Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Evidence that demands a verdict
#21
(11-16-2017, 05:37 AM)dadmansabode Wrote: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Mystic Wanderer = Creator of All made them and everything else in the universe(s)


Indeed, Genesis 1:1 .. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. -- time / force / action / space / matter 

[Image: GENESIS-200XX.jpg] [Image: 255-200XX.jpg] 

I'll share this video again in case you didn't listen in the other thread.  Start at the 3:30 mark.


Who were/are the Elohim?
Quote:One of the greatest secrets kept from mankind are the true makers of everything we can see and think of, called the Elohim or Shining Ones, considered to be most powerful beings ever to exist, the ones who forged our body and soul, and breathed the same air with us in ages long forgotten.

Read more here: Link
#22
Word Origin

C17: from Hebrew 'Elōhim, plural (used to indicate uniqueness) of 'Elōah God;probably related to 'El God




http://www.dictionary.com/browse/elohim?s=t



Elōhim, plural < Father / Son / Holy Spirit
[Image: signature_01a.jpg]

#23
(11-16-2017, 05:53 PM)dadmansabode Wrote: Word Origin

C17: from Hebrew 'Elōhim, plural (used to indicate uniqueness) of 'Elōah God;probably related to 'El God




http://www.dictionary.com/browse/elohim?s=t



Elōhim, plural < Father / Son / Holy Spirit

Quote:Lucifer, El, Yahweh, Odin, Zeus and all other pagan gods were members of the Shining Ones.
Source

So, who is who?  Which ones identify themselves as Father, Son, Holy Spirit?  Somebody got left out.

It's all word play, using different names for the same characters, written in different times to describe the same deities in my opinion.
#24
yeah, I'd be being aware of them "Lucifer and the Shining Ones" ..... not all Spiritual entities are for your benefit

[Image: 185-200XX.jpg]
[Image: signature_01a.jpg]

#25
(11-16-2017, 04:03 PM)dadmansabode Wrote: Gordi = PS - I don't think that anyone has ever said that "DNA just fell together from nothing". (By all accounts it took many millions of years?)

By all accounts after many millions of years "DNA just fell together from nothing" < is what is claimed
------------------------------------------------


Ninurta = Sorry to be the one to tell you, but fighting Atheists is no more likely to succeed than fighting any other religion, which Atheism is just another one of

which Atheism is just another one of < Indeed I agree

I have never seen it claimed that DNA just fell together (after millions of years or otherwise). That implies a quick action?

There are many and varied theories (and Scientific Theories) regarding DNA, many of which are debated and disputed, but I've yet to see any which say that DNA just "fell together".

Can you provide sources please?

Much of the latest research suggests that the "chemical cocktail" or building blocks of DNA (and RNA) were to be found in abundance on the primordial Earth. Given the right conditions, and many millions of years to combine, separate, re-combine etc I can see no reason why RNA and DNA couldn't evolve naturally.

*****************************

From The Oxford English Dictionary:
Quote:religion
noun
mass noun:
The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

Atheism is in no way, shape or form a religion as it does not involve a belief. (As I've already pointed out.)
Can you please provide any evidence that shows that Atheism is indeed a religion.
[Image: CoolForCatzSig.png]
#26
Atheism is in no way, shape or form a religion as it does not involve a belief ... < if that is what you believe lol

Until you can scientifically prove God does not exist, it remains within the parameter of belief
atheism: the belief in no belief lol ... the religion of non-religion lol

Indeed included within the (soon to come) One-World-Religion [Image: SUNDAYASSEMBLY.jpg]
[Image: signature_01a.jpg]

#27
Gordi = regarding DNA, many of which are debated and disputed, but I've yet to see any which say that DNA just "fell together".

Can you provide sources please?


Well ?? ... just go ask an atheist how DNA came together ... ie: biological sequence < what directed it

Here, these folks should be able to help you
[Image: signature_01a.jpg]

#28
I don't really know about how DNA came together, other than by Manipulation For Humans, But No One God Was involved. 
Other advanced races may not even have DNA, they may be of Light Energy from Stars.

the first advanced race may have been made up of Dark Matter. We don't know and we'll never know in our life time as Mortals here,,, but once we pass on, now there is your chance to ask questions of even Older Spirits.
Once A Rogue, Always A Rogue!
[Image: attachment.php?aid=936]
#29
(11-16-2017, 07:35 PM)dadmansabode Wrote: Atheism is in no way, shape or form a religion as it does not involve a belief ... < if that is what you believe lol

Until you can scientifically prove God does not exist, it remains within the parameter of belief
atheism: the belief in no belief lol ... the religion of non-religion lol

Indeed included within the (soon to come) One-World-Religion [Image: SUNDAYASSEMBLY.jpg]

Once again, wordplay.
Twisting the meaning.
Misdirecting.
Oh, and trying to take the piss too?
Very disappointing.

I did not at any time say that was my belief.
And no. Atheism is not the belief in "no belief".
I have already provided the definition. It's also in the Oxford English Dictionary btw if you care to look.
[Image: CoolForCatzSig.png]
#30
(11-16-2017, 09:43 PM)dadmansabode Wrote: Gordi = regarding DNA, many of which are debated and disputed, but I've yet to see any which say that DNA just "fell together".

Can you provide sources please?


Well ?? ... just go ask an atheist how DNA came together ... ie: biological sequence < what directed it

Here, these folks should be able to help you
No. I asked you for specific sources who stated (as you did) that DNA "just fell together" and you have failed to provide that.
You cannot keep making blanket statements without providing a single shred of evidence to back up your statements.

I've already pointed out at least six times where you have made misleading/inaccurate claims or statements without any form of evidence or corroborating sources. (...regarding atheism, atheists, Scientific Theory, denying the supernatural, sciencism, and the suggestion that DNA fell together from nothing...) and now a couple more to add to the pile... (regarding my own beliefs and the definition of atheism being a "belief in no belief".)

Is your whole argument based on erroneous, misleading and inaccurate opinion or are you going to provide any factual statements, proof or even corroborating sources for us?
[Image: CoolForCatzSig.png]
#31
(11-16-2017, 10:06 AM)gordi Wrote:
Quote:atheism
noun
noun: atheism
A disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Atheism by definition is not a religion or even a "belief" system.
It is a lack of belief or disbelief in the existence of a God or gods (in the traditional "religious" sense).

Quote:Many here do not believe in God ... no problem, we all have our belief/s, however, 
I find it interesting that 'those who deny the Supernatural' have no explanation concerning the origin of life and the Universe, only theory
Is there some evidence I'm missing that allows sciencism to 'rule God out' < atheism ....... 
at least agnosticism keeps an open mind with the door open

Anyhow ..... My conclusion is that ALL Life derives from a source of Intelligence  .... 
I believe that the recent findings in DNA prove this to be so
you can apply this intelligence to whom so ever you will .... but what it DOES rule out is that DNA just fell together from nothing ... 
if you will, non-intelligence to intelligence

Atheism is not denying the supernatural. It is disbelieving the existence of (a) God.
Atheists (tend to) have a *Scientific Theory to explain the origin of life and the Universe.
(*Scientific Theory is a very different concept to ""just a theory".
It is defined as: a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation.
e.g. The scientific theory of evolution.)

Scientific Theory is not claimed to be fact.
It does not exclude any possibility. It is fluid. It reacts to the latest findings and experimental observations, and it definitely is not "only theory".
The BIG BANG (theory) for example is Scientifically Observable.
We can actually see the bodies moving apart in space in real time, and have been doing so for hundreds of years.
Plot the paths of these movements and you can trace them back to their origins. Together at one point in space & time.
Scientifically Observable.

BTW - Religious people don't have an "explanation" for the origin of life. Just a theory. (Not a Scientific Theory!)

Sciencism? Never heard of it. Is that even a word?

Did you just link to your own website as a source of "evidence"?

"All Life derives from a source of intelligence"?
OK, where did the source of intelligence originate?

PS - I don't think that anyone has ever said that "DNA just fell together from nothing". (By all accounts it took many millions of years?)

Using wordplay to undermine an opposing viewpoint does nothing but diminish your own argument.
If you really want to try and understand another persons views, then you cannot begin the conversation by putting words in their mouths.
A simple statement like: "I believe that recent findings in DNA research proves _ _ _ _ _ _ _ and here is a link to the evidence _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . I'd be interested to hear other views on this." would be a much more balanced, less provocative opening post than the one which was used, which made several (inaccurate) suppositions regarding atheism, atheists, Scientific Theory, denying the supernatural, sciencism, and the suggestion that DNA fell together from nothing.

kindest regards,
G.

That, Sir G., is a cop out - it's just playing with words to mask the fact that "disbelief" is merely another word for "belief". There is no concrete evidence, hence "dis"belief is just belief with a few letters attached to mask what it is.

There IS no scientific theory to account for the origin of life. None. Zero. Zilch. Zip. I took a course at university on that very thing, team taught by a biologist and a physicist. They very thoroughly schooled us in what science is, what theory and hypothesis is. Those two gents, scientists both, made it clear that there is no scientific theory for the origin of life, although there are hypotheses. The most intriguing hypothesis was that life somehow originated from inanimate molecules replicating the crystalline structure of the clay they adhered to, but it didn't quite make it to theory, as no one was able to determine or even hypothesize how that could become "life".

The Big Bang theory is NOT scientifically observable. The microwave background radiation (and expansion of the universe) is observable, but the big bang is not. That background radiation (and expansion) is interpreted as evidence for a Big Bang, by is by no means verified. There are competing theories to account for the same radiation. I, for example, am one of those who does not adhere to the Big Bang Theory - it would require that the energy and matter composing the universe suddenly came into existence from nothing (i.e. an "infinitely dense point" - the scientific equivalent of "hammerspace"), which is not materially different from "religious" views. The only way to reconcile it would be to postulate that the matter in question was explosively injected into our current dimension form another one (through that "infinitely dense point")... but then where did THAT matter, in that other dimension, come from?

"Scientific theory" actually IS "only" theory, and is viewed as valid only until a better theory to account for observations more conclusively comes along. That is why scientific theory is "fluid", as you accurately observe.

.
Diogenes was eating bread and lentils for supper. He was seen by the philosopher Aristippus, who lived comfortably by flattering the king.

Said Aristippus, ‘If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.’ Said Diogenes, ‘Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king.’


#32
(11-16-2017, 09:43 PM)dadmansabode Wrote: Gordi = regarding DNA, many of which are debated and disputed, but I've yet to see any which say that DNA just "fell together".

Can you provide sources please?


Well ?? ... just go ask an atheist how DNA came together ... ie: biological sequence < what directed it

Here, these folks should be able to help you

Point, meet counter point: "if you can't prove me wrong you are wrong"

Such is the brief candle flicker of all religious arguments....debates...discussions. tinycool
#33
(11-16-2017, 05:53 PM)dadmansabode Wrote: Word Origin

C17: from Hebrew 'Elōhim, plural (used to indicate uniqueness) of 'Elōah God;probably related to 'El God




http://www.dictionary.com/browse/elohim?s=t



Elōhim, plural < Father / Son / Holy Spirit

"El" was the name of a Canaanite god, but does translate roughly to "The God". "Elohim" is indeed the plural of "El", and means "The gods". There have been any number of word plays to attempt to hide that fact, but it is what it is. My favorite ploy is the claim that "Elhohim is the 'Majestic Plural' in Hebrew". baloney. it's not a Hebrew word, it's a Canaanite word (but "borrowed" into Hebrew from the Canaanites), and means just what it says.

The bible does not teach a trinity, and in fact teaches expressly against a trinity. The Trinity is a Catholic concept ("confirmed" at the Council of Nicaea, although the original Nicaean Creed had not much to say about the Holy Spirit, and had to be fleshed out a bit later), but the first mention of it (the concept, but not the actual word) is Gnostic, by a guy named Valentinus, something around 100 years after the Crucifixion and resurrection was a done deal. It took Romans, speaking Latin, to put a word to the Gnostic concept when it was adopted into Catholicism. "The Trinity" is an afterthought, preached in error by mortals. It's polytheism masked by verbal gymnastics to try to "explain" how three gods are really just one God. it's a very short step to say "well if THREE gods can all be really just ONE God, then why not ALL the gods ever named - why can they not all be "one" God?". That's a slippery slope.

"Trinity", a Gnostic-Catholic formulation, cannot be used to explain the much older Canaanite word "Elohim".

.
Diogenes was eating bread and lentils for supper. He was seen by the philosopher Aristippus, who lived comfortably by flattering the king.

Said Aristippus, ‘If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.’ Said Diogenes, ‘Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king.’


#34
Excellent debating.  minusculeclap  minusculegoodjob
No one can prove the other one wrong here, there is No Evidence Of A God and No Clear Evidence On How Life,,,, Any Life Began.

Some have said that Life began as an Alien life form carried to earth on a rock that fell into the womb of mother earth and had all the right ingredients to culturize and grow. 
A warm moist Place,,,,, Mother Earth Womb  tinybigeyes
Once A Rogue, Always A Rogue!
[Image: attachment.php?aid=936]
#35
(11-17-2017, 03:37 AM)guohua Wrote: Excellent debating.  minusculeclap  minusculegoodjob
No one can prove the other one wrong here, there is No Evidence Of A God and No Clear Evidence On How Life,,,, Any Life Began.

Some have said that Life began as an Alien life form carried to earth on a rock that fell into the womb of mother earth and had all the right ingredients to culturize and grow. 
A warm moist Place,,,,, Mother Earth Womb  tinybigeyes

Exactly - all religious "evidence" is subjective, rather than objective, and therefore cannot be scientifically tested. I'm not sure I'd want to hang around with a god who allowed it's creation to experiment on it, anyhow. Religions are based entirely on "faith", and "belief", and are not subject to scientific scrutiny.

Likewise, because deity cannot be proven, neither can it be DISproven (can't prove a negative) - so Atheists have to take it on faith and belief that there ISN'T a God, and their belief is not materially different from a Theist's belief - it's ALL just belief.

I'm not going to try to convince an Atheist that there IS a God, because I don't care what they believe. It's THEIR belief to live with, not mine. None of my business. In the same vein, I don't usually just sit there if they try to convince me to their side of belief, or the idiocy of mine. My belief is not theirs to live with, either.

I'm aware of the theory you speak of - it's called "Panspermia". It's a possibility for how life began on Earth, but not an explanation for the origin of life itself - the life "seeded" here in that theory would also have had to come from somewhere. Connected to that thought, the Cassini probe was purposely plunged into the atmosphere of Saturn to die a fiery death to sterilize any potential Earth microbes that may have stowed away on it to avoid seeding Saturn's moons with alien (in the case "alien" means "Earth standard") life.

I don't believe that DNA randomly assembled itself, and then randomly came together to make the first micro-organism, but I've no way to disprove it, either. In the same way, I can't disprove that if a thousand monkeys were locked into a dungeon with a thousand typewriters and given a thousand years to bang away on those typewriters, they wouldn't type up a copy of "War and Peace". I've no way to prove or disprove it, because I don't have a thousand monkeys, a thousand typewriters, or a thousand years to run the experiment - so it remains a possibility, likely unproveable.

It's an intriguing thought that a potentially randomly assembled strand of DNA, a gozillion random mutations later, got up one morning and thought hard enough to start writing "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy". If that's the case, then the answer to the Meaning of Life is not "42", it's "there ain't no meaning to life, and we might as well all die now".


.
Diogenes was eating bread and lentils for supper. He was seen by the philosopher Aristippus, who lived comfortably by flattering the king.

Said Aristippus, ‘If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.’ Said Diogenes, ‘Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king.’


#36
@"Ninurta"  Very Well Said.  minusculeclap minusculethumbsup2
Once A Rogue, Always A Rogue!
[Image: attachment.php?aid=936]
#37
If I may, one of the main problems in discussions like these is the fairly-new rules of debating being taught.

In academic circles, a theory is just that, not a 'my' theory. If an idea to explain something is offered, it's done
with the impassive evidence that a theory is viable only until equally suitable evidence can counter the proposed
theory.
If the idea is sensibly negated, the outcome reflects nothing negative onto the proponent. Science doesn't deal
in an emotive environment.

Lately, I have read where University students are encouraged to bring less-disciplined styles to a debate with the
sole goal of winning that debate. Using emotional and polemic nuance in word-play, a discussion can break down
due the objective of overcoming a 'opponent'

Debates are about discussing agreed facts, not winning an argument.

If it helps, I made the universe... it was a Thursday and I was all out of duct tape.
tinywondering
Edith Head Gives Good Wardrobe. 
#38
Here is one person's take on the matter.... Did you know Buddhist do not believe in a all knowing creating God?
[*]Yep as a Christen they are all supposedly going to hell.. Sounds like a version of Islam to me... Believe like us or suffer the consequences..







  1. “Blessed are the gullible, for they shall be deceived.” -JC
    I don’t count being gullible as something to aspire to. Christians oft times do. Therefore they go about trying to convert Atheists the wrong way. Don’t TELL Atheists about miracles- the best evidence FOR a miracle IS a miracle! And don’t TELL them all sorts of convoluted contorted distorted philosophical gobbledygook that you CLAIM “proves” the existence of your gods. Hell, by the time someone untangles one of those verbal pretzels, you could prove ANYTHING. The BEST evidence FOR a god IS the god! You gotta god? Don’t hide him- bring him on! In other words,
    Where’s The Beef???
  2. According to the Hebrew scriptures, Biblegod of the past (unlike our current Biblegod) was not afraid to prove his existence to the skeptical. Biblegod had Elijah conduct an experiment. According to the Hebrew Bible in1st Kings 18, Elijah conducted this experiment in front of hundreds of skeptical onlookers. Did Elijah ARGUE Biblegod into existence? No! Did Elijah PHILOSOPHIZE Biblegod into existence? No! Did Elijah offer “Five Good Reasons” to believe Biblegod existed? HELL NO!!! Instead, Elijah, in front of hundreds of skeptical onlookers, called down “fire from heaven” which settled the debate. According to the Hebrew scriptures:
    1st Kings 18
  3. “I am not the troublemaker,” Elijah answered. “You are–you and your father. You are disobeying the LORD’s commands and worshiping the idols of Baal. Now order all the people of Israel to meet me at Mount Carmel. Bring along the 450 prophets of Baal and the 400 prophets of the goddess Asherah who are supported by Queen Jezebel.”
    So Ahab summoned all the Israelites and the prophets of Baal to meet at Mount Carmel. Elijah went up to the people and said, “How much longer will it take you to make up your minds? If the LORD is God, worship him; but if Baal is God, worship him!” But the people didn’t say a word.
  4. Then Elijah said, “I am the only prophet of the LORD still left, but there are 450 prophets of Baal. Bring two bulls; let the prophets of Baal take one, kill it, cut it in pieces, and put it on the wood–but don’t light the fire. I will do the same with the other bull. Then let the prophets of Baal pray to their god, and I will pray to the LORD, and the god who answers by sending fire–he is God.”
    The people shouted their approval.
    Then Elijah said to the prophets of Baal. “Since there are so many of you, you take a bull and prepare it first. Pray to your god, but don’t set fire to the wood.”
  5. They took the bull that was brought to them, prepared it, and prayed to Baal until noon. They shouted. “Answer us. Baal!” and kept dancing around the altar they had built. But no answer came.
    At noon Elijah started making fun of them; “Pray louder! Hi is a god! Maybe he is day-dreaming or gone to the bathroom, or perhaps he’s gone off on a trip! Or maybe he’s sleeping, and you’ve got to wake him up!” So the prophets prayed louder and cut themselves with knives and daggers, according to their ritual, until blood flowed. They kept on ranting and raving until the middle of the afternoon; but no answer came, not sound was heard.
  6. Then Elijah said to the people, “Come closer to me.” and they all gathered around him. He set about repairing the altar of the LORD which had been torn down. He took twelve stones, one for each of the twelve tribes named for the sons of Jacob, the man to whom the LORD had given the name Israel With these stones he rebuilt the altar for the worship of the LORD. He dug a trench around it, large enough to hold about four gallons of water. Then he placed the wood on the altar, cut the bull in pieces, and laid it on the wood. He said, “Fill four jars with water and pour it on the offering and the wood.” They did so, and the said, “Do it again”–and they did. “Do it once more,” he said–and they did. The water ran down around the altar and filled the trench.
  7. At the hour of the afternoon sacrifice the prophet Elijah approached the altar and prayed, “O LORD, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, prove now that you are the God of Israel. and that I am your servant and have done all this at your command. Answer me, LORD, answer me, so that this people will know that you, the LORD, are God and that you are bringing them back to yourself.”
    The LORD sent fire down, and it burned up the sacrifice, the wood, and the stones, scorched the earth and dried up the water in the trench.
    When the people saw this, they threw themselves on the ground and exclaimed. “The LORD is God; the LORD alone is God!”
    Elijah ordered, “Seize the prophets of Baal; don’t let any of them get away!” The people seized them all, and Elijah led them down to Kishon Brook and killed them. (1st Kings 18)
  8. Now THAT’S the way to settle the disagreement, and I guess it also lays to rest the Christian excuse of “not tempting the Lord” when it comes to making Biblegod prove himself. IF it was WRONG to demand cold hard PROOF of Biblegod’s existence, the “fire from heaven” would have hit Elijah, NOT the wood! No more hot air arguments, no more geek-speak. Just “show me the money!”. Just “Lay your cards on the table- I call your bluff.” Biblegod (according to the Bible) wasn’t shy about PROVING his existence back then, and the Bible says that Biblegod changes not- he is the same yesterday, today, forever.
    I the LORD do not change (Malachi 3:6 RSV)
  9. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and for ever. (Hebrews 13:8 RSV)
    THEREFORE, if it was a good and acceptable thing for him to prove his existence back then with “fire from heaven” it would be good for him nowadays as well, especially seeing how he’s competing against a lot more gods than just Baal. The FACT that he DOESN’T offer up hard evidence nowadays such as fire from heaven is evidence itself that Biblegod never existed- the whole fire story of Elijah was just that: a story, just a bluff Christians use to scare people into the Kingdom. “Ohhhhh, our god used to kick ass, you’d better watch out, Mr. Atheist!!!” Oh yeah, we’re hiding under our beds in fear, and “used to” are the operative words here- your whole religion is nothing but a bunch of “used to’s”.
  10. IF this same experiment were done today, both would be no-shows. Both gods would be mocked (and rightfully so) for having gone to the toilet or on vacation. And both gods would have been proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that they are no more real than Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.
    You Christians are like a man bluffing in a poker game. You CLAIM to have a winning hand. You make FACES as if you have a winning hand. But every time we Atheists CALL your bluff, you never SHOW your hand! “Oh boy! If only I could show you this hand- whoa! THEN you’d really believe God exists! This hand- wow! The cards I got- the Father, Son, AND Holy Ghost, and that trumps ANYTHING you might hold in YOUR hand.” Yes, it sure does SOUND impressive, but damn it- just show the damn hand!!! We have been calling your bluff for SEVERAL HUNDRED YEARS now, and all you respond with is NOT laying your cards on the table, but just more hot-air excuses of WHY you can’t show us your gods: “I can’t SHOW you my winning hand, but I have FIVE good reasons WHY you should BELIEVE I have the winning hand, so therefore, hand over the kitty to me!” All I can say to that is FIVE GOOD REASONS MY ASS! Show me the damn cards OR keep your damn hands off the money in the middle!
  11. Fact is, IF your Biblegod really existed, his existence would not be a matter of dispute. It would be as real as the sun above or the pavement below. There is no justification to be found within your Bible for the celestial game of peek-a-boo, hide-n-seek or whatever the hell game your Biblegod is playing on humanity. What has your great and powerful Biblegod (if he really existed) got to fear from us puny mortals that motivates him to hide his very existence from us? What is he scared of? Is he scared we’ll beat him up? A REAL god would have no reason to hide his existence, but a make-believe god, made up by a group of religious fanatics, would have every reason in the world to “hide”, for as soon as its followers are forced to reveal their god, they themselves will be revealed as frauds, for there never was a god to reveal in the first place.
  12. Do we humans seek to hide our existence from the ants on the sidewalk? Do we shout down commands to them, inspire a few of them to preach to their fellow ants that unless they believe we exist they’ll burn in a hell forever? And if we did so, why on earth would we then run to the nearest tree to hide our existence from them when we just made their salvation contingent upon their believing our existence??? Does this make any sense at all?
  13. And where exactly in your Bible does it say that Biblegod must hide from humanity like a scared old lady from teenagers??? Where does it say that he must be invisible to all of our scientific instruments, and all of our human senses? Was he just a disembodied voice floating in the breeze in the “Garden of Eden” that Adam thought he heard, but wasn’t sure? The fact is, the mighty “god” of the Christians does a damn good job of imitating a god that doesn’t exist at all. Hmmmm…. maybe that should tell you Christians something, but then again, that would assume you’ve shut up long enough to actually listen, which is highly unlikely.
  14. In your mythical “Garden of Eden” story the author has Adam and Eve never questioning the existence of Biblegod- they never had a good reason to- he was right there in their face. What they questioned was not that Biblegod existed or had said anything, but rather to obey, or disobey, what they had clearly heard Biblegod tell them face to face.
  15. This should be the same choice facing modern Atheists. The existence of your god would never even have become an issue if he really existed. A real God would not allow it, for how can we Atheists be held accountable to obey orders from a being whose very existence we see no evidence for? That would be a gross injustice on a cosmic scale. And please, don’t insult our intelligence by claiming that we Atheists DO see the evidence, but we’re just stubborn / dishonest / stupid / illogical / unreasonable / blinded / and all the other slanders and libels you Christians use to insult us with. Believe it or not, we honestly and really don’t see any evidence for your Biblegod, and trust me: we’ve looked, more so than even most of you Christians.
  16. Let’s say a soldier of the Columbian army has received an order. Trouble is, the order was garbled during transcription, the currier who delivered the order can’t be trusted, and nobody in the entire army has ever seen, heard, or met the Major in Bogotá who issued the order.
    And let’s say the order is sending him on a very dangerous mission. He could likely end up getting killed. He thus feels very uneasy entrusting his very life to such a flimsy document, especially since no one’s sure the person who dictated the order even exists. He’s also doubtful of the man who delivered the order, knowing that in the past this man has made up orders and signed the Major’s name to them. And to top it off, he’s not even sure of exactly what the order is telling him to do, and no one seems able to help. Everyone he shows the order to seems to come up with different and contradictory interpretations. But one thing they all agree on is if he doesn’t follow the order exactly (whatever it may turn out to really say) he’s in big trouble.
  17. What’s this soldier to do? Deep down in his heart he doesn’t believe the order is legitimate. Yet his friends are telling him he must believe in the order, and obey it, or possibly face the firing squad. It appears to be a no-win situation.
    ************
  18. Christians claim to have marching orders for us from “God” himself, yet we Atheists don’t even believe their “God” exists. None of us Atheists have ever seen, smelled, touched, tasted, or heard him. None of our scientific sensors have ever detected him, including radar, which at least picks up Santa every December 24th. We’ve been to the depths of the oceans and the glorious heights of space, and still no sign of “God”. How can Atheists possible follow orders from somebody we don’t even believe exists?
  19. Christianity claims to be the “courier” through whom “God” entrusted the delivery of his documents to humanity, yet knowledgeable Atheists know better than to trust a Christian “mailman”. Christians have been well documented1 in the past for doctoring the documents they claim are from “God”- changing some, even inventing others out of thin air. Knowing this fact of history, how can Atheists possibly trust orders delivered to us through such an untrustworthy courier?
  20. Christians claim we can look in their Bible to read these marching orders, yet Christians can’t even agree among themselves as to what these marching orders actually order. Confusion has reigned supreme ever since these documents were written, resulting in massive and hate-filled splits in Christendom: Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, and well over a thousand more. The reason for all this confusion? The Bible itself is confused 2. So how can Atheists possibly obey “marching orders” when the orders are so confused that even Christians can’t agree on what say?
    *********************
  21. Christians, this is NOT how it’s supposed to be! Reality, and your world-view, don’t seem to be agreeing with each other. But for the sake of argument, I’ll pretend the Garden of Eden story actually happened. And in that garden, Adam and Eve had no doubts about the existence of Biblegod. The authenticity of Biblegod and what Biblegod had ordered were never in question; to obey or not obey was. Atheists, by definition, could not exist in the Garden of Eden.
  22. But they do exist nowadays, and we Atheists are being asked by Christians to somehow “believe” that a god (which we don’t believe exists) has issued orders (which we don’t believe are legible) that we must obey (to avoid a hell we don’t believe exists). Do you see the problem here? Let me elaborate.
  23. Let’s say a Christian answered his doorbell and was handed a utility bill for $10,000 from a man who claimed to represent some power company the Christian didn’t even know existed. What are the chances that the Christian would open up his checkbook and cut the guy a check? Does “snowball’s chance in hell” sound familiar? Yet this is the same situation Christians have placed us Atheists into when they knock on our door and shove their religion in our face.
  24. Most people who have a coffee cup sitting on the table in front of them believe they have a coffee cup sitting on the table in front of them. They don’t believe they have a talking miniature elephant on the table. They believe it’s a coffee cup based upon a preponderance of evidence that it’s a coffee cup. In fact, the evidence is so strong it’s a coffee cup that they would be considered insane to believe it was anything else, such as a live talking miniature elephant. Looking at the coffee cup, they can’t will themselves to believe it is anything other than what the facts show: a coffee cup, no matter how hard they try. And they would be lying to you if they told you they believed it was anything other than a coffee cup.
  25. Now, they could pretend it was a talking miniature elephant. In fact, the more childish and mentally immature they are, the better at pretending they would be. They could even get their friends to pretend along with them. Liberal amounts of alcohol could help facilitate this game of pretend. But even while pretending it was what it’s not, deep down in their inebriated hearts they would still know it was only a coffee cup.
  26. Likewise with us Atheists. We could pretend there is a god, we could even pretend along with you. But deep down inside, we can only really believe what we believe, and we believe based upon the evidence we see, and we see no evidence for your gods- and in reality, neither do you, or you would have used that evidence long ago to destroy Atheism. So when you Christians come up to us and want us to “believe” your Biblegod exists “and has a wonderful plan for your life” what are we to do? We can only believe what the evidence leads us to believe, and no amount of threats like “turn or burn” can change that. Do you Christians want us to lie to you that we believe in your gods when we see no evidence, or would you rather have us tell the truth and say we don’t believe in your gods? We don’t believe in your gods.
  27. So, if you Christians want us Atheists to “believe” all you need to do is present believable evidence. You don’t need to argue with us- show us the beef! You don’t need to pray for us- show us the beef! And you don’t need to slip into philosophical geek-speak. You need to show us. But so far you have failed, and us Atheists are constant reminders to you of that failure on your part. If the students aren’t learning, look at the teachers, not the students. Show us, don’t just tell us, for no amount of mere verbiage is going to convince a man that the coffee cup in front of him is actually a talking miniature elephant.
  28. Fact is, IF your Biblegod really existed, his existence would not be a matter of dispute. It would be as real as the sun above or the pavement below. There is no justification to be found within your Bible for the celestial game of peek-a-boo, hide-n-seek or whatever the hell game your Biblegod is playing on humanity. What has your great and powerful Biblegod (if he really existed) got to fear from us puny mortals that motivates him to hide his very existence from us? What is he scared of? Is he scared we’ll beat him up? A REAL god would have no reason to hide his existence, but a make-believe god, made up by a group of religious fanatics, would have every reason in the world to “hide”, for as soon as its followers are forced to reveal their god, they themselves will be revealed as frauds, for there never was a god to reveal in the first place.
  29. Do we humans seek to hide our existence from the ants on the sidewalk? Do we shout down commands to them, inspire a few of them to preach to their fellow ants that unless they believe we exist they’ll burn in a hell forever? And if we did so, why on earth would we then run to the nearest tree to hide our existence from them when we just made their salvation contingent upon their believing our existence??? Does this make any sense at all?
  30. And where exactly in your Bible does it say that Biblegod must hide from humanity like a scared old lady from teenagers??? Where does it say that he must be invisible to all of our scientific instruments, and all of our human senses? Was he just a disembodied voice floating in the breeze in the “Garden of Eden” that Adam thought he heard, but wasn’t sure? The fact is, the mighty “god” of the Christians does a damn good job of imitating a god that doesn’t exist at all. Hmmmm…. maybe that should tell you Christians something, but then again, that would assume you’ve shut up long enough to actually listen, which is highly unlikely.
  31. In your mythical “Garden of Eden” Adam and Eve never questioned the existence of Biblegod- they never had a good reason to- he was right there in their face. What they questioned was not that Biblegod existed or had said anything, but rather to obey, or disobey, what they had clearly heard Biblegod tell them face to face.
  32. This should be the same choice facing modern Atheists. The existence of your god would never even have become an issue if he really existed. A real God would not allow it, for how can we Atheists be held accountable to obey orders from a being whose very existence we see no evidence for? That would be an gross injustice on a cosmic scale. And please, don’t insult our intelligence by claiming that we Atheists DO see the evidence, but we’re just stubborn / dishonest / stupid / illogical / unreasonable / blinded / and all the other slanders and libels you Christians use to insult us with. Believe it or not, we honestly and really don’t see any evidence for your Biblegod, and trust me: we’ve looked, more so than even most of you Christians.
  33. You want us to believe? Come up with solid evidence. But you’ll settle for us pretending? Sorry, we’re not children anymore.

#39
(11-17-2017, 10:55 AM)BIAD Wrote: If I may, one of the main problems in discussions like these is the fairly-new rules of debating being taught.

In academic circles, a theory is just that, not a 'my' theory. If an idea to explain something is offered, it's done
with the impassive evidence that a theory is viable only until equally suitable evidence can counter the proposed
theory.
If the idea is sensibly negated, the outcome reflects nothing negative onto the proponent. Science doesn't deal
in an emotive environment.

Lately, I have read where University students are encouraged to bring less-disciplined styles to a debate with the
sole goal of winning that debate. Using emotional and polemic nuance in word-play, a discussion can break down
due the objective of overcoming a 'opponent'

Debates are about discussing agreed facts, not winning an argument.

If it helps, I made the universe... it was a Thursday and I was all out of duct tape.
tinywondering
Sorry about taking the duct tape I needed it to fix my bike. minusculebiggrin
#40
Just to be clear those are not my words posted above... I consider myself lucky for around the age of 27 I actually read the New testament cover to cover and walked away with no religion.. No wonderment ... No big burning questions.. so I am totally at peace with all the religious stuff...

Having lived under different religions IMO they have all been bastardized by the keeps of the word... although I will say Islam seems to have enough wiggle room they can drum up a passage or a cause at will for a desired outcome....

I tend to like Buddhist (they are not all the same, believe me) if I have to live around religious folks ... They never got the turn the other cheek thing down pat (which is a good idea if you are subjugated by someone like Rome)... They may excuse or overlook something once or twice but after they voice their displeasure and the offense happens again, then the gloves come off...as it should be; again IMO...


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)