.
Anyway, the religious say they have an open mind, but I know better. We're quite capable of filtering everything we see and hear when it suits us.
Some people might accuse me of this, but honestly, why wouldn't I WANT to believe in the fantastical? You guys got a sweet deal going on there. I would love it. I just can't make myself believe in it. I think people just don't understand that about Atheists.
- LC
If your background is rhetoric, why do you use so many fallacies to make your points? Appeal to ridicule, straw men, psychoanalyzing your opposition instead of dealing with actual arguments. Where did you learn such rhetorical tactics are okay?
I don't think anyone has anything to lose by not believing, so no, that doesn't fit me at all. Again, you make false assumptions based upon ignorance, and then argue from there.
You are doing what you accuse me of.
I am simply following the evidence where it leads.
I don't believe in the fantastical, I believe in the logical and that which the evidence has proved. I believe in reality. My reality includes yours, and then goes a bit farther. That is the difference between us. Oh, that and I respect people who don't believe far more than you respect those who do.
And I don't argue with fallacies.
fishermage.blogspot.com
The chances of human existence are exactly 1:1. The chances of the Earth being suitable for life is exactly 1:1. The chances that we are exactly as we are today is 1:1.
You have misapplied math.
For instance, the chances that every one of your ancestors would meet, conceive exactly at the moment that they did, not die from an infinite number of circumstances and live to childbearing age, and then to finally see you born, is a mathematical impossibility. Yet, 1:1. Here you are, arguing poorly on a forum.
As to the massive number of mutations, let's not forget that the common cold alone can manipulate genes. Would you care to guess how many other causations exist? How many existed, disappeared, and will appear in the future?
Also, Evolution does not explain the origin of life. It was never theorized to do such. Are you under the impression that it does?
- LC
So what you are saying then is that because we are here today and because evolution has to be true, then everything must have happened exactly as I described it because evolution is the only logical explanation, even though it is mathmatically impossible and there is no evidence that such mutations are taking place today? Sounds like you are trying to stick a square peg into a round hole.
Cold viruses are simple celled organisms which are suitably designed to adapt to their environment quickly in order to survive. Human beings consist of trillions of cells which are incapable of such adaptation. A comparison between the two cannot be drawn.
Well if evolution does not explain the origin of life, there is no contradiction with creationism which does, is there? Which means if you reject creationism you have no explanation for the origin of life, do you? And therefore, what good is evolution to begin with?
I was an athiest until I was 17. I wasn't one of those asshat athiests that put anyone down that did not believe what I believed in but I was an athiest nevertheless. I did not believe there was anything out there. I had this preconceived notion that when you died that was it.
When I went to college I started to learn philosophy, physics, music, etc and I started to believe in something ...agnostic if you will. Then after about a year or so after intense spiritual searching and through a critical viewpoint I found the Bible to be deadly accurate and became a Christian.
The more I learn about the world and the Universe and the more I know God, the more I realize I did not make a mistake. My only mistake was closing my mind and beinf self centered for the first 17 years of my life.
nd the funny thing is I can argue and debate until I am blue in the face but it all boils down to one point. We will both die. If the athiest is right, then there is nothing to loose because I wont even realize Im dead because I will no longer be self existant ...or existant in any form.
If I'm right, the Atheist has a rather interesting suprise awaiting.
It's said that all people, including atheists, pray on an airplane which is about to crash. I've never been on a crashing plane, but I believe it. When faced with the prospect of their impending doom, every human suddenly comes face to face with mortality and what will happen when their life ends. It's too bad that too many people wait until that moment to try to make a deal with their creator.
Yes, and there are no Atheists in foxholes. Utter rubbish. This is only more support for the fact that religion is fear-based superstition. When things get rough, be sure to knock on wood and do a little dance. Maybe that will save you, eh?
I find it too bad that so many people wasted the few moments of their life on prayer, religious study (although many Christians do not study the Bible), and groveling before a fictional being. At the end of your life, you'll wish you had those days, weeks, years back to do something more worthwhile. Or, more probably, you'll never realize they were gone when the nothingness takes you.
- LC
Prove the being is fictional. First you deny that you make unproveable assertions, then you return to your unprovable assertion. Do you consider that to be a rational way to approach the topic?
fishermage.blogspot.com