Naturalism and Scientism are floored worldviews [Archive]

Pete Crowther

21st September 2009, 07:31 AM

atheist_angel

21st September 2009, 07:53 AM

Are you here to try to understand atheists?, or are you here to try to get atheists to understand Christians? What is your goal or purpose for being here? It's a fair question.

Sir Patrick Crocodile

21st September 2009, 08:31 AM

We understand Christianity very well thank you very much. Probably a lot more than most Christians here. We get our information from none other than your stupid religious book.

You guys claim we don't understand any religion. Reality is many of us were religious. I was a Muslim and atheist_angel was a Christian and various others were Christians here as well.

We eventually knew that religion was delusional and getting out of the religion was a good thing and it is helping all of us.

We can only judge a religion by its book. We are all smart enough to realize we cannot judge a religion based on what the followers say alone since they have clearly cherry-picked from their book.

I have given an example here (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showpost.php?p=29284&postcount=13) which should explain why we can't trust what the current believers say about the religion alone.

Logic

21st September 2009, 09:14 AM

Atheists seem to only have one definition of faith, that being that faith is blind and devoid of evidence. However, this is the completely opposite view of faith to that of mainstream Christianity. Let it be made clear that Christians are in disagreement with blind faith as much as atheists.

Hmmm someone should tell my christian friend that. I asked her how can you believe in god when there is no proof, and she said I have faith that it's true. She said you don't need proof when you have faith (that would be blind I guess).

Just because you don’t count the Bible or other documents as valid sources of evidence doesn’t mean that they aren’t.

Actually yes it does. As much as you believe the bible is a valid source of evidence, I believe the opposite. So, when you can provide 'evidence' that does not rely on the bible, try convincing me again.

How can science tell me if I love my wife? How can science tell us if a work of art is good or not?

Love is complicated but in essence it's to do with chemical reactions, hormones and a need for procreation - so yeah, science can tell you why you love your wife.

Art being visually appealing is to do with our brain enjoying symmetry and various colours more than others, also based on our emotional experiences -so yeah, science can explain that.

Everything we do, including emotionally driven decisions, occurs because our brain has developed in a certain way, to respond in a certain way due to evoluntary experience. Oh but wait, you probably don't believe in evolution so.....

davo

21st September 2009, 09:19 AM

It’s difficult to have a discussion about Christianity with you, especially when there is a breakdown of communication on so many levels between us. Atheists seem to only have one definition of faith, that being that faith is blind and devoid of evidence.

Show us the evidence. There is none. There is plenty of evidence for young earth believers existing. That is BLIND FAITH.

However, this is the completely opposite view of faith to that of mainstream Christianity. Let it be made clear that Christians are in disagreement with blind faith as much as atheists. However, faith in Jesus Christ is not blind, but rather a trust in the evidence at hand.

We have different levels of evidence. Show us the evidence, all you have is simply conjecture.

You are free to reject the evidence if you don’t agree with it, but let’s not pretend that no evidence exists for Jesus Christ’s deity.

Show us the evidence for jesus, let alone that he was a deity. C'mon, stop continually claiming there is evidence, and show us it.

Such statements just don’t do justice to the weight of evidence out there in support of Christianity. Just because you don’t count the Bible or other documents as valid sources of evidence doesn’t mean that they aren’t. Now don’t go and respond to this by saying “prove to me your God exists and prove to me that this God is the God of the Christian Bible”. I’m not talking about proof, but rather about evidence which needs to be assessed before an opinion can be formed.

Simple, show us the evidence then, stop just claiming it exists.

Dawkins raves on about faith being blind and that we need to follow the evidence supporting that of Naturalism. However, in his attack on Christianity he demonstrates hypocrisy and inconsistency, because evidence is the very thing he fails to supply for the claim that ‘independence of evidence is faith’s joy’. In rejecting all faith as blind, Dawkins and Atheists as a whole undermine their own credibility.

What? fails to supply what evidence? You are making the claim, show us the evidence. Simple. As yet, all christians do is claim over and over there is heaps of it.

So many of you are guilty of committing the error of proposing false alternatives. When we observe the beautiful world in which we live you claim that “just because a garden is beautiful doesn’t mean there are fairies at the bottom of the garden”. But this is a false alternative. Of course fairies at the bottom of the garden are a delusion, but what about a gardener or even an owner. Christians aren’t fighting for fairies but rather for the gardener and owner?

There is no evidence for a gardener or owner, you keep claiming this, but show no evidence for it. There is none. You make a claim there is, show us the evidence. nada, zilch, nothing.

Additionally, you claim that ‘whatever knowledge is attainable, must be attained by scientific methods; and what science cannot discover, mankind cannot know’.

Where have I said this? oh, sorry you are creating a straw man .. continue ..

But this statement is self-refuting and illogical for such a statement is not itself a statement of science, and therefore according to your own definition the statement is false or at the very least unknowable. Science has limitations and you need to work hard at exploring them. How can science tell me if I love my wife? How can science tell us if a work of art is good or not? How can science tell me if a poem is a work of genius or not? How can science tell us what is right and what is wrong? Science only has the capacity to explore the world in which we live. Science only has the capacity to explain how matter works. It is beyond the scope of science to answer any of the why questions. Science can tell you what constituents go into a motor vehicle and it can even tell you how it works. However it cannot tell you why it was made.

Just a sec, your saying, if you don't know something, and someone says that it's done by BLAH BLAH, we have to believe them with no evidence, whatsoever? There is no evidence for your claims, stop bringing science into it, as it's just one thing that seems to contradict a lot of claims by for example, young earth creationists.

Show us the evidence for a god.

Naturalism is floored. You need to consider giving weight to other disciplines in addition to science. If you are only willing to accept scientific evidence then you are limiting yourself in your understanding. Answering the bigger questions of life will be impossible for you.

But you stick to a claim with no evidence, and claim you have the answer? I call this foolish. I am open to reason and evidence, not locked into a bronze age myth as being the be all and end all.

“The statement that only science can lead to truth is not itself deduced from science. It is not a scientific statement but rather a statement about science, that is, it is a metascientific statement. Therefore, if scientism’s basic principle is true, the statement expressing scientism must be false. Scientism refutes itself. Hence it is incoherent.” Dr. John Lennox

wot? What has the above wordplay got to do with the evidence for a god? Let alone that that god is the one you haven't even explained to us, have any proof of etc etc.

Looks like you are focussing on science as much of the evidence shown by it refutes claims of a young earth, and creationism. Your not explaining why the mass of evidence in radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, corals, supernovas - from astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and archeology all combine and go against your concepts of 'creationism' and a young earth?

can you explain why the scientific evidence contradicts your claims with no evidence?

Please include the evidence for creationism so we have something to discuss, otherwise, your claims are all empty, and you are trying to use wordplay about science to build a straw man argument, and ignoring the fact all evidence contradicts your claims of a young earth and that evolution doesn't exist.

Seamus

21st September 2009, 09:36 AM

Actually yes it does. As much as you believe the bible is a valid source of evidence, I believe the opposite. So, when you can provide 'evidence' that does not rely on the bible, try convincing me again.

I think he's kinda right.Your belief proves nothing [in itself].

Our semi literate ('floored' for 'flawed'? oh please) pet neanderthal has clearly shown he has no understanding of the word "evidence".

His beliefs are based on faith,for which there is actually no evidence,at all.

To be valid, a belief needs evidence. A disbelief has no burden of proof.

The guy is a complete drongo. Trying to argue with it is like poking a Bedlam inmate with a stick; fun if you're at all sadistic,but rather pointless.

Pete Crowther

21st September 2009, 10:01 AM

Are you here to try to understand atheists?, or are you here to try to get atheists to understand Christians? What is your goal or purpose for being here? It's a fair question.

Both. I most certainly want you to consider Christ. I also want to understand your world view better.

Sir Patrick Crocodile

21st September 2009, 10:02 AM

WWJD? Probably bugger off and do something worthwhile instead of stroking his engorged ego on a forum.Knowing him stroking his engorged ego on a forum would be exactly what Jesus would do.

Sir Patrick Crocodile

21st September 2009, 10:09 AM

You know him? Ask him to pop over here and explain himself, because his little helpers are doing a piss-poor job.He says there is no water for him to walk on. According to him this is part of the water restrictions you see...

Pete Crowther

21st September 2009, 10:09 AM

Actually yes it does. As much as you believe the bible is a valid source of evidence, I believe the opposite. So, when you can provide 'evidence' that does not rely on the bible, try convincing me again.

Love is complicated but in essence it's to do with chemical reactions, hormones and a need for procreation - so yeah, science can tell you why you love your wife.

You just proved my point. You "believe" the Bible to be false and I "believe it to be true. Both of our positions are faith based assumptions. The sooner you recognise that your opinions are a consequence of you having faith in certain evidences rather than proof, the sooner we can play ball.

By the way, you have no scientific evidence for your statement about love, so until you can produce some randomised controlled trials to support your opinion don't make such bold claims. Once again, your statement was not scientific but metascientific.

Sir Patrick Crocodile

21st September 2009, 10:12 AM

Sir Patrick Crocodile

21st September 2009, 10:16 AM

You just proved my point. You "believe" the Bible to be false and I "believe it to be true. Both of our positions are faith based assumptions. The sooner you recognise that your opinions are a consequence of you having faith in certain evidences rather than proof, the sooner we can play ball.

By the way, you have no scientific evidence for your statement about love, so until you can produce some randomised controlled trials to support your opinion don't make such bold claims. Once again, your statement was not scientific but metascientific. You are the one with no scientiffic evidence Can you produce some randomised trials to support your opinions about the existence of God? You are making bold claims here. What is "metascientific" mean? Your statements are not even close to scientific here.

Pete Crowther

21st September 2009, 10:22 AM

The reason you Christians find it hard to talk with us is because your definitions are inaccurate.

Your position is a faith based assumption. The position of Logic is not a faith based assumption.

Faith is not the same as belief and belief is not the same as faith.

I believe that I will remain atheist for a hell of a long time. That's not a faith based assumption because it is not faith.

There are few things we can have absolute certainty about. Does one plus one equal two? Yes. But we are not talking about mathematics here. We are talking about matters of spirituality and metaphysical ideas. Logic most certainly applies to all discussions. But Christianity is not devoid of logic. Christians consider it to be a very logical world view. Explain to me how then it is illogical to assume the existence of a gardener when observing a garden or of a designer when observing a design? As stated previously, I'm not stating that such a consideration is a proof of there being a God. I'm simply stating that the consideration of the possibility is quite a logical progression of thoughts.

Pete Crowther

21st September 2009, 10:27 AM

You are the one with no scientiffic evidence Can you produce some randomised trials to support your opinions about the existence of God? You are making bold claims here. What is "metascientific" mean? Your statements are not even close to scientific here.

Metascientific means 'beyond science'. I do not need to produce RCTs for the existence of God because God is not of the material world and therefore cannot be tested by science. I would love to produce Scripture, but you refuse to listen to God's relevation. The complexity of nature itself is one evidence for the existence of God, but because that has not been put into a scientific journal you seem happy to overlook the obvious.

Sir Patrick Crocodile

21st September 2009, 10:27 AM

There are few things we can have absolute certainty about. Does one plus one equal two? Yes. But we are not talking about mathematics here. We are talking about matters of spirituality and metaphysical ideas. Logic most certainly applies to all discussions. But Christianity is not devoid of logic. Christians consider it to be a very logical world view.I can consider the Existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster to be very logical. In fact there is more "evidence" of its existence compared to that of God's existence.Explain to me how then it is illogical to assume the existence of a gardener when observing a garden or of a designer when observing a design? As stated previously, I'm not stating that such a consideration is a proof of there being a God. I'm simply stating that the consideration of the possibility is quite a logical progression of thoughts.What do gardens and designs have to do with this? We haven't seen any gardens or designs to prove the existence of a deity.

Sir Patrick Crocodile

21st September 2009, 10:32 AM

Metascientific means 'beyond science'. I do not need to produce RCTs for the existence of God because God is not of the material world and therefore cannot be tested by science. I would love to produce Scripture, but you refuse to listen to God's relevation. The complexity of nature itself is one evidence for the existence of God, but because that has not been put into a scientific journal you seem happy to overlook the obvious.Therefore your God is metascientific. If God cannot be tested by science how are we to know his existence? What makes you think that the scripture is the truth? To me it seems like an obvious work of fiction gone wrong since there are many contradictions and errors in logic present. And I don't want people wasting my time with people who like to recite John 3:16 multiple times per post when it doesn't mean shit.

And why don't you believe in unicorns? They are beyond the material world. Why not the Flying Spaghetti Monster since it is also beyond the material world?

wearestardust

21st September 2009, 11:06 AM

Faith is, if I recall correctly, the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen. Which is, I think, your point?

But, it seems, not only do proponents of science disagree that science is just a sort of faith, therefore so does the bible.

Logic

21st September 2009, 11:06 AM

You just proved my point. You "believe" the Bible to be false and I "believe it to be true. Both of our positions are faith based assumptions. The sooner you recognise that your opinions are a consequence of you having faith in certain evidences rather than proof, the sooner we can play ball.

Bad choice of words on my part - 'non-belief' would have been better. You have no evidence that the bible is true or an accurate source of evidence. You need to provide me with evidence that the bible is factual. I do not have 'faith' in evidence, as that is an oxy-moron. To have faith in something factual does not make sense. Evidence that is factual just is.

Bythe way, you have no scientific evidence for your statement about love, so until you can produce some randomised controlled trials to support your opinion don't make such bold claims. Once again, your statement was not scientific but metascientific.

There have been many scientific articles written on the topic - do you read? Surely you've come across them? Or perhaps you only read that which agrees with your opinions?

Stueee86

21st September 2009, 11:07 AM

Atheists seem to only have one definition of faith, that being that faith is blind and devoid of evidence.

I do not believe the bible is true due to lack of evidence. Therefore, you believe without evidence. You derive your faith from this belief. Therefore your faith is not based on evidence.

However, this is the completely opposite view of faith to that of mainstream Christianity.
This goes without saying. Of course Christians disagree, as they think their beliefs and faith in them are derived from evidence.

Let it be made clear that Christians are in disagreement with blind faith as much as atheists. However, faith in Jesus Christ is not blind, but rather a trust in the evidence at hand.
Oh snap! Nice one Pete. Blind faith = other religions. All other religions have it wrong, Christians have it right! We can all now rest easy, thankyou Pete. You clearly have evidence, and no other religion can claim they do. Nor should they, because your argument is so overwhelmingly strong.

You are free to reject the evidence if you don’t agree with it, but let’s not pretend that no evidence exists for Jesus Christ’s deity.
Let's not pretend this so called 'evidence' is worthy of the weight you give it.

I’m not talking about proof, but rather about evidence which needs to be assessed before an opinion can be formed.
All of the religions have this 'evidence'. Yours is no different. You've dismissed evidence from every other religion, yet accept Christianity's.

In rejecting all faith as blind, Dawkins and Atheists as a whole undermine their own credibility.
Faith is based on non-evidenced beliefs. That's what faith is Pete. So it would increase my credibility to accept all faith as 'seeing the truth?' I'd have a lot of religions to believe wouldn't I? Or do you mean I should realise Christians see the truth, but the rest are blind. It would be nice if you made these distinctions.

When we observe the beautiful world in which we live you claim that “just because a garden is beautiful doesn’t mean there are fairies at the bottom of the garden”.

But this is a false alternative. Of course fairies at the bottom of the garden are a delusion, but what about a gardener or even an owner.

I think you've taken those sorts of sayings out of context. They're usually used to show the way a believer uses faith to get to the end zone.
eg. universe exists, so god made it.

I'm saying just because it exists, it's not logical to say god did it.

The rest of your post doesn't seem to apply to me. So I'll leave it.

Fearless

21st September 2009, 11:39 AM

I have been wanting to link this since I made it :p

Burden of Proof
_Q1E4NvDkEY

Mister Pervert

21st September 2009, 01:25 PM

So many of you are guilty of committing the error of proposing false alternatives. When we observe the beautiful world in which we live you claim that “just because a garden is beautiful doesn’t mean there are fairies at the bottom of the garden”. But this is a false alternative. Of course fairies at the bottom of the garden are a delusion, but what about a gardener or even an owner. Christians aren’t fighting for fairies but rather for the gardener and owner?

Hi Pete - I love you. If you're not doing anything Saturday arvo, would you like to get married? Don't forget to bring your dowry.

Mister Pervert

21st September 2009, 01:56 PM

BTW, it's not "floored" it's "well-grounded". Silly boy.

It may well be simply "grounded theory" - if we're speaking academically.

Or Godot...

Sir Patrick Crocodile

21st September 2009, 02:47 PM

Hi Pete - I love you. If you're not doing anything Saturday arvo, would you like to get married? Don't forget to bring your dowry.Can I be your best man? I could be a publicity rep...tile.

Mister Pervert

21st September 2009, 02:53 PM

Can I be your best man? I could be a publicity rep...tile.

Heh!

The football season will be over soon enough, Croc. Then, we have tennis and cricket, yet again...

atheist_angel

21st September 2009, 05:12 PM

Both. I most certainly want you to consider Christ. I also want to understand your world view better. I know I just met you, but I am going to share something very personal with you, Pete. Back when I was a Christian, I would have never condemned anyone for being homosexual, nor for being non-Jewish, nor for not keeping the mitzvahs, nor for not stoning their criminally active children. I would have never seen science as wrong for being inconsistent with the bible; instead, I would have thought the bible to have been misinterpreted and therefore misunderstood. And, I most certainly would not have compared ‘Supernatural Faith’ to any other to any other form of faith, hope, belief, reason, logic, and etc.

I don’t understand why you mentally equate the word ‘Faith’ (in the Supernatural), with the words ‘Reason’, ‘Belief’, ‘Logic’, and ‘Evidence’. This behavior is abnormal, even for someone with strong religious convictions. I’m afraid I don’t think you are qualified to speak for Christianity, as your own world view has much to be desired. I am quite concerned for your mental state and I think you should seek medical advice at once. Please believe me when I tell you, there is much about the bible that you do not yet understand. Were I still a believer, I would advise you where you fall short. But since I am no longer a believer, I can’t in good conscience enlighten someone that may have abnormal psychology and not know it.

Caio

21st September 2009, 07:10 PM

Lets break this down very carefully, with patience and excruciating detail because some people don’t get it at all.

It’s difficult to have a discussion about Christianity with you, especially when there is a breakdown of communication on so many levels between us. Atheists seem to only have one definition of faith, that being that faith is blind and devoid of evidence. However, this is the completely opposite view of faith to that of mainstream Christianity. Let it be made clear that Christians are in disagreement with blind faith as much as atheists. However, faith in Jesus Christ is not blind, but rather a trust in the evidence at hand. You are free to reject the evidence if you don’t agree with it, but let’s not pretend that no evidence exists for Jesus Christ’s deity. Such statements just don’t do justice to the weight of evidence out there in support of Christianity. Just because you don’t count the Bible or other documents as valid sources of evidence doesn’t mean that they aren’t. Now don’t go and respond to this by saying “prove to me your God exists and prove to me that this God is the God of the Christian Bible”. I’m not talking about proof, but rather about evidence which needs to be assessed before an opinion can be formed.

Direct me please to the evidence that there is. To trust the evidence is to have faith In it, without proof or evidence. It’s not that ‘we” don’t believe that the bible isn’t a credible source of evidence, its that it’s a fact that it isn’t. The new testament wasn’t written by first hand accounts, but by third hand accounts at best, exempting some parts possible, but the four gospels most certainly weren’t, it says so in my copy of the Jerusalem bible, noted by scholars and archaeologists. This by the way is proof, keep in mind for future reference. Faith is belief without evidence, look it up in the dictionary.

Dawkins raves on about faith being blind and that we need to follow the evidence supporting that of Naturalism. However, in his attack on Christianity he demonstrates hypocrisy and inconsistency, because evidence is the very thing he fails to supply for the claim that ‘independence of evidence is faith’s joy’. In rejecting all faith as blind, Dawkins and Atheists as a whole undermine their own credibility.

Its not up to the non-believers to supply the evidence, the burden of proof lies with the believers. Other than that, I don’t understand what you said…

So many of you are guilty of committing the error of proposing false alternatives. When we observe the beautiful world in which we live you claim that “just because a garden is beautiful doesn’t mean there are fairies at the bottom of the garden”. But this is a false alternative. Of course fairies at the bottom of the garden are a delusion, but what about a gardener or even an owner. Christians aren’t fighting for fairies but rather for the gardener and owner?

WTF??? Are you serious??

Additionally, you claim that ‘whatever knowledge is attainable, must be attained by scientific methods; and what science cannot discover, mankind cannot know’.

Find me someone who said this…

But this statement is self-refuting and illogical for such a statement is not itself a statement of science, and therefore according to your own definition the statement is false or at the very least unknowable. Science has limitations and you need to work hard at exploring them. How can science tell me if I love my wife? How can science tell us if a work of art is good or not? How can science tell me if a poem is a work of genius or not? How can science tell us what is right and what is wrong? Science only has the capacity to explore the world in which we live. Science only has the capacity to explain how matter works. It is beyond the scope of science to answer any of the why questions. Science can tell you what constituents go into a motor vehicle and it can even tell you how it works. However it cannot tell you why it was made.

Ah, lol I’m going to love this, but dare I point out that by undermining the ability of science to prove things that is not “matter” does this not mean that proof of god is impossible? Further that the proof of Jesus as you said at the beginning would also lie beyond the ability of science to prove, so wont this mean that you have no proof? As for the rest, your personal incredulity don’t mean shit, the proof of these things lie in fields such as psychology and philosophy, your inability to comprehend them means nothing.

Naturalism is floored. You need to consider giving weight to other disciplines in addition to science. If you are only willing to accept scientific evidence then you are limiting yourself in your understanding. Answering the bigger questions of life will be impossible for you.

You have no idea what evidence and proof mean do you?

“The statement that only science can lead to truth is not itself deduced from science. It is not a scientific statement but rather a statement about science, that is, it is a metascientific statement. Therefore, if scientism’s basic principle is true, the statement expressing scientism must be false. Scientism refutes itself. Hence it is incoherent.” Dr. John Lennox

Words escape me, I’m sorry but they do, I genuinely have no answer…

Twizzle

21st September 2009, 07:51 PM

Theist:

THER IS EVIDENCE FOR GOD YOU STUPID ATHEISTS! Don't prentend it doesn't exist, you and I both know it does! Where is the evidence, you ask? WE BOTH KNOW IT EXISTS!

THE EVIDENCE IS THERE!
Why do you keep asking me where the evidence is when it is RIGHT THERE!!!! My Bibles says so! It's all in this ancient, overly-translated book! How do I know the book is real, or that it has not been distorted over time? BECAUSE THERE'S EVIDENCE!

REAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE! But I'm not gunna show you any because my book is the only evidence I need!!

Stueee86

21st September 2009, 08:43 PM

Woops. I thought you were Jewish and mentioned it in one of my posts. Now I can't find the offensive post of mine to edit :(

http://atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showpost.php?p=30420&postcount=3

atheist_angel

21st September 2009, 08:53 PM

@Croc, I am a Jewish American Atheist and a former Christian.
How many non-Jews do you see going around using words like, 'mitzvahs'...? ;)

Sir Patrick Crocodile

21st September 2009, 08:54 PM

So you used to be a Jewish Christian before? Now that should give you a choice between Heaven and Hell no matter what.

davo

21st September 2009, 10:41 PM

Sir Patrick Crocodile

21st September 2009, 10:43 PM

Well we all know that these people are women abusers as well as child abusers as well as absolute bigots and draconian little proponents of censorship. How peaceful.

davo

21st September 2009, 10:47 PM

and these christians call 'satan' the 'great deceiver', yet their book and faith has deceived more people than any 'satan'.

All codswallop of course.

Sir Patrick Crocodile

21st September 2009, 10:57 PM

I think I have an explanation for these lunatics.

The Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth (http://churchofsatan.com/Pages/Eleven.html) Do not give opinions or advice unless you are asked. Do not tell your troubles to others unless you are sure they want to hear them. When in another’s lair, show him respect or else do not go there. If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat him cruelly and without mercy. Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal. Do not take that which does not belong to you unless it is a burden to the other person and he cries out to be relieved. Acknowledge the power of magic if you have employed it successfully to obtain your desires. If you deny the power of magic after having called upon it with success, you will lose all you have obtained. Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject yourself. Do not harm little children. Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for your food. When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him.I think there are a few morals there. You won't get that in the Bible anytime soon.

The ones that are relevant to this forum are in bold.

davo

21st September 2009, 11:12 PM

makes far more sense than a list of rules by a so called god that is all about worshipping him and no other.

Still, most all these religious 'rules' are just obvious stuff (except why an all powerful being makes near half of them about his worry that we won't believe in him, how lame)

Sir Patrick Crocodile

21st September 2009, 11:57 PM

Yep. And the Eleven Satanic rules of the Earth actually peaceful too - there is no doubt that only the evil mastermind in Hell could formulate these rules - they are way too peaceful for the Jebus H X Hallucinating Lunatic Band to follow.

atheist_angel

22nd September 2009, 12:15 AM

Yep. And the Eleven Satanic rules of the Earth...Hey, did I mention, I made my own set...EDIT: I decided not to keep it up.
What do you think of these? http://www.athenachurch.org/index.php

1. Do not murder a fellow human being, even if they worship a different deity than you. Self-defense and war are the only exceptions.

2. Do not steal from someone or shoplift, unless you are starving and need food to survive.

3. Do not rape anyone.

4. Athena gave us coffee, beer, and rock music. Worship her out of thanksgiving and joy, not fear or obligation.

5. To see if someone is a believer, ask him or her, "Do you believe in rock & roll?". If a follower of our most holy faith, he or she will respond, "Music saves my mortal soul." These lines are taken from Don McLean's "American Pie."

6. Coffee is an excellent way to become more productive and sleep less.

7. Rock & roll is amazing, but other forms of music must not be oppressed because of our beliefs.

8. Beer is delicious and the best way to get drunk.

9. Live your life as you please, but don't hurt others or cause pain.

10. Any acts of violence or evil that seem to have been caused by Athena or an earlier manifestation were not caused by Her because She is omnibenevolent. Instead, these evil deeds were done by Lavos, an ancient evil that delights in tarnishing Her good name.

SinisterDexter

22nd September 2009, 06:56 PM

Pete, answer davo's first post in this thread.

Until you do you have no credibility.

It is as simple as that.

Atrax Robustus

22nd September 2009, 08:09 PM

How can science tell me if I love my wife? How can science tell us if a work of art is good or not? How can science tell me if a poem is a work of genius or not? How can science tell us what is right and what is wrong?

Gee. I haven't seen this approach for some time! I thought all you christians (and others of theistic ilk) had ceased using these particular appeals to ignorance after being verbally disembowelled on numerous forums across the interwebz.

It is beyond the scope of science to answer any of the why questions. Science can tell you what constituents go into a motor vehicle and it can even tell you how it works. However it cannot tell you why it was made.

Apparently not. It would appear that some of you haven't been listening to the drums.

OK - I'm willing to discuss this with you civilly . . .

My initial response will be an initial set of counterquestions and requests if I may.

How does your wife KNOW that you love her?
Please provide me with one outstanding example of art.
Please provide me with one example of a poem which is a work of genius.
How do YOU KNOW whether a particular act is right or wrong?

Oh . . . and a couple of the WHY? questions will give me something to ponder as well. Not your claptrap about car makers (that one is way too easy) - lay some of them real WHY questions on me Peter!

I look forward to your response! :)

GenericBox

22nd September 2009, 08:19 PM

How can science tell me if I love my wife?

I'm a little disappointed Pete, I went through and did all the research on that for you a while ago, and made a whole thread about it in Fantasy Island. If you want to read it, it's still there:

http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?t=942

At least show the decency to read what others post when they are compensating for your laziness and doing the research for you.

GenericBox

22nd September 2009, 08:20 PM

Funnily enough you said the same thing about Love when I wrote that thread on the 4th of May.

Do you ever change?

Atrax Robustus

22nd September 2009, 08:25 PM

I'm a little disappointed Pete, I went through and did all the research on that for you a while ago, and made a whole thread about it in Fantasy Island. If you want to read it, it's still there:

http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?t=942

At least show the decency to read what others post when they are compensating for your laziness and doing the research for you.

Thanks GB.

@ Pete (assuming you decide to read the topic above) you might not wish to answer my first question - however if you ignore it or have a totally esoteric answer for my edification, then I am happy for you to reply to it. :)

Cosmic Teapot

22nd September 2009, 09:48 PM

Well done bleat...I mean Pete.
You managed to credit the original author of this cut and paste nonsense (+1) but haven't managed to support the complete inanity that you chose to sully our fair forum with (-∞).
You used the word "evidence" 11 times in your opening post but epically failed to produce a single iota of it.

As for rejecting the bible as credible evidence, would you accept THIS (http://www.venganza.org/) website or THIS (http://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Flying-Spaghetti-Monster/dp/0812976568?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1180375352&sr=8-1) book as credible evidence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

I guess the key word here is "credibility", an attribute that isn't objectively given to the bible. Whilst you might find a few characters and places that can be historically verified from independant sources, most of the events in the bible aren't recorded anywhere except in the bible, even when we have detailed accounts of happenings in that time and place by well known writers. (http://jdstone.org/cr/files/nohistoricalevidenceofjesus.html)
Six day creation, global floods and the exodus from Egypt are recorded only in the bible. According to their own records, no one in Egypt was aware of any of these events, despite the fact that Egyptian civilisation pre-dates christianity's date for creation, the Egyptians should've all died in the flood and they're the bad guys in the exodus story. Apparently, none of the 10 plagues was worth noting at the time, including the Nile turning to blood, all of the livestock suddenly dying and Yahweh himself killing the first-born in every Egyptian household.

If you want to present the bible as "evidence", you must also take the fundamentalist position that the bible is inerrant and everything in it is the literal truth. If so, you must also explain how someone can survive in the stomach of a giant fish/whale for three days without being digested or how you could possibly gather two of every species on Earth (millions of species) without leaving the Middle-East, let alone how you could fit all of them and sufficient food for 40 days on a single boat. Failure to explain these and many other biblical absurdities would render the bible "incredible", which is the opposite of credible.
Of course, if you don't believe that the bible is inerrant and meant to be taken literally, you can't present it as an accurate account of events. Inaccurate evidence and allegorical stories are not very credible, are they?

As for Naturalism and Scientism being floored (sic) worldviews, one doesn't claim to be a complete worldview and the other is an extreme view held by few and as such, it's used as a strawman whenever atheists ask for proof of the divine.
Naturalism is the belief that the natural, tangible world is the only reality and that there is no supernatural.
Realistically, it's just a lack of belief in a supernatural beyond the natural world and an extension of the atheist lack of belief in god/deities. It not only covers the lack of belief in god/s, it also doesn't believe in ghosts, past lives, auras, horoscopes and the rest of that hippy new-age crap.
If atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby, then naturalism is a worldview in the same way that giving up smoking is a cure for lung cancer.
Like atheism, naturalism is only a facet of someone's philosophy and doesn't represent their entire view of life.
I agree that scientism is a flawed worldview but that in no way means that faith in the invisible is the better alternative. Scientism is what you might call "scientific fundamentalism" and like all forms of fundamentalism, it is too narrow and inflexible to encompass the human condition. There are areas that are just too abstract for science to penetrate, such as love, art and philosophy. If you asked for proof that you love your wife, I doubt anyone here would suggest a double blind test under lab conditions.
That said, there are some things that are best investigated using the scientific method, especially when there is a conflict with established fact and supernatural belief.
Was the entire Universe created in 6 days only 6000 years ago?
Just because someone finds the vast quantities of scientific evidence against such a proposition more credible than a bronze age book full of contradictions, doesn't automatically mean they have a Scientistic worldview anymore than believing in jesus makes you a christian fundamentalist.

In summary, you denounced Naturalism, which isn't a comprehensive worldview, as a flawed worldview and did the same to Scientism without showing that anyone here actually holds Scientism as their worldview.
http://uploads.roddyinnovations.com/users/ITL/straw_man.jpg

TÐöer

28th September 2009, 02:52 PM

...

Once again, Pete has left the thread, convinced that he has shown atheist a thing or two.

@Pete, Beauty is actually, in the eyes of the beholder, and it will tell you that people like certain things, due to their experiences, and self assurance. It is completely logical, and can be explained. But it's not relevant to claim there must be a God to create beauty and appreciation for beauty.

"Science" here probably, does not mean bluntly Chemistry, Physics, Biology, but also other forms of proof finding, such as Mathematics, and logic.

Of course, we must have logic, if we throw out logic, then all laws of nature will no longer apply.

As there is no 100% certainty in anything, your argument is that we based our "opinions" on certain evidence we find (through science), and never proof itself.

But I'm sure you would agree, that there is a difference, in the degree of plausibility for evidence presented. And some, so lacking, that it can't be considered as evidence at all.

Eg. A photo of Farries in a picture standing next to you, I'm sure, everybody would refute it as being photo chopped and not evidence.

About the example you gave, of fairies in a garden in comparison to a gardener. You see, the fairies were an example, of something we both agreed on, but you failed to see, the similarities, of how the fairies assumption was derived similar to there being a gardener, completely baseless.

I know, I know, you wish to make the bible and scientific proof in par. But do you realise how impossible that is? Scientific proofs (using the proven methods of deriving), are that which we are utilizing today, without which, alot of things cannot be acheived, from the clothes on your back, to the house that we live in.

How about the Bible? It's merely ink on paper, whereby anything can be writen, but no substantial claims can be verified. And the best that could come out from it: "Morality" is redudant, and obsolete.

Where do you see it say: "Think what is moral, as God has given you a brain, and is unable to write all possible morality cases in a single book."

While we are on the subject of Bible morality, the obsolete bible morality is causing, many to behave poorly, we all know of those fanatics out there. And they quote accordingly to the bible. See Crocodile's youtube, on a soldier's funeral.

Pete Crowther

28th September 2009, 07:51 PM

Therefore your God is metascientific. If God cannot be tested by science how are we to know his existence? What makes you think that the scripture is the truth? To me it seems like an obvious work of fiction gone wrong since there are many contradictions and errors in logic present. And I don't want people wasting my time with people who like to recite John 3:16 multiple times per post when it doesn't mean shit.

And why don't you believe in unicorns? They are beyond the material world. Why not the Flying Spaghetti Monster since it is also beyond the material world?

We are to know of his existence ultimately through revelation. God has revealed aspects of himself to us in a general sense. Evidences such as nature itself, the rationality of the world in which we live, morality, intelligence etc. are all things that point to the existence of God. However, a personal knowing of God, in relationship with him, can only come from him choosing to specially reveal himself to us. For example, you cannot know me, no matter how hard you try, if I do not choose to share who I am with you. At best any knowledge you would have of me would purely be speculative. Because God is personal the same applies to Him. We can only know him if he chooses to reveal himself to us.

And yes, God's revelation is written down in his word, the Bible. And as much as you say it is fictional, I have found that in my 20 years of study of the book, it is by no means fiction. 66 different books, by approx 40 different authors, written over the course of approx 1500 years, and yet the truths revealed in Scripture are congruent, unified and supported by historical evidence. Prophecies are fulfilled, adding further weight to the fact that it is divinely inspired. It's an amazing book. But then again, God's word should be nothing less.

Oh and to answer your other question. I do not believe in unicorns because to the best of my knowledge there is no evidence for their existence. There are copious amounts of evidence for the existence of God and for the deity of Jesus Christ.

Sir Patrick Crocodile

28th September 2009, 07:57 PM

We are to know of his existence ultimately through revelation. God has revealed aspects of himself to us in a general sense. Evidences such as nature itself, the rationality of the world in which we live, morality, intelligence etc. are all things that point to the existence of God. However, a personal knowing of God, in relationship with him, can only come from him choosing to specially reveal himself to us. For example, you cannot know me, no matter how hard you try, if I do not choose to share who I am with you. At best any knowledge you would have of me would purely be speculative. Because God is personal the same applies to Him. We can only know him if he chooses to reveal himself to us.Morality and intelligence do not have anything to do with God or the Bible at all. Animals do have their morals too and they don't read a book for it. Oh and since he hasn't revealed himself to us we don't know him very well...And yes, God's revelation is written down in his word, the Bible. And as much as you say it is fictional, I have found that in my 20 years of study of the book, it is by no means fiction. 66 different books, by approx 40 different authors, written over the course of approx 1500 years, and yet the truths revealed in Scripture are congruent, unified and supported by historical evidence. Prophecies are fulfilled, adding further weight to the fact that it is divinely inspired. It's an amazing book. But then again, God's word should be nothing less.Have you considered the number of actual predictions of the end of the world and the Apocalypse and Rapture yet? There was one coming in September 22 this year but it hasn't happened yet. Or maybe I missed it? Anyway there's supposed to be the Rapture in 2012 so let's see what happens in <3 years time.Oh and to answer your other question. I do not believe in unicorns because to the best of my knowledge there is no evidence for their existence. There are copious amounts of evidence for the existence of God and for the deity of Jesus Christ.So what are these "copious amounts of evidence for the existence of God and for the deity of Jesus Christ" you speak so much about? The unicorn is mentioned quite a few times in the Bible so why don't you believe in unicorns? There seems to be more evidence for the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the deity of his son Tortellini than there is for the existence of God now.

atheist_angel

28th September 2009, 08:13 PM

I know I just met you, but I am going to share something very personal with you, Pete. Back when I was a Christian, I would have never condemned anyone for being homosexual, nor for being non-Jewish, nor for not keeping the mitzvahs, nor for not stoning their criminally active children. I would have never seen science as wrong for being inconsistent with the bible; instead, I would have thought the bible to have been misinterpreted and therefore misunderstood. And, I most certainly would not have compared ‘Supernatural Faith’ to any other to any other form of faith, hope, belief, reason, logic, and etc.

I don’t understand why you mentally equate the word ‘Faith’ (in the Supernatural), with the words ‘Reason’, ‘Belief’, ‘Logic’, and ‘Evidence’. This behavior is abnormal, even for someone with strong religious convictions. I’m afraid I don’t think you are qualified to speak for Christianity, as your own world view has much to be desired. I am quite concerned for your mental state and I think you should seek medical advice at once. Please believe me when I tell you, there is much about the bible that you do not yet understand. Were I still a believer, I would advise you where you fall short. But since I am no longer a believer, I can’t in good conscience enlighten someone that may have abnormal psychology and not know it.

We are to know of his existence ultimately through revelation. God has revealed aspects of himself to us in a general sense. Evidences such as nature itself, the rationality of the world in which we live, morality, intelligence etc. are all things that point to the existence of God. However, a personal knowing of God, in relationship with him, can only come from him choosing to specially reveal himself to us. For example, you cannot know me, no matter how hard you try, if I do not choose to share who I am with you. At best any knowledge you would have of me would purely be speculative. Because God is personal the same applies to Him. We can only know him if he chooses to reveal himself to us.

And yes, God's revelation is written down in his word, the Bible. And as much as you say it is fictional, I have found that in my 20 years of study of the book, it is by no means fiction. 66 different books, by approx 40 different authors, written over the course of approx 1500 years, and yet the truths revealed in Scripture are congruent, unified and supported by historical evidence. Prophecies are fulfilled, adding further weight to the fact that it is divinely inspired. It's an amazing book. But then again, God's word should be nothing less.

Oh and to answer your other question. I do not believe in unicorns because to the best of my knowledge there is no evidence for their existence. There are copious amounts of evidence for the existence of God and for the deity of Jesus Christ.What did the doctors say about these delusions? Are they going to put you on meds for a while to see if it helps? You did take my advice and go, didn't you? If you haven't then, Pete please, I urge you to. :(

two dogs

28th September 2009, 08:26 PM

..
There are [sic] copious amounts of evidence for the existence of God and for the deity of Jesus Christ.
Oh yeah? Such as?

Sir Patrick Crocodile

28th September 2009, 08:27 PM

What did the doctors say about these delusions? Are they going to put you on meds for a while to see if it helps? You did take my advice and go, didn't you? If you haven't then, Pete please, I urge you to. :(Unfortunately in Australia there are many faithful doctors out there...

SinisterDexter

28th September 2009, 08:48 PM

We are to know of his existence ultimately through revelation. God has revealed aspects of himself to us in a general sense. Evidences such as nature itself, the rationality of the world in which we live, morality, intelligence etc. are all things that point to the existence of God. However, a personal knowing of God, in relationship with him, can only come from him choosing to specially reveal himself to us. For example, you cannot know me, no matter how hard you try, if I do not choose to share who I am with you. At best any knowledge you would have of me would purely be speculative. Because God is personal the same applies to Him. We can only know him if he chooses to reveal himself to us.

If this is true, and I do not accept it is, then God is a wanker who refuses to reveal himself to atheists and yet still condemns them to eternal suffering. What a prat!

And yes, God's revelation is written down in his word, the Bible. And as much as you say it is fictional, I have found that in my 20 years of study of the book, it is by no means fiction. 66 different books, by approx 40 different authors, written over the course of approx 1500 years, and yet the truths revealed in Scripture are congruent, unified and supported by historical evidence. Prophecies are fulfilled, adding further weight to the fact that it is divinely inspired. It's an amazing book. But then again, God's word should be nothing less.

You are a liar. Either that or you are stupid.

The Scriptures are not "congruent, unified or supported by historical evidence". Prophecies are only fulfilled because they were written after the fact and it is no more or less "inspired" than any other holy book on offer.

Further, it is a highly unethical and immoral book. If the Bible's depiction of God is to be believed then, even if he does exist and I end up in Hell, I would see it as my moral duty to side with Satan and march with the infernal host upon Heaven to cast down this petty, genocidal bigot that calls himself the master of humankind.

Oh and to answer your other question. I do not believe in unicorns because to the best of my knowledge there is no evidence for their existence. There are copious amounts of evidence for the existence of God and for the deity of Jesus Christ.

So present some. You are all talk and no substance Pete, and you still havcen't responded to davo's first post.

Sir Patrick Crocodile

28th September 2009, 08:51 PM

Link. Uh huh huh. (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showpost.php?p=30438&postcount=5)

gruber

28th September 2009, 08:55 PM

No fairies at the bottom of the garden...... WTF have i been eating then:eek:

Sir Patrick Crocodile

28th September 2009, 09:00 PM

You've obviously been eating your vegetables.

atheist_angel

28th September 2009, 10:09 PM

Unfortunately in Australia there are many faithful doctors out there...
:rolleyes: Oh, nice!
The diluted deluded treating non-diluted deluded delusions with their own diluted deluded delusions.
How far with 'that' will one get towards recovery!

two dogs

28th September 2009, 10:36 PM

...
There are copious [sic] amounts of evidence for the existence of God and for the deity of Jesus Christ.
Why is it that your one and only (but tripartite) god can't simply reveal* himself to us apostates (let alone his devotees), in order to convince us of his existence? It would seem a rather trifling thing to ask of an omni-potent/scient/present being?

If he's ashamed to make a personal appearance (as he should be, given his "jealous, petty, unjust, unforgiving, vindictive, bloodthirsty, misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomanical, and sadomasochistic"** behaviour in the Old Testament), then perhaps he could stop the sun in the sky for a couple of hours?

He apparently had no problem with making regular appearances to bronze age goat herders, for whom the wheelbarrow was an emergent technology***, but lately has been recalcitrant to show.

*By reveal, I mean make an appearance, not show his genitalia; I assume he has genitalia, as he made man in his image.

**From Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion", with some modification.

Digitalos

28th September 2009, 10:40 PM

*By reveal, I mean make an appearance, not show his genitalia; I assume he has genitalia, as he made man in his image.
It's amusing that atheists wonder out loud why Christians think they have no real idea of Christianity when they post things like this.

two dogs

28th September 2009, 11:12 PM

It's amusing that atheists wonder out loud why Christians think they have no real idea of Christianity when they post things like this.

G'day Digitalos,

Long time, no see.

It's amusing that atheists wonder out loud why Chrisitians have no sense of humour?

How about commenting on the content of my post, rather than its jocular footnote?

Digitalos

28th September 2009, 11:16 PM

G'day Digitalos,

Long time, no see.

It's amusing that atheists wonder out loud why Chrisitians have no sense of humour?

How about commenting on the content of my post, rather than its jocular footnote?
Ok, first can you explain what 'made in His image' means to you?

two dogs

28th September 2009, 11:25 PM

Ok, first can you explain what 'made in His image' means to you?
It means nothing to me. To a 2nd millenium BCE desert nomad, I expect it meant "God made me to look like him". What's your interpretation?

TÐöer

29th September 2009, 09:01 AM

We are to know of his existence ultimately through revelation. God has revealed aspects of himself to us in a general sense. Evidences such as nature itself, the rationality of the world in which we live, morality, intelligence etc. are all things that point to the existence of God. However, a personal knowing of God, in relationship with him, can only come from him choosing to specially reveal himself to us. For example, you cannot know me, no matter how hard you try, if I do not choose to share who I am with you. At best any knowledge you would have of me would purely be speculative. Because God is personal the same applies to Him. We can only know him if he chooses to reveal himself to us.

Wait a minute....

Are you sure that's revelation from your God, and not my Taoist gods??

How did you associate things work > Beauty > God Exist > God is Personal ???

I think you hit the nail on it's head with this:

you cannot know me, no matter how hard you try, if I do not choose to share who I am with you. At best any knowledge you would have of me would purely be speculative.

Obviously, God has no desired to show himself in a form that normal people can fathom and understand, it's reserved for religious people.

In which case, for athiest like me to say there is a God, is purely speculative. As to the best of my knowledge God has not revealed himself.

Somehow you have managed to see the bunny in the clouds and call it a revelation, who am I to question?

But as you have proven, God does not desire, to make himself clearly known, for if he did, he would do it in a jiff... no more misgivings... no more religious wars... no more atheist...

God's actions can be associated with a shy secret admirer, who refuses to reveal to his love interest his true feelings, instead resort to stalking, harassing, and other forms of attention seeking deeds.

And yes, God's revelation is written down in his word, the Bible. And as much as you say it is fictional, I have found that in my 20 years of study of the book, it is by no means fiction. 66 different books, by approx 40 different authors, written over the course of approx 1500 years, and yet the truths revealed in Scripture are congruent, unified and supported by historical evidence. Prophecies are fulfilled, adding further weight to the fact that it is divinely inspired. It's an amazing book. But then again, God's word should be nothing less.

congruent, unified and supported by historical evidence? How about Dan Brown's stories? His stories seems logical, has historical and landmark references, are you saying it is true too?

Conclusion: It's not about the number of pages, the number of authors, the number of historical correct references, it's about believing in the supernatural, when it has completely no evidence.

How are you going to proof, Jesus existence? Are you going to drag his skeleton out of his tomb, then match it with DNA extracted from him previously?? obviously impossible right? The only way to verify Christianity is if we still see those miracles which is irrifutably to God's credit, or if God revealed himself in the flesh.

The least of all, is if his book, is actually perfect, and gives us useful information. Alas, it fails miserably, and teaches it's followers outdated moral values.

Digitalos

29th September 2009, 09:57 AM

It means nothing to me. To a 2nd millenium BCE desert nomad, I expect it meant "God made me to look like him". What's your interpretation?
That is precisely why Christians level the "Learn about Christianity." phrase in your direction.

This is one example, but when you venture into specific areas and debate with Christians on Biblical verses and so forth, you need to know what you are talking about.

The tl;dr version is that God made man with His attributes.

TÐöer

29th September 2009, 10:25 AM

The tl;dr version is that God made man with His attributes.

Well, we can never have enough of versions, so which "Christianity" do you reckon we have to learn?

Unsacred Cow

29th September 2009, 10:29 AM

The tl;dr version is that God made man with His attributes.

Well, that would explain why god made so many mistakes....he's merely humanlike.

Digitalos

29th September 2009, 10:32 AM

Well, we can never have enough of versions, so which "Christianity" do you reckon we have to learn?
tl;dr means 'too long, didn't read' - it's basically a way to say, here is a summary. :)

That being said, there is only one actual truth right? You have to accept, that just like everything there is only one true real ultimate reality. So it's up to us, to find out which it is. If you are debating/talking about the Biblcal God, which Christians believe in, then you need to know what the Bible says, both in context and in detail. If you aren't sure or can't really be bothered, then just google things like, "What does 'God made man in His own image' mean?" and read a few 'conclusion' paragraphs from the resulting hits to get an idea. I mean, it's a bit much to ask you all to embark on a huge Bible study course, but when you are getting accused of not knowing the subject matter I feel it's time well spent, as it means you can cut through all the miscommunication and definition stuff and just start talking about something normally.

Sir Patrick Crocodile

29th September 2009, 10:42 AM

______ (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?t=2296)

davo

29th September 2009, 10:46 AM

man made god in his image more like it.

But basically what christians are stating, is that intelligence is what is the image of god, ignoring that all those aspects are also common with animals. The relevance of our FORM of intelligence is only really relevant to ourselves, which is something that is looked over by christians, that intelligence is a perspective, not a value.

TÐöer

29th September 2009, 11:06 AM

tl;dr means 'too long, didn't read' - it's basically a way to say, here is a summary. :)

Oops, thanks for the explanation.

But still it is true, there are many versions of Christianity out there, and many believe that God's image refers to the physical appearance. It was not stated otherwise in the bible afterall. Many Christians probably want it to be so, because it makes God more personal to them. So therefore we are not wrong.

It is likely that searches will not yield the physical case, since not many Christians will state the obvious to their believe. Unless they want to reveal something outside of the natural interpretation. Naturally they have no qualms with God being both physical and spiritual in likeliness therefore no arguments.

Next post, will post some stuff I found.

Wow... This is OOT: I dug up on my search

http://www.northbrookbc.org/sermons/080120am.html

The man who murders an illegal immigrant should receive the same penalty as a man who assassinates the president who should receive the same penalty as a doctor who burns a baby alive by injecting it with saline--his blood should be shed--because each victim was equally in the image of God.
Barbaric and crazy.

TÐöer

29th September 2009, 11:19 AM

Here are some Christians who seem to think as such.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090729081231AAWfQ01

When the scriptures say that God made man in his own image, depending on a persons beliefs, it can mean that our physical form is like unto Him, but I think that it means that we like God can tell the difference between good and evil and have the ability to choose between the two...

This guy agrees that it could represent physical form.

Man is made in Gods image only in terms of form...like a mould or a shape... 2 hands, 2 legs, 2 ears, 2 eyes, a nose, etc... but not the same in QUALITY.... Think of little toys in a store created to look like humans, they are not constructed with the same material as you, no bone, flesh, etc but they have the same image as you. They will never be you.

Most theologians believe this to be a physical comparison.

This Christian believes most Christians think it too.

It means there is more to a man than those things. man is both physical and spiritual..

Ok, but of course, the actual meaning of made in his 'Image' is left completely for the believer to interpret. How do we know, that the belief that image being the spiritual form, was not actually a response, to the flaws of that theory which people have pointed out?

two dogs

29th September 2009, 11:22 AM

...
If you aren't sure or can't really be bothered, then just google things like, "What does 'God made man in His own image' mean?" and read a few 'conclusion' paragraphs from the resulting hits to get an idea. I mean, it's a bit much to ask you all to embark on a huge Bible study course, but when you are getting accused of not knowing the subject matter I feel it's time well spent, as it means you can cut through all the miscommunication and definition stuff and just start talking about something normally.
You seem to be saying that "image" doesn't include physical attributes? Why then does this definition (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6754&t=KJV) (from a source you've been keen to use in to past to back up your interpretation of the bible) of the Hebrew word for image have no such connotation?

Digitalos

29th September 2009, 12:14 PM

Digitalos

29th September 2009, 12:19 PM

You seem to be saying that "image" doesn't include physical attributes? Why then does this definition (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6754&t=KJV) (from a source you've been keen to use in to past to back up your interpretation of the bible) of the Hebrew word for image have no such connotation?
Well considering God is not a physical being, how can it? Remember that both male and female are made in God's image - so it cannot be physical for this reason too.

"Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ."
His image is talking about - I believe anyhow - our attributes in respects to being created after God. No other created thing shares these attributes, only man and angels do.

If you have a read of this book (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0151003408/savedbygracemini/&creative=373489&camp=211189) you will see it talk very specifically about the complete and total uniqueness of the human organism on Earth. Nothing else is close.

davo

29th September 2009, 12:56 PM

Again, this is not correct. Why do you persist on stating things you know nothing about? :/

Well you point to google, I did a search on 'man is the image of god' and first link it is explained. I quote :

The main impact of the image is that God endues man with some of his divine attributes, thereby separating and making him different from the beasts. What are these special Godlike qualities which man is permitted to share? I shall mention six: language, creativity, love, holiness, immortality and freedom. You will probably be able to add to this list. All can be summed up by saying that man, like God, has an intelligence, a mind.

So to claim I am incorrect and stating things I know nothing about is to judge me incorrectly and to be wrong, in fact, what you are doing, is claiming these other christians are incorrect.

Obviously this god is very clear in his message :rolleyes:

Digitalos

29th September 2009, 01:22 PM

So to claim I am incorrect and stating things I know nothing about is to judge me incorrectly and to be wrong
What you said earlier was, "is that intelligence is what is the image of god" which is not right, it's a lot more than just that as your very own link shows. :O You can't sum up love as being a factor of intelligence. The link has some truths, but I feel it is not Biblically accurate, as it seems to group them all together.

davo

29th September 2009, 01:28 PM

What you said earlier was, "is that intelligence is what is the image of god" which is not right, it's a lot more than just that as your very own link shows. :O You can't sum up love as being a factor of intelligence. The link has some truths, but I feel it is not Biblically accurate, as it seems to group them all together.

Well they think it's biblically accurate. Who is right?

Digitalos

29th September 2009, 01:31 PM

Well it doesn't take a mensa graduate to see that love, holiness, freedom and immortality are not qualities of intelligence...

So, you wanna stick to that definition?

two dogs

29th September 2009, 01:34 PM

Well considering God is not a physical being, how can it? Remember that both male and female are made in God's image - so it cannot be physical for this reason too.
...

Why then is the word image used, if it doesn't make any sense? Why wasn't a word or words that mean non-physical attributes used?

Why did god make his book so difficult to understand that it requires an Idiot's Guide or Missing Manual in order to make sense of it?

davo

29th September 2009, 01:41 PM

Well it doesn't take a mensa graduate to see that love, holiness, freedom and immortality are not qualities of intelligence...

So, you wanna stick to that definition?

Not sure what your saying, as we obviously have different concepts of intelligence most probably.

If you look at any book on evolution, you will see all things are related at a very deep and clear level. To state that one thing is 'better' than another is incorrect, as in the link you provided to the amazon book, everything is unique, but also everything is very similar in a huge amount of respects. Unique would mean not having any similarity with anything, therefore humans are not unique. Not in the purest sense. To say otherwise, you would have to logically state anything at all dissimilar, is unique.

There is also the problem that christianity cannot agree on their scripture, yet claim it the infallible word of god.

If anything, he failed in that regard eh? :)

With christianity not being able agree on it's own concepts, it's very hard to lend credence to it, or any particular view that is put forward that is obviously in dispute in your faith.

Digitalos

29th September 2009, 01:42 PM

Why then is the word image used, if it doesn't make any sense? Why wasn't a word or words that mean non-physical attributes used?

Why did god make his book so difficult to understand that it requires an Idiot's Guide or Missing Manual in order to make sense of it?
You can speculate all day long about things which weren't done and why weren't the done - but you only have what has been done, to deal with.

You would find things a lot easier, if you actually read and studied the Bible. What you are saying is the equivalent of, "Why is science so hard to understand?" when you've invested not a single iota of effort into actually understanding things. *shrugs*

Digitalos

29th September 2009, 01:43 PM

Not sure what your saying, as we obviously have different concepts of intelligence most probably.

If you look at any book on evolution, you will see all things are related at a very deep and clear level. To state that one thing is 'better' than another is incorrect, as in the link you provided to the amazon book, everything is unique, but also everything is very similar in a huge amount of respects. Unique would mean not having any similarity with anything, therefore humans are not unique. Not in the purest sense. To say otherwise, you would have to logically state anything at all dissimilar, is unique.

There is also the problem that christianity cannot agree on their scripture, yet claim it the infallible word of god.

If anything, he failed in that regard eh? :)

With christianity not being able agree on it's own concepts, it's very hard to lend credence to it, or any particular view that is put forward, that is obviously in dispute in your faith.
You like to jump around a lot, I'm not interested in domino'ing from one subject to another without any clear resolution on the last.

Your link has grouped intelligence together with immortality, freedom, love and some others.

No definition I can find of intelligence does the same thing - do you believe that your link is correct in this regard?

davo

29th September 2009, 02:19 PM

You like to jump around a lot, I'm not interested in domino'ing from one subject to another without any clear resolution on the last.

when I get a chance on the board, so be it. Your all over the top posts when I click new posts, I read it, and have to respond. So really, your jumping around a bit more than me considering you were in all these posts before I was :)

Your link has grouped intelligence together with immortality, freedom, love and some others.

No definition I can find of intelligence does the same thing - do you believe that your link is correct in this regard?

You stated search google, gave the phrase. I did so, found the first link, and pasted what a major christian site says.

You can dispute it, I certainly do, I have no problem with that. I also pointed out that christians cannot agree on these fundamental points, which makes it really hard to discuss.

Could you explain then, since these other christians are wrong about the bible, what is the correct interpretation?

TÐöer

29th September 2009, 02:21 PM

Hey, intelligence, spirit, what the heck, we all know what they are trying to say. and these attributes, that Christians are refering to, animals have them too. That's what Davo was trying to say.

Digitalos

29th September 2009, 02:28 PM

when I get a chance on the board, so be it. Your all over the top posts when I click new posts, I read it, and have to respond. So really, your jumping around a bit more than me considering you were in all these posts before I was :)
Yes but I stay on the subject within a post. You are leaping about from subject to subject within a post, not post to post.

You stated search google, gave the phrase. I did so, found the first link, and pasted what a major christian site says.
I also said to click on a few links - not just one. Having one source is almost as bad as having no sources.

You can dispute it, I certainly do, I have no problem with that. I also pointed out that christians cannot agree on these fundamental points, which makes it really hard to discuss.
Actually most theologians and Christians who are similarly academic, can agree. There are very few differences and these are differences on things which are not core to the central message of Christianity.

Could you explain then, since these other christians are wrong about the bible, what is the correct interpretation?
It's not so much that they are wrong, it's more that for the specifics that we are talking about, their definition is not enough. If you were talking amicably with friends, the chances are you would just accept the meaning, you don't need it to be semantically correct. When debating you do, thus your sources need to be of a higher standard and more accurate. If you had taken my entire advice, and Googled a few links, you would have gotten a better picture.

Digitalos

29th September 2009, 02:31 PM

Hey, intelligence, spirit, what the heck, we all know what they are trying to say. and these attributes, that Christians are refering to, animals have them too. That's what Davo was trying to say.
No they don't that's what that entire book I linked is about. It's about the unique being/life form that is a human. Look, I can't keep posting stuff and having you guys ignore it - it takes a lot of time. From now on, I'm only replying to those posts where someone brings up a valid point or something.

TÐöer

29th September 2009, 03:16 PM

I'm sorry, not all of us have access to this book, especially me.

But I understand what you are saying; That man is unique, therefore this uniqueness, must be attributes of God.

So are dogs, cats and monkeys they are all unique in their own way.

Here's what we are saying: Sure, be it love, or intelligence, or whatever attributes that you have not clearly defined, All creatures have it. It's only the degree and complexity which is different.

Have you seen a cattle cry, when a member of their herd was hit by a car? Have you seen an Orang Utan, using human devices? Even today scientist are trying to unlock language of marine mamals.

We do not have a monopoly over these attributes.

Digitalos

29th September 2009, 03:50 PM

I'm sorry, not all of us have access to this book, especially me.
I actually don't have a copy either, but I've seen an e-book of it.

But I understand what you are saying; That man is unique, therefore this uniqueness, must be attributes of God.
Well, it doesn't directly follow unless it has context - in this case the Bible is specifically talking about these attributes and it is explained in the passages after it talks about making man in His image. So here, we now have context. We have a claim, we know the claim to be true and we have a reason as to why - God created us in His image.

So are dogs, cats and monkeys they are all unique in their own way.
Yes they are unique but on different levels. Within animal groups they all share very common unifying attributes. One example, is that even though we have tried - which sounds rather horrible - we have been totally unable to condition an animal to be angry upon seeing one animal steal food from another. They lack any sort of moral judgement. This is just one example, but we are unique in much more specific ways than a cat is unique from a bird, for example.

Here's what we are saying: Sure, be it love, or intelligence, or whatever attributes that you have not clearly defined, All creatures have it. It's only the degree and complexity which is different.
What I am saying, is that they do not have it. Some things are common, others are not just different, or more simple - they are absent. The book and in fact some others that deal with psychology explain it better than I really.

Have you seen a cattle cry, when a member of their herd was hit by a car?
No and I've never heard of this, do you have a link?

Have you seen an Orang Utan, using human devices?
Yes, but again, the ability to use tools is not something that was listed as part of being made in God's image.

Even today scientist are trying to unlock language of marine mamals.
Once again, language was not something listed as being made in God's image.

We do not have a monopoly over these attributes.
Correct, but then those aren't really the main differing ones. ;)

TÐöer

29th September 2009, 04:14 PM

I actually don't have a copy either, but I've seen an e-book of it.

Ah, it would be great if anybody who comes across a link would post it. :)

Yes they are unique but on different levels. Within animal groups they all share very common unifying attributes. One example, is that even though we have tried - which sounds rather horrible - we have been totally unable to condition an animal to be angry upon seeing one animal steal food from another. They lack any sort of moral judgement. This is just one example, but we are unique in much more specific ways than a cat is unique from a bird, for example.

I see.

What I am saying, is that they do not have it. Some things are common, others are not just different, or more simple - they are absent.

Makes sense, though not directly proving that God did it, it is a point to ponder. I will see if I can find any examples from memory.

No and I've never heard of this, do you have a link?

My mom saw this on her way to work. When a car crashed into a cow, the rest of the herd gathered around it, impervious to on coming traffic, with tears in their eyes.

I myself, have seen a chicken wisen up, after seeing his friend getting slaughtered, he broke off from his bonds, and hid quietly where no one could find him. I mean seriously, usually if you harass chickens, they'd make a huge commotion or find the stupidest place to hide. This one used guile to elude the butcher.

I once reared a pair of tortoise. When one of them became ill, the other kept making strange gestures, by facing it and trying to stretch his front paws to touch it.

It's pretty interesting really. Forget that God created animals to be our servants, and observe them. They really do show human characteristics.

Correct, but then those aren't really the main differing ones. ;)

Pardon my ignorance, can you tell me what they are?

Atrax Robustus

29th September 2009, 05:27 PM

Oh! Hi Pete!

Welcome back!

We are to know of his existence ultimately through revelation. God has revealed aspects of himself to us . . . <snip>

Before you storm on . . .

Care to try a response to my previous post?

How does your wife KNOW that you love her?
Please provide me with one outstanding example of art.
Please provide me with one example of a poem which is a work of genius.
How do YOU KNOW whether a particular act is right or wrong?

Oh . . . and a couple of the WHY? questions will give me something to ponder as well. <snip>

I STILL look forward to your response! :)

two dogs

30th September 2009, 03:57 AM

Well considering God is not a physical being, ...

Why would a non-physical being state that he has physical attributes, viz?And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen (Exodus 33:23 KJV).

SinisterDexter

30th September 2009, 08:54 AM

You can speculate all day long about things which weren't done and why weren't the done - but you only have what has been done, to deal with.

You would find things a lot easier, if you actually read and studied the Bible. What you are saying is the equivalent of, "Why is science so hard to understand?" when you've invested not a single iota of effort into actually understanding things. *shrugs*

And you would find things easier if you weren't such an insufferably arrogant prat.

Many of us have studied the Bible, although independently of the courses offered by Christians whose specific interpretation of the contexts of different parts both differ internally and are mentally gymnastic in the first place considering what is written.

You continue to dodge the main question, which is why do we need some form of study or some interpolator to understand the Bible when it is supposed to be the "perfect" word of god?

No definition of the word "perfect" I can find means internally inconsistent, incorrect when set against what we know about the world from objective testing or open to interpretation.

SinisterDexter

30th September 2009, 09:01 AM

Well, it doesn't directly follow unless it has context - in this case the Bible is specifically talking about these attributes and it is explained in the passages after it talks about making man in His image. So here, we now have context. We have a claim, we know the claim to be true and we have a reason as to why - God created us in His image.

How do we know this claim to be true?

Yes they are unique but on different levels. Within animal groups they all share very common unifying attributes. One example, is that even though we have tried - which sounds rather horrible - we have been totally unable to condition an animal to be angry upon seeing one animal steal food from another. They lack any sort of moral judgement. This is just one example, but we are unique in much more specific ways than a cat is unique from a bird, for example.

This is simply untrue. The basis of many of our own moral systems can be seen in animals and in many cases explained through genetics.

Further, we are also the same as a bird, cat or plant in very fundamental ways. I'll make my recommendation to you - read Dawkins' The Greatest Show on Earth. It will explain this to you in great detail.

What I am saying, is that they do not have it. Some things are common, others are not just different, or more simple - they are absent. The book and in fact some others that deal with psychology explain it better than I really.

Really? How many books have you read on animal psychology. Care to quote some?[/quote]

davo

30th September 2009, 09:58 AM

Actually most theologians and Christians who are similarly academic, can agree. There are very few differences and these are differences on things which are not core to the central message of Christianity.

What's the central message of christianity? To be saved?

This has to be one of the most contentious points, how are we saved. Catholics, the largest denomination, says we are saved through baptism for example.

Anyway, continue on, just pointing out that these things which you say are so clear, are by far clear at all, and are contentious points within the christian realm. It's odd that christians deny it is so much!

two dogs

30th September 2009, 10:32 AM

Well considering God is not a physical being, how can it? Remember that both male and female are made in God's image - so it cannot be physical for this reason too.
...

It can be, given my interpretation of that verse, that god is a hermaphrodite.

Sir Patrick Crocodile

30th September 2009, 10:34 AM

Why would a non-physical being state that he has physical attributes, viz?And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen (Exodus 33:23 KJV).
You can't see his face. You can't see his hand. You can see his "back parts" which I guess is his bum. That's one hell of a God you got there...

two dogs

30th September 2009, 10:44 AM

You can't see his face. You can't see his hand. You can see his "back parts" which I guess is his bum. That's one hell of a God you got there...
That gave me a mental picture of god as a disembodied arsehole. :D It seems appropriate. ;)

davo

30th September 2009, 11:26 PM

Well considering God is not a physical being, how can it?

How can you claim to know attributes of something that exists outside of all that is?

Can you backup this with any logic or evidence? Your basically stating the attributes of god. is this a postulation, or is their logic or evidence that leads you to the conclusion?

I'm just getting sick of what looks like a reeeeeaaaalllyy sloooooooow cosmological argument spread out amongst heaps of threads. When are you gonna catch up with all the other apologetics and avoid the wordplay and get to the nitty gritty?

sigh

atheist_angel

1st October 2009, 05:44 AM

So God moons people!

Actually (and I'm not giving the reference away here) a total of 74 Old testament people see old Joe Hoover and don't die. It's in the big book of tales.That reminds me...G-d walked through the Garden of Eden with Adam and Eve, who didn't know they were naked.

Does that mean G-d was also naked? :eek:

Sir Patrick Crocodile

1st October 2009, 07:20 AM

Of course he was naked. He had nothing on. That's why we don't see him. He had no body to go with him.

Digitalos

1st October 2009, 09:20 AM

How can you claim to know attributes of something that exists outside of all that is?
Er... because they are written in the Bible. How can anyone claim to know God's character if they do not reference that which details it?

Can you backup this with any logic or evidence? Your basically stating the attributes of god. is this a postulation, or is their logic or evidence that leads you to the conclusion?
I can show you where they are detailed in the Bible if you wish?

I'm just getting sick of what looks like a reeeeeaaaalllyy sloooooooow cosmological argument spread out amongst heaps of threads. When are you gonna catch up with all the other apologetics and avoid the wordplay and get to the nitty gritty?

sigh
You don't have to reply, I'm not forcing you to. I'm only responding to what you and others say, so if you wish my opinion on something, you have only to make a statement about it. You seem to think I need/want to put forward a rigorous detailed argument for God - I don't know why you think that, but I feel your bias is showing in how you treat those with differing beliefs.

SinisterDexter

1st October 2009, 09:35 PM

I'm sure this prick has me on ignore.

Sir Patrick Crocodile

1st October 2009, 09:37 PM

Anybody dare me to go to a theist forum and post some rational arguments to see how long I survive without being banned for "trolling" yet?

Digitalos

1st October 2009, 09:39 PM

I'm sure this prick has me on ignore.
I do not, but I will say the same to you as I did to CosmicTeapot - you will respond politely if you wish me to reply to you, else silence and your fellow atheists will be your only answer.

Cosmic Teapot

1st October 2009, 09:47 PM

Er... because they are written in the Bible. How can anyone claim to know God's character if they do not reference that which details it?

5wV_REEdvxo

Atrax Robustus

1st October 2009, 09:48 PM

I'm sure this prick has me on ignore.

No surprises there SD . . . Pete and Digitalos will typically avoid anybody that challenges their premise using observations from reality.

Digitalos

1st October 2009, 10:34 PM

5wV_REEdvxo
Can you summarise the 10 minute video? My time is precious and I feel you have some issue with discovering the nature and attributes of God by referencing the Bible?

atheist_angel

2nd October 2009, 06:23 AM

Anybody dare me to go to a theist forum and post some rational arguments to see how long I survive without being banned for "trolling" yet?When you get there, send us a postcard.

We would love to see their reactions to reason.

Don't forget to bring back pictures of all the miracles.

Be sure to find out exactly how often the devil has brought evil upon their house...on average.

davo

2nd October 2009, 08:26 AM

Er... because they are written in the Bible. How can anyone claim to know God's character if they do not reference that which details it?

This is flawed thinking, you are claiming you know something, as someone else claims they know something, about something, that you can't even provide any logic for your belief of its divinity. It's classicly circular.

I can show you where they are detailed in the Bible if you wish?

This is circular reasoning, you just point to your bible as evidence, and it is not.

Please provide a logical explanation or reasoning for the existence of god that allows you to say this book is divinely inspired. Otherwise you are just reading from Alice in Wonderland and telling me this is proof of a talking caterpillar, and wondering why I personally think your just full of it.

Yes I am frustrated with you, this is why. I do not see why we are dealing with this, and pandering to your rhetoric with no structure underneath it. In fact, there's nothing. You won't answer these questions at all, just point to the book you say this 'thing' inspired as proof that it exists, which it's not!

You can't even show us that a god could possibly exist, let alone stand there claiming it inspired a book.

You don't have to reply, I'm not forcing you to. I'm only responding to what you and others say, so if you wish my opinion on something, you have only to make a statement about it. You seem to think I need/want to put forward a rigorous detailed argument for God - I don't know why you think that, but I feel your bias is showing in how you treat those with differing beliefs.

Coz this is just crap, you avoid any logic, total lack of it, and just point at your bible as evidence, your just proselytizing on the board.

You jump around and around small little statements over concepts of what belief is, but when confronted with the fact you have no logic at all to your argument of a supreme being able to exist, to give this book you say is divinely inspired any credence whatsoever, you just avoid it.

How can you say something is divinely inspired, without a logical reason to say that the 'divine being', god, even exists?

Basically your arguments and discussions are a waste of time if you cannot, it's just you trolling the board with empty rhetoric.

Sir Patrick Crocodile

2nd October 2009, 08:27 AM

Can you summarise the 10 minute video? My time is precious and I feel you have some issue with discovering the nature and attributes of God by referencing the Bible?And yet you spend several minutes a day praying to some invisible sky daddy and spend several hours of the weekend at church...

Unsacred Cow

2nd October 2009, 08:32 AM

Can you summarise the 10 minute video? My time is precious and I feel you have some issue with discovering the nature and attributes of God by referencing the Bible?

Yet you seem to have no qualms about wasting weeks of our time with your 220+ posts of text writhing. Picking and choosing what you respond to....responses people have taken their precious time to compose.

It seems you have succeeded in showing once again that narcissism seems to be a requirement of belief in a xtian god. Get this - it's not all about you Didgy!

Sir Patrick Crocodile

2nd October 2009, 08:36 AM

I have no problems discovering the nature and attributes of God by referencing the Bible yet - and that is why I do not believe in him...

two dogs

2nd October 2009, 08:49 AM

...
I feel you have some issue with discovering the nature and attributes of God by referencing the Bible?

Referencing the bible reveals that god has attributes such as jealousy, unforgiveness, vindictiveness, misogyny, and homophobia, is a racist, condones infanticide genocide and filicide, and is a sadomasochistic, capricious and malevolent megalomaniac.

davo

2nd October 2009, 08:55 AM

All glory to god the hypnotoad

8AOfbnGkuGc

Cosmic Teapot

2nd October 2009, 09:22 AM

Can you summarise the 10 minute video?
No need as we both know you watched it. You're too egotistical not to have. This feeble "dismissal" of my response is a result of your inability to find fault in the logic presented as it completely destroyed your argument about how you know the attributes of god.
My time is precious and I feel you have some issue with discovering the nature and attributes of God by referencing the Bible?
Really? How long have you spent composing your posts in the debate thread?
When you log on, how much time do you spend reading through the threads, looking for responses to your inanity, hoping someone noticed you?
The only thing you have that is precious to you is your over-inflated ego and you would happily sacrifice every minute of every day to feed it.
Once again you show yourself to be all sizzle and no sausage. For all your egotistical posturing, you're an insubstansial piece of fluff that blows away with the slightest puff of logic.

wearestardust

2nd October 2009, 10:26 AM

I'm sure this prick has me on ignore.

He's responding to you as part of his responses to all of us. Like how he responded to my PM's through his mere presence on the board.

Digitalos

2nd October 2009, 05:53 PM

And yet you spend several minutes a day praying to some invisible sky daddy and spend several hours of the weekend at church...May I ask how you know this? In fact, if you have been paying attention you would know what you've said wrong here.

Digitalos

2nd October 2009, 05:58 PM

This is flawed thinking, you are claiming you know something, as someone else claims they know something, about something, that you can't even provide any logic for your belief of its divinity. It's classicly circular.
That's odd, it worked out for Richard Dawkins in the God Delusion - I wonder why I can't use the same approach, or in fact more to the point, I wonder why he thought it was logically sound to use this approach in the first place?

Something is amiss here, and my money is on your bias.

As to the rest of or your feet-stamping I'm quite happy for you to open a thread and address me with specific questions, but I'm trying to avoid what could potentially end up as very long and involved powder-keg arguments in myriads of threads.

Digitalos

2nd October 2009, 05:59 PM

Yet you seem to have no qualms about wasting weeks of our time with your 220+ posts of text writhing. Picking and choosing what you respond to....responses people have taken their precious time to compose.

It seems you have succeeded in showing once again that narcissism seems to be a requirement of belief in a xtian god. Get this - it's not all about you Didgy!
I think you should put your attitude where your mouth is, how about going to a theist forum and then seeing how easily you keep track of 100s of posts directed to you in multiple threads.

Digitalos

2nd October 2009, 06:00 PM

Really? How long have you spent composing your posts in the debate thread?
When you log on, how much time do you spend reading through the threads

I spend a lot of time doing those things, this does not mean that my time is not precious to me.

Digitalos

2nd October 2009, 06:02 PM

He's responding to you as part of his responses to all of us. Like how he responded to my PM's through his mere presence on the board.
Actually no (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showpost.php?p=32655&postcount=107).

Digitalos

2nd October 2009, 06:07 PM

No need as we both know you watched it. You're too egotistical not to have. This feeble "dismissal" of my response is a result of your inability to find fault in the logic presented as it completely destroyed your argument about how you know the attributes of god.
I'm sorry but if you can't be bothered to take the time to make your own points, please don't expect me to take the time to someone else's and then treat them like yours. It's very simple.

You need to give me a good reason to choose your post to reply to, over the other 50 odd that are directed at me, and when they take the time to actually post something specific, I am more obliged to take the time to address them.

You get out, what you put in.

Sir Patrick Crocodile

2nd October 2009, 07:25 PM

May I ask how you know this? In fact, if you have been paying attention you would know what you've said wrong here.Do you not pray to God or go to Church at this stage? Surely being a Christian you would at least have to pray to God right?

davo

2nd October 2009, 09:17 PM

That's odd, it worked out for Richard Dawkins in the God Delusion - I wonder why I can't use the same approach, or in fact more to the point, I wonder why he thought it was logically sound to use this approach in the first place?

Something is amiss here, and my money is on your bias.

What? Your just trolling and failing. This is ridiculous, there is an immense amount of data, of evidence for evolution, and NOTHING for a god. I repeat you are claiming you know the mind of a supernatural being, how the hell does this equate with Dawkins?

You are fullfilling exactly what I am saying, your just a troll. This is GARBAGE.

You heard me, your full of shit. Bring on some evidence of GTFO.

Seriously, you have not brought anything to the debate, your concept of understanding the mind of a god has NOTHING to do with the evidence for evolution that Dawkins has written about, you have nothing, zilch.

Where in the God Delusion does Dawkins state that he understands the mind of a supernatural being? You liar.

Lying for your jesus, plain and simple. wtf are you still here?

As to the rest of or your feet-stamping I'm quite happy for you to open a thread and address me with specific questions, but I'm trying to avoid what could potentially end up as very long and involved powder-keg arguments in myriads of threads.Your just a troll. How's that. Calling you on it, due to the lack of anything realistic. Stamping my feet? That's what you are after, that's what you judge me as for calling your bluff.

Your lying for your jesus, well done digitalos.

Sir Patrick Crocodile

2nd October 2009, 09:22 PM

Bring on some evidence of GTFO.Does that stand for God's Taxi For Ostriches now?

atheist_angel

2nd October 2009, 10:47 PM

Does that stand for God's Taxi For Ostriches now?HaHa, metaphorically, yesss! :cool:

SinisterDexter

3rd October 2009, 09:04 AM

I do not, but I will say the same to you as I did to CosmicTeapot - you will respond politely if you wish me to reply to you, else silence and your fellow atheists will be your only answer.

Dry your eyes princess. This is the first of my posts to you that has been "impolite" and it was deliberately so to elicit a response.

Unsacred Cow

3rd October 2009, 09:34 AM

I think you should put your attitude where your mouth is, how about going to a theist forum and then seeing how easily you keep track of 100s of posts directed to you in multiple threads.

Why would I want to do that Didgy? What makes you think I'd want to make contact with more of your kind. The unintelligent posts you've brought here are enough of a frustration without exposing myself to more of the same.

You seem to (conveniently) forget that nobody invited you to come Didgy, you are here of your own accord (that's free will in god speak).

Again, if you can't stand the heat, stop standing in the burning bush. Nobody's forcing you to stay either....there's no binding contract.

Digitalos

3rd October 2009, 12:01 PM

Do you not pray to God or go to Church at this stage? Surely being a Christian you would at least have to pray to God right?
I do not attend church. I do pray.

Digitalos

3rd October 2009, 12:03 PM

What? Your just trolling and failing. This is ridiculous, there is an immense amount of data, of evidence for evolution, and NOTHING for a god. I repeat you are claiming you know the mind of a supernatural being, how the hell does this equate with Dawkins?
You asked how I know the nature/attributes of God.

I said I've read about them in His account to mankind.

You said
This is flawed thinking, you are claiming you know something, as someone else claims they know something, about something, that you can't even provide any logic for your belief of its divinity. It's classicly circular.

I equated this to Richard Dawkins' book the God Delusion where he draws from what is written in the Bible about God, and then talks about God's attributes.

Where is the problem?

Digitalos

3rd October 2009, 12:04 PM

Dry your eyes princess. This is the first of my posts to you that has been "impolite" and it was deliberately so to elicit a response.
Strange how you feel required to do that rather than just ask me directly.

I'll add you to the list of people I won't be replying to, since the content of your posts is negligible, I will respond to the those take the time and effort as do I. :)

Fearless

3rd October 2009, 12:48 PM

There's a list? I should have been put on it long ago but even today you responded to me. Or am I just easier to manipulate than others who are more educated than myself on matters godlike.

Please add me to the list though. Cheers!

Digitalos

3rd October 2009, 01:07 PM

Sir Patrick Crocodile

3rd October 2009, 01:23 PM

You may be wrong, Crocky. Really Tough Types pray straight to Chuck Norris and cut out the bullshit.That is because the lord prays to Chuck Norris internally...

SinisterDexter

3rd October 2009, 05:24 PM

Strange how you feel required to do that rather than just ask me directly.

I'll add you to the list of people I won't be replying to, since the content of your posts is negligible, I will respond to the those take the time and effort as do I. :)

Oh, what a pity I don't have to sift through your half-lies, logical fallacies and semantics. Poor poor me.

Mister Pervert

3rd October 2009, 05:36 PM

That is because the lord prays to Chuck Norris internally...

And, like Chuck, Jesus can slam a revolving door too!

davo

4th October 2009, 11:09 AM

I equated this to Richard Dawkins' book the God Delusion where he draws from what is written in the Bible about God, and then talks about God's attributes.

Where is the problem?

umm you believe it and claim it true and divine, dawkins is talking about what you believe. derrr

Digitalos

4th October 2009, 12:55 PM

umm you believe it and claim it true and divine, dawkins is talking about what you believe. derrr
No. If you can't follow your own logic then I can't discuss this with you.

It's very simple, you asked how I know God's attributes and I told you my source, the very same source that Dawkins used in his book.

You then showed your presupposed bias because in my case, it's circular, but in his it's ok.

"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."
Bertrand Russell

Worldslaziestbusker

4th October 2009, 06:57 PM

"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."
Bertrand Russell[/quote]

Digitalos
Apply Russell's thinking to your own faith, which you have already admitted is free of supporting credible evidence. Can you spot a parallel between the man Russell describes and yourself. I can.

You discuss Dawkin's "The God Delusion." Have you read it? I ask specifically because you are a tricksy hobbitses that might have been told about it or read a review of it without actually reading the source material. To begin discussing it only to have you laugh at my assumption that you'd read it because you'd mentioned it would be frustrating.

Please answer my question about divine orders in my thread specifically dedicated to asking you direct questions.
WLB

NakedApe

4th October 2009, 07:37 PM

I'll add you to the list of people I won't be replying to...

Your list must be getting pretty long by now, since anyone who confronts you with an argument you are unable to refute is immediately added to it.

Sir Patrick Crocodile

4th October 2009, 11:17 PM

Your list must be getting pretty long by now, since anyone who confronts you with an argument you are unable to refute is immediately added to it.Should have a whitelist option. It will be easier for some people to add contacts to it. It will save them making a long blacklist...

atheist_angel

5th October 2009, 02:15 AM

Should have a whitelist option. It will be easier for some people to add contacts to it. It will save them making a long blacklist...Absolutely! ...because we all know that religious people are 'entitled' to special privileges. And we would not want to 'offend' them by saying that "they are no better than anyone else", when they so obviously 'believe' that they are.

Seamus

5th October 2009, 07:28 AM

I'm sure this prick has me on ignore.

Ignore him back.:D

I was beginning to agree with Mr Black about the guy having a few brain cells, but then it said:

Er... because they are written in the Bible.

This was an allegedly serious answer to a question from an atheist. As a result I'm forced to disagree with Mr Black,one of our saner members; the twerp isn't simply a troll,it's a rather stupid troll.

davo

5th October 2009, 08:19 AM

No. If you can't follow your own logic then I can't discuss this with you.

It's very simple, you asked how I know God's attributes and I told you my source, the very same source that Dawkins used in his book.

You then showed your presupposed bias because in my case, it's circular, but in his it's ok.

You refer to your bible as the source of proof that your bible is true, circular reasoning.

Dawkins points out that the bible is your source (as it is), and references it in discussions ie: states it's your source, and says it's ridiculous etc etc.

You equate these both as circular reasoning! Yet all Dawkins is doing is referring to your source, AND that it's circular reasoning. Just as I am doing now.

So excuse me if I think it's a joke when you say it's the same thing.

You don't want to discuss with me, as you are not using logic, and know it, you refuse to approach the questions I have asked over and over, and you cherry pick, and doing a bad job at it even then.

"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."
Bertrand Russell

We must be reading this differently as I agree with Bertrand, it's a generalisation, but the above is why folk like yourself just accept religion without really ANY evidence. sad but true. Ironic really you are using his quote ..

Except in the case of evolution, where there can be overwhelming evidence, and STILL creationists refuse to believe it, as it goes against their bible. :rolleyes:

Pete Crowther

8th October 2009, 10:04 AM

I can consider the Existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster to be very logical. In fact there is more "evidence" of its existence compared to that of God's existence.What do gardens and designs have to do with this? We haven't seen any gardens or designs to prove the existence of a deity.

The Bible argues that you and I are part of the garden, in fact so is all of creation. The evidence for nature being designed is astounding. I choose to logically trust in that evidence being correct. You choose to reject it. Both yours and my opinions are faith assumptions based on evidence, nothing more. There is the potential that I'm being too generous with you though, because I am assuming you have reviewed some evidence rather than simply demonstrating 'blind faith', which Christians and Atheists alike are opposed to.

Pete Crowther

8th October 2009, 10:12 AM

Therefore your God is metascientific. If God cannot be tested by science how are we to know his existence? What makes you think that the scripture is the truth? To me it seems like an obvious work of fiction gone wrong since there are many contradictions and errors in logic present. And I don't want people wasting my time with people who like to recite John 3:16 multiple times per post when it doesn't mean shit.

And why don't you believe in unicorns? They are beyond the material world. Why not the Flying Spaghetti Monster since it is also beyond the material world?

Additionally, one way you are to examine God's existence is in the same way you would assess any truth claim that is unscientific in nature. For example, it is impossible for me to scientifically and empirically test the love my wife claims to have for me. However, this does not mean there are no means by which I can have confidence this is true. You need to break free from the idea that everything needs to be tested by science. Science is great. I'm a scientist myself. I love science. But it does have its limitations. It cannot ever tell me why a cake was made for example or whether the cake tastes good. It can only tell me what constituents make up the cake and explain how they interact with each other. You need to think more broadly when it comes to examining truth claims. In fact you need to ask yourself why you are even discussing this with me in the first place. If no God exists then no absolute truth exists either, so why bother trying to prove that your opinion is the truthful one instead of mine?

Sir Patrick Crocodile

8th October 2009, 10:18 AM

The Bible argues that you and I are part of the garden, in fact so is all of creation. The evidence for nature being designed is astounding. I choose to logically trust in that evidence being correct. You choose to reject it. Both yours and my opinions are faith assumptions based on evidence, nothing more. There is the potential that I'm being too generous with you though, because I am assuming you have reviewed some evidence rather than simply demonstrating 'blind faith', which Christians and Atheists alike are opposed to.Actually my "opinion" is not faith based. Your opinion is. I have reviewed a lot of "evidence" which wasn't really evidence. And I still don't have evidence for the existence of God or gods.

Additionally, one way you are to examine God's existence is in the same way you would assess any truth claim that is unscientific in nature. For example, it is impossible for me to scientifically and empirically test the love my wife claims to have for me. However, this does not mean there are no means by which I can have confidence this is true. You need to break free from the idea that everything needs to be tested by science. Science is great. I'm a scientist myself. I love science. But it does have its limitations. It cannot ever tell me why a cake was made for example or whether the cake tastes good. It can only tell me what constituents make up the cake and explain how they interact with each other. You need to think more broadly when it comes to examining truth claims. In fact you need to ask yourself why you are even discussing this with me in the first place. If no God exists then no absolute truth exists either, so why bother trying to prove that your opinion is the truthful one instead of mine?True science has limitations but this is due to the fact that our technology at present would be unable to view unknowns. But science is not afraid to mention that it is unknown and this doesn't automatically mean Goddidit as many theists say.

Sir Patrick Crocodile

8th October 2009, 10:19 AM

Additionally, one way you are to examine God's existence is in the same way you would assess any truth claim that is unscientific in nature. For example, it is impossible for me to scientifically and empirically test the love my wife claims to have for me. However, this does not mean there are no means by which I can have confidence this is true. You need to break free from the idea that everything needs to be tested by science. Science is great. I'm a scientist myself. I love science. But it does have its limitations. It cannot ever tell me why a cake was made for example or whether the cake tastes good. It can only tell me what constituents make up the cake and explain how they interact with each other. You need to think more broadly when it comes to examining truth claims. In fact you need to ask yourself why you are even discussing this with me in the first place. If no God exists then no absolute truth exists either, so why bother trying to prove that your opinion is the truthful one instead of mine?But there are chemical reactions involved in love. Not everything has to be tested by science because many things are already tested and proven by science. What sort of scientist are you by the way? As in what is your field?

Sir Patrick Crocodile

8th October 2009, 10:23 AM

@Black: Have you not forgot about the fact that these people are trying to save our souls from eternal damnation? We should be thankful. ;)

Pete Crowther

8th October 2009, 10:24 AM

Oh snap! Nice one Pete. Blind faith = other religions. All other religions have it wrong, Christians have it right! We can all now rest easy, thankyou Pete. You clearly have evidence, and no other religion can claim they do. Nor should they, because your argument is so overwhelmingly strong.

All of the religions have this 'evidence'. Yours is no different. You've dismissed evidence from every other religion, yet accept Christianity's.

Faith is based on non-evidenced beliefs. That's what faith is Pete. So it would increase my credibility to accept all faith as 'seeing the truth?' I'd have a lot of religions to believe wouldn't I? Or do you mean I should realise Christians see the truth, but the rest are blind. It would be nice if you made these distinctions.

I did not say blind faith equals other religions. Many other religions also have evidence for their beliefs. The issue then becomes not a question of blind faith vs evidence based faith, but rather which evidences are true and which are false. I'm arguing that many world views are evidence based, and therefore we need to examine the evidence in full in order to come up with a robust, well thought out opinion as to what is true and what isn't.

On an aside note, some world views are also blind. My point is that both types of faith exist in society. Christianity falls into the category of an evidence based faith.

Secondly, yes it goes without saying that if Christianity is true then all other world views / religions are incorrect. You seem to be rattled by this? But this is exactly what you are claiming for atheism. That being, that atheism is correct and by default all other religions / world views are wrong. What seems to be the problem here? That is exactly what happens when we start talking about truth. Truth claims are always exclusive in nature.

Sir Patrick Crocodile

8th October 2009, 10:27 AM

OK What about the possibility of Islam being true? For all you know Allah may be the one god and if you don't believe in him you may have to face the wrath of the almighty Allah instead. :p

Pete Crowther

8th October 2009, 10:31 AM

I have been wanting to link this since I made it :p

Burden of Proof
_Q1E4NvDkEY

You are incorrect that the burden of proof lies on Christians alone. Let it be said that the burden of proof lies on anyone who makes a truth claim. Yes, I agree that the burden of proof lies on Christians, however don't think you are exempt from needing to prove the value of your opinion simply because you 'claim to not believe in anything'. When I say 'Jesus Christ is God' I need to provide evidence for this. However, when you say 'there is no God', you also need to be able to provide evidence for the fact that you are all knowing and that with this complete knowledge you have come to understand that God doesn't exist. However, you are not all knowing and therefore it is impossible for you to ever claim that God doesn't exist. To make such a bold, proud claim is to arrogantly say that you know everything, which you don't. You don't even know half of everything. Have you ever considered that maybe God is to be found in the 50% of information you are currently ignorant to?

Sir Patrick Crocodile

8th October 2009, 10:32 AM

When did we say that we know everything? Theists like yourself are the ones making this claim.

Pete Crowther

8th October 2009, 10:38 AM

Sir Patrick Crocodile

8th October 2009, 10:40 AM

Your pride as a Christian is obviously still there though Pete and this is a big stumbling block I agree. I think you'll need a hell of a lot of work on that one. :D

Pete Crowther

8th October 2009, 10:58 AM

Peter Crowther,

Your avoidance and attempts continually to try and associate lack of belief as a belief, is one of the reasons I am atheist.

It's exactly your avoidance, people exactly like yourself, that is the reason I have no faith, from investigating what you avoid, and seeing exactly why you avoid it. Your faith is a shallow emptiness of avoidance nothing more.

You are shallow in your avoidance, full of nothing but hot air and excuses as they give you comfort, you avoid all the hard questions, instead you pick and choose your answers based on their ease, exactly the way you interpret your holy book. The only person you are fooling is yourself.

Where is this evidence you have made claims of existing? Or are you lying for your 'jesus'?

Show us the evidence you claim is truth and exists.
Show us the evidence for a young earth, and the 'fact' of creation.
Explain why we have mountains of evidence that contradicts these claims, across most all of the different scientific fields.

Otherwise your wordplay is just what it shows itself to be, empty, hollow, shallow, stupid, faith.

This is why I describe people such as yourself that sprout this mindwash emptyness at children as child abusers.

Hi Davo,

Thanks for the wrap. It's ironical that you don't apply the same standard to your own beliefs as to what you demand of mine. And don't come back with an 'I don't believe in anything' kind of statement. It's ludicrous. The mere fact that you think Christianity is a lie means you believe it to be wrong. What is your evidence for such a rejection? In fact what is your evidence for such a belief? In order to be able to hold you atheist position you need to be able to adequately argue against and indeed flaw that of the theistic position and more specifically Christianity. Nothing that ever come of your mouth on this forum has ever come close to putting any weight on your side of the fence.

As for Christianity, one of my evidences for the risen Christ is John 20:19-31. Prove to me why this is not a valid historical source that can be used as evidence for Jesus Christ existing and rising from the dead. See below.

19 On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being locked where the disciples were for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, "Peace be with you." 20 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. 21 Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you." 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld."
24 Now Thomas, one of the Twelve, called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord." But he said to them, "Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe."
26 Eight days later, his disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you." 27 Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe." 28 Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!" 29 Jesus said to him, "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

Pete Crowther

8th October 2009, 11:04 AM

I'm a little disappointed Pete, I went through and did all the research on that for you a while ago, and made a whole thread about it in Fantasy Island. If you want to read it, it's still there:

http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?t=942

At least show the decency to read what others post when they are compensating for your laziness and doing the research for you.

Yeah I know you did. And the research was poor. You have mistaken love to be a set of emotions dictated by chemical reactions. This is not the Christian view of love. We are called to love our enemies. How is that one can love someone they have no positive feelings toward whatsoever? How is that love can be sacrificial when by your explanation it is simply a by product of chemicals and emotions? Your response was not well thought out and failed to discuss the Bible's definition of love.

Mister Pervert

8th October 2009, 11:07 AM

How is that love can be sacrificial when by your explanation it is simply a by product of chemicals and emotions?

They're the same chemicals and emotions that drive me to eat pizza. Your point, Pete?

Pete Crowther

8th October 2009, 11:26 AM

Actually my "opinion" is not faith based. Your opinion is. I have reviewed a lot of "evidence" which wasn't really evidence. And I still don't have evidence for the existence of God or gods.

True science has limitations but this is due to the fact that our technology at present would be unable to view unknowns. But science is not afraid to mention that it is unknown and this doesn't automatically mean Goddidit as many theists say.

Yes, your opinion is faith based. If you don't KNOW the truth with absolute certainty (which you don't), then you are TRUSTING in evidence or lack of evidence, in which case you are demonstrating FAITH.

Your statement about science having limitations simply because of not having advanced enough technology is a metascientific statement (beyond science). If you want to argue in this realm you either need to acknowledge that science isn't the be all and end all, or you need to acknowledge that your statement means nothing given the fact that it is not scientific, but rather an opinion about science. It is because of this I'm just going to ignore what you have said because your behaviour contradicts your world view.

Sir Patrick Crocodile

8th October 2009, 11:28 AM

Did I by any chance mention that the Peeweee 50 is the world's biggest most powerful motorcycle ever? It is so big that not even an army of 10000000 ants can lift it up. You have to believe me because I say so and I am the God of Things and Stuff so I know for sure.

Pete Crowther

8th October 2009, 11:28 AM

But there are chemical reactions involved in love. Not everything has to be tested by science because many things are already tested and proven by science. What sort of scientist are you by the way? As in what is your field?

I'm not saying chemical reactions aren't involved in love. However they are a byproduct of it, not the cause.

I'm a physiologist and physiotherapist.

Mister Pervert

8th October 2009, 11:30 AM

I'm a physiologist and physiotherapist.

I'm a cesarian.

Pete Crowther

8th October 2009, 11:30 AM

OK What about the possibility of Islam being true? For all you know Allah may be the one god and if you don't believe in him you may have to face the wrath of the almighty Allah instead. :p
We can talk about Allah later. For the moment we are talking about Jesus Christ. Deal with him first.

Sir Patrick Crocodile

8th October 2009, 11:31 AM

So why are physiologists and physiotherapists needed then? I mean God can take care of a hell of a lot of things and heal people right? Funny I think there are many people in Africa for example that need a healing now...

Sir Patrick Crocodile

8th October 2009, 11:32 AM

We can talk about Allah later. For the moment we are talking about Jesus Christ. Deal with him first.Thanks for missing the point. The point of that post I mentioned was because you are assuming that the Christian god is the one true god where it may be Allah or some other god. What makes you think Christianity is true over other religions?

Mister Pervert

8th October 2009, 11:32 AM

We can talk about Allah later. For the moment we are talking about Jesus Christ. Deal with him first.

(Cop voice): Jesus, get off the cross and step away from the hammer...

Pete Crowther

8th October 2009, 11:33 AM

When did we say that we know everything? Theists like yourself are the ones making this claim.

Not at all. If I were to know everything I wouldn't need faith. I would not need to trust in anything because I would just know. In fact I would be God himself. These are not my claims.

You however, are pushing yourself into such a realm when you claim that God does not exist, for one can only make such a claim if they know everything.

Mister Pervert

8th October 2009, 11:35 AM

Not at all. If I were to know everything I wouldn't need faith.

That's very slippery of you, Pete - in a Soren Kierkegaard kind of way.

Sir Patrick Crocodile

8th October 2009, 11:36 AM

Not at all. If I were to know everything I wouldn't need faith. I would not need to trust in anything because I would just know. In fact I would be God himself. These are not my claims.

You however, are pushing yourself into such a realm when you claim that God does not exist, for one can only make such a claim if they know everything.Actually you are not admitting that there are things you don't know. Atheists (including me) generally admit that not everything is known. Many atheists (including me) keep their minds open to the possibility that there may be a god and are willing to accept it provided credible evidence has been placed forward. So far I have not seen any credible evidence for the existence of a god or gods. You assume that inexplicable phenomenon = goddidit which is often not the case and is definitely not what science is about.

Jaar-Gilon

8th October 2009, 11:37 AM

As for Christianity, one of my evidences for the risen Christ is John 20:19-31. Prove to me why this is not a valid historical source that can be used as evidence for Jesus Christ existing and rising from the dead. See below.

It is not a very valid source Peter because it is not substantiated anywhere else whatsoever, as none of the stories of so called Yeshua are.

Also never ever in the known history of humakind has any one (or animal for that matter) died then come back to life, short of immediate resuscitation which is not what you are claiming, mainly because that is not the way the universe works, once you are a corpse you are for ever more a corpse!

You religious people are crazy!! Can you even hear what you are saying??

Pete Crowther

8th October 2009, 11:39 AM

Thanks for missing the point. The point of that post I mentioned was because you are assuming that the Christian god is the one true god where it may be Allah or some other god. What makes you think Christianity is true over other religions?

No I understood your point. My point is that you quite conveniently overlooked the evidence I provided for Jesus Christ's resurrection in one of my previous posts. If you want to know why I believe Jesus Christ to be the true and living God then you're going to need to read his revelation to us with an open mind before you consider rejecting him. I believe Jesus is God because of what is written in the Bible. I recommend reading it and starting with the Gospel of Luke or John.

Sir Patrick Crocodile

8th October 2009, 11:40 AM

Have you read the Quran yet? I'm sure you'll find lots of "evidence" for the Prophet Muhammad and Allah and what not. My point is that even Muslims can easily make the same claims you do for Muhammad and Allah so why should the Christian god be right and everyone else be wrong?

I must say that Hindu gods seem a little more credible though. At least you can see them as statues. :D

Sir Patrick Crocodile

8th October 2009, 11:43 AM

No I understood your point. My point is that you quite conveniently overlooked the evidence I provided for Jesus Christ's resurrection in one of my previous posts. If you want to know why I believe Jesus Christ to be the true and living God then you're going to need to read his revelation to us with an open mind before you consider rejecting him. I believe Jesus is God because of what is written in the Bible. I recommend reading it and starting with the Gospel of Luke or John.I have read the Bible and that is why I am not a Christian. It is disgusting. Start with Deutoronomy or Exodus or some other Gospel and you'll see it yourself.

Pete Crowther

8th October 2009, 11:43 AM

It is not a very valid source Peter because it is not substantiated anywhere else whatsoever, as none of the stories of so called Yeshua are.

Also never ever in the known history of humakind has any one (or animal for that matter) died then come back to life, short of immediate resuscitation which is not what you are claiming, mainly because that is not the way the universe works, once you are a corpse you are for ever more a corpse!

You religious people are crazy!! Can you even hear what you are saying??

Actually it is substantiated in the rest of the historical books in scripture. Additionally, there were non-Christian writers like Josephus who wrote about Christ.

About the resurrection, of course it's absurd. That's the point. If it is true then it has to be supernatural. If it is true then Jesus is the one he said he is. It's a miracle dude. That's my point. The entire Christian faith hangs on the resurrection.

Mister Pervert

8th October 2009, 11:45 AM

Also never ever in the known history of humakind has any one (or animal for that matter) died then come back to life, short of immediate resuscitation which is not what you are claiming, mainly because that is not the way the universe works, once you are a corpse you are for ever more a corpse!

You religious people are crazy!! Can you even hear what you are saying??

From what I know (very little), the history scholars who dig around in Biblical stuff only have the heresay of WOMEN about the so-called resurrection. These same scholars (rightly) question these stories because, it's a well documented fact, that the testimony of women in these times simply was never considered credible. They will go on to say it's "interesting" the Christian Church would base its entire faith on the testament of women (not to mention women were subsequently turfed out of the deal).

Pete Crowther

8th October 2009, 11:45 AM

I have read the Bible and that is why I am not a Christian. It is disgusting. Start with Deutoronomy or Exodus or some other Gospel and you'll see it yourself.

By what standard do you judge it as disgusting? Just because it is disgusting doesn't mean it isn't true. You are being subjective.

Sir Patrick Crocodile

8th October 2009, 11:45 AM

It may be substantiated in the rest of the "historical books" in the scripture but the point is that it is not anywhere else. No history books outside the scripture.

Jaar-Gilon

8th October 2009, 11:46 AM

Don't listen to him Croc! Manwë Sulimo is the true son of the one god Eru Illúvitar. I have the evidence, it is told in the Ainulindalë, the first book in the holy book The Silmarillion.

wearestardust

8th October 2009, 11:48 AM

...However, when you say 'there is no God', you also need to be able to provide evidence ...

No. Absence of evidence for something is sufficient proof that it doesn't exist, for practical purposes purposes. I suggest you wiki "russell's teapot".

for the fact that you are all knowing and that with this complete knowledge you have come to understand that God doesn't exist. However, you are not all knowing and therefore it is impossible for you to ever claim that God doesn't exist. To make such a bold, proud claim is to arrogantly say that you know everything, which you don't. You don't even know half of everything. Have you ever considered that maybe God is to be found in the 50% of information you are currently ignorant to?

ooh, careful there, Peter, your posts are mostly relevatively polite, but that's Digitalos-worthy. If you insist on the logic behind that statement, by the way - that any claim to knowledge must be based on being 'all knowing', you are hoisting yourself on your own petard. Unless you are all knowing. Or unless it is a standard that you require of others but not yourself.

Pete Crowther

8th October 2009, 11:49 AM

From what I know (very little), the history scholars who dig around in Biblical stuff only have the heresay of WOMEN about the so-called resurrection. These same scholars (rightly) question these stories because, it's a well documented fact, that the testimony of women in these times simply was never considered credible. They will go on to say it's "interesting" the Christian Church would base its entire faith on the testament of women (not to mention women were subsequently turfed out of the deal).

If Christians we're wanting to make up a respectable faith, they would never have chosen women to be the first witnesses to the empty tomb, given that they had no credibility in court in society at the time. The fact that women are recorded as being the first witnesses is evidence for the fact that Christians were not making it up. It quite simply was the way it happened and Christians reported the truth for what it was. You have more reason to be skeptical if it were men who were the first witnesses.

wearestardust

8th October 2009, 11:50 AM

By what standard do you judge it as disgusting? Just because it is disgusting doesn't mean it isn't true. You are being subjective.

Rape, incest, genocide. For starters. Most Christian apologists work very hard these days to explain these things away. But you don't have a problem with them?

Sir Patrick Crocodile

8th October 2009, 11:50 AM

Actually I think Digitalos is a hell of a lot smarter than this guy...

Mister Pervert

8th October 2009, 11:53 AM

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_lm2JI7sGwYI/SeK8wYWUINI/AAAAAAAAFAs/8ziBEciX3cA/s400/circular%2Breasoning.jpg

MODERATOR NOTICE: Please refrain from circular argument. It can be a reason for suspension or banning.

Would somebody please quote this to Crowther, as he may have this user ID on ignore.

I M DA GOD OF QUOTING N M NOT MOCKED!

Pete Crowther

8th October 2009, 11:54 AM

No. Absence of evidence for something is sufficient proof that it doesn't exist, for practical purposes purposes. I suggest you wiki "russell's teapot".

ooh, careful there, Peter, your posts are mostly relevatively polite, but that's Digitalos-worthy. If you insist on the logic behind that statement, by the way - that any claim to knowledge must be based on being 'all knowing', you are hoisting yourself on your own petard. Unless you are all knowing. Or unless it is a standard that you require of others but not yourself.

Incorrect. In order for me to say something exists I only need to know that one thing. In order to say it doesn't exist you need to know everything. I'm not claiming I'm all knowing. I am claiming I know God. That is all I need to know in order to know he exists.

In order to know my Dad exists all I need to know is him. For you to say he doesn't exist requires you to know everyone. Your response was illogical.

Sir Patrick Crocodile

8th October 2009, 11:54 AM

Jaar-Gilon

8th October 2009, 11:54 AM

Actually it is substantiated in the rest of the historical books in scripture. Additionally, there were non-Christian writers like Josephus who wrote about Christ.

About the resurrection, of course it's absurd. That's the point. If it is true then it has to be supernatural. If it is true then Jesus is the one he said he is. It's a miracle dude. That's my point. The entire Christian faith hangs on the resurrection.
Pfft substansiated in the same book :rolleyes:. The Josephus canard heh, wow what intricate detail there is about Jesus by Josephus........NOT and written contemporarily too.......NOT!
There are no miracles.....dude:rolleyes: there can be nothing "super"natural dude.

The entire Christian faith hangs on the resurrection. Well duh that's what makes you so stupid, for believing something so clearly false.

Sir Patrick Crocodile

8th October 2009, 11:55 AM

I forgot to mention the Peewee 50 is a superbike that is so heavy and ultra powerful. Since I say it and since there is lots of evidence because I say it that means I am right and everyone else including Yamaha is wrong.

Jaar-Gilon

8th October 2009, 11:56 AM

Actually I think Digitalos is a hell of a lot smarter than this guy...
Yep, just look at the title to the thread and you get an inkling on the intelligence level!!

davo

8th October 2009, 11:56 AM

Actually it is substantiated in the rest of the historical books in scripture. Additionally, there were non-Christian writers like Josephus who wrote about Christ.

you mention Josephus .. have you read his work?

Here is the evidence you are talking about, the only mention of jesus from Josephus :
http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/josephus/ant20.html#EndNote_ANT_20.23a
Usually christians such as yourself leave out the bit about how he was the son of Damneus, and brother to James, and that he was made high priest.

Doesn’t quite sound like the jesus you claim, considering it such a common name.

No historian takes that passage for any evidence, yet christians continually drop Josephus, because they do not read it themselves, and only hear it from others stating the same thing .. and you wonder why we question this falsity you put forward?

Your lying for your jesus Peter!

Modern Christian scholars generally concede that the Josphus passage is a forgery. Dr. Lardner, one of the ablest defenders of Christianity, adduces the following arguments against its genuineness:

“I do not perceive that we at all want the suspected testimony to Jesus, which was never quoted by any of our Christian ancestors before Eusebius.

“Nor do I recollect that Josephus has anywhere mentioned the name or word Christ, in any of his works; except the testimony above mentioned, and the passage concerning James, the Lord’s brother.

“It interrupts the narrative.

“The language is quite Christian.

“It is not quoted by Chrysostom, though he often refers to Josephus, and could not have omitted quoting it had it been then in the text.

“It is not quoted by Photius, though he has three articles concerning Josephus.

“Under the article Justus of Tiberias, this author (Photius) especially states that the historian [Josephus], being a Jew, has not taken the least notice of Christ.

“Neither Justin in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew, nor Clemens Alexandrinus, who made so many extracts from ancient authors, nor Origen against Celsus, has ever mentioned this testimony.

“But, on the contrary, in chapter xxxv of the first book of that work, Origen openly affirms that Josephus, who had mentioned John the Baptist, did not acknowledge Christ” (Answer to Dr. Chandler).

Again Dr. Lardner says: “This passage is not quoted nor referred to by any Christian writer before Eusebius, who flourished at the beginning of the fourth century. If it had been originally in the works of Josephus it would have been highly proper to produce it in their disputes with Jews and Gentiles. But it is never quoted by Justin Martyr, or Clement of Alexandria, nor by Tertullian or Origen, men of great learning, and well acquainted with the works of Josephus. It was certainly very proper to urge it against the Jews. It might also have been fitly urged against the Gentiles. A testimony so favorable to Jesus in the works of Josephus, who lived so soon after our Savior, who was so well acquainted with the transactions of his own country, who had received so many favors from Vespasian and Titus, would not be overlooked or neglected by any Christian apologist” (Lardner’s Works, vol. I, chap. iv).Nod to Gee Suss at Jesus All About Lies (http://jesusallaboutlife.com) for the above information.

wearestardust

8th October 2009, 11:57 AM

About the resurrection, of course it's absurd. That's the point. If it is true then it has to be supernatural. If it is true then Jesus is the one he said he is. It's a miracle dude. That's my point. The entire Christian faith hangs on the resurrection.

Um. You started with "if it's written down it must be true". That is, in essence, your claim about the evidentiary value of the bible. Now we have "and if it is absurd, that lends more weight".

Gosh.

Well, I think Crocodile has pithily pointed out the problem with the first part. If being written down settled the matter, and that's that, then why choose the bible over the quran? You've actually cut yourself off, by your own argument that simply being written down settles the issue from any argument as to why to pick one over the other.

As for absurdity lending weight to an assertion being true. um, er, I'm actually having difficulty writing down an argument that does beyond "WTF? Seriously? Dude! Dude? Seriously? WTF!"

Mister Pervert

8th October 2009, 11:57 AM

Yep, just look at the title to the thread and you get an inkling on the intelligence level!!

Digi-wotzhisname is a bot. Fairly clever one, I admit. Some kind of prototype for Stephen Wolfram and co.

Sir Patrick Crocodile

8th October 2009, 11:58 AM

I M DA GOD OF QUOTING N M NOT MOCKED!http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_lm2JI7sGwYI/SeK8wYWUINI/AAAAAAAAFAs/8ziBEciX3cA/s400/circular%2Breasoning.jpg

MODERATOR NOTICE: Please refrain from circular argument. It can be a reason for suspension or banning.

Would somebody please quote this to Crowther, as he may have this user ID on ignore.Who's the god of quoting now bitch? :cool:

wearestardust

8th October 2009, 11:59 AM

Actually I think Digitalos is a hell of a lot smarter than this guy...

I was referring to style rather than content.

In any case having to use a lot of my mental space to reorganise my knowledge systems to accommodate the new facts about the pee wee 50.

Mister Pervert

8th October 2009, 12:00 PM

Who's the god of quoting now bitch? :cool:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

YOU RULZ D00D!!!!!

PUNK MY ASS!!!!

Mister Pervert

8th October 2009, 12:00 PM

Sorry - face cramps from laughing so much here :-)

wearestardust

8th October 2009, 12:02 PM

Incorrect. In order for me to say something exists I only need to know that one thing. In order to say it doesn't exist you need to know everything. I'm not claiming I'm all knowing. I am claiming I know God. That is all I need to know in order to know he exists.

In order to know my Dad exists all I need to know is him. For you to say he doesn't exist requires you to know everyone. Your response was illogical.

FFS. Do you really think this? If so, in coming here you've prepared yourself for a chess game by practicing at tiddlywinks.

wearestardust

8th October 2009, 12:03 PM

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

YOU RULZ D00D!!!!!

PUNK MY ASS!!!!

You forgot "pwned". Not enough pwnage around here.

Sir Patrick Crocodile

8th October 2009, 12:06 PM

You forgot "pwned". Not enough pwnage around here.OmG! plaYing 1337 solitaire.
l0l btw cn 1 plz b3 4dm1n 0mfgr0fl0l i'm 2 1337 2 b3 4 n0rm4l m3mb0rz!!!!!!!11111111111111ELEVENTEEN 1 h4v3 1337 3xp3r13nc3 @ 4dm1n1ng 1337 c4lcul4t0rz!!!!111111111111ELEVENTEEN

Mister Pervert

8th October 2009, 12:08 PM

You forgot "pwned". Not enough pwnage around here.

heh heh heh!

davo

8th October 2009, 12:09 PM

If Christians we're wanting to make up a respectable faith, they would never have chosen women to be the first witnesses to the empty tomb, given that they had no credibility in court in society at the time. The fact that women are recorded as being the first witnesses is evidence for the fact that Christians were not making it up. It quite simply was the way it happened and Christians reported the truth for what it was. You have more reason to be skeptical if it were men who were the first witnesses.

oh yea, right, evidence :rolleyes:

It's been mentioned that this is circular reasoning, but beside that, let's look at your book shall we?

Mark 16:1 - Three women visit Jesus’ tomb: Mary Magdalene, a second Mary, and Salome
Matthew 28:1 - Two women visit Jesus’ tomb: Mary Magdalene and another Mary
Luke 24:10 - At least five women visit Jesus’ tomb: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Joanna, and “other women.”
John 20:1 - One woman visits Jesus’ tomb: Mary Magdalene. She later fetches Peter and another disciple

oh and :

Mark 16:2 - They arrive after sunrise
Matthew 28:1 - They arrive at about dawn
Luke 24:1 - It is early dawn when they arrive
John 20:1 - It is dark when they arrive

and then :

Mark 16:4, Luke 24:2, John 20:1 - The stone in front of Jesus’ tomb had been rolled away
Matthew 28:1-2 - The stone in front of Jesus’ tomb was still in place and would be rolled away later

uh huh .. :

Mark 16:5 - The women enter the tomb and meet one young man in there
Matthew 28:2 - An angel arrives during an earthquake, rolls away the stone, and sits on it outside. Pilate’s guards are also there
Luke 24:2-4 - The women enter the tomb and two men suddenly appear — it’s not clear if they are inside or outside
John 20:12 - The women do not enter the tomb, but there are two angels sitting inside

and then :

Mark 16:8 - The women keep quiet, despite being told to spread the word
Matthew 28:8 - The women go tell the disciples
Luke 24:9 - The women tell “the eleven and to all the rest.”
John 20:10-11 - Mary stays to cry while the two disciples just go home

yep sounds like a really solid account of this 'resurrection' :rolleyes::rolleyes:

wearestardust

8th October 2009, 12:12 PM

OmG! plaYing 1337 solitaire.
l0l btw cn 1 plz b3 4dm1n 0mfgr0fl0l i'm 2 1337 2 b3 4 n0rm4l m3mb0rz!!!!!!!11111111111111ELEVENTEEN 1 h4v3 1337 3xp3r13nc3 @ 4dm1n1ng 1337 c4lcul4t0rz!!!!111111111111ELEVENTEEN

totally ghey

Edit: posted before noticing the hidden text. I'm pwned.

Sir Patrick Crocodile

8th October 2009, 12:13 PM

KDLoHAXEqC4&color1=0x000000&color2=0x000000

Sir Patrick Crocodile

8th October 2009, 01:13 PM

Funny these "holy names" happen to end in "us" as in "us politicians who want total control over you zombies and your sexy women" now. Names such as Jesus and Josephus and Gluteus Maximus etceterus.

Sir Patrick Crocodile

8th October 2009, 01:22 PM

Greek names frequently ended (and still do) in "-os" or "-ous", and Roman names (and many masculine nouns) ended in "-us".

In transliteration/translation, the endings are frequently rendered as "-us".I think this Jesous was very mischievous and dubious.

Pete Crowther

8th October 2009, 02:10 PM

Rape, incest, genocide. For starters. Most Christian apologists work very hard these days to explain these things away. But you don't have a problem with them?

Of course I have a problem with such behaviours. However, the Bible is not an advocate of such behaviours. These examples appearing in Scripture are historical accounts of human sin, which God disapproves of. God doesn't approve of everything that happens in Scripture. The whole book is about God pursuing his people, in mercy, despite their unworthiness and sinfulness. It is important you understand the context of the books in Scripture. Some writings are advice based. Others are simple historical texts of what happened. These writings are the ones in which you will find many things that God doesn't approve of, but they are recorded because they happened. In fact, the Prophets continually speak on behalf of God to the people demanding that they repent. Continued disobedience and sin is the reason for judgments by God recorded in the Scriptures. They are a reminder to us that there is a judge who will judge sin and rebellion. There is no account in the Bible of God ever judging someone unjustly.

My question to you is. If there is no God and therefore no ultimate truth or standard of morality, then why do you say rape etc. is wrong? By what standard are you making such a claim? Who determines right and wrong if God doesn't exist? You?

two dogs

8th October 2009, 02:22 PM

...
There is no account in the Bible of God ever judging someone unjustly.
...

Bullshit! WTF did Job do to deserve the treatment meted out to him by your "loving" God?

Bruce Long

8th October 2009, 02:55 PM

Bullshit! WTF did Job do to deserve the treatment meted out to him by your "loving" God?

Two dogs, we have to remember that the theist will debate from their own worldview. Pete's definition of what is just is whatever the god character from the bible narrative (which character Pete either thinks is real, and/or wants others to think is real) and his supporters/worshippers say is just because of what the god character is said to be in the narrative/story: perfect, all powerful, and perfectly just. It's classic circular thinking, and designed - like most of the pscyholinguistic 'code' that doctrine spinners and religious meme-pushers produce and proliferate - to foreclose on argument, or rather to help the believer comfortably ignore rational argument. The reason Pete says that the god character never commits any injustices in the bible narrative is not because he has read the bible narrative (if he has read it - if he is a practising evangelical he probably has) and said to himself "eauch - that's just an awful, disgusting repulsive thing for the god character to do, what a monster he is" etc., but because anytime in the bible narrative the god character does something like say - murder all the firstborn infants, or murder everyone by drowning, or murder everyone in a town by fire from the sky, or get the Jews led by Moses to murder everyone in a given tribe except the young women they can have sex with, or curse a little gentile girl as a dog in a racist slur, or whatever - then for Pete it can't be murder or unjust or vicious or just plain old fashioned nasty because the bible itself tells him that whatever the god character does MUST be right and just. Why - because the god character - so it says in the narrative - is the genus of everything good and wonderful, and the very definition of justness/justice. Pete believes this unquestioningly, and it is pointless to try and convince him otherwise.

davo

8th October 2009, 02:56 PM

Of course I have a problem with such behaviours. However, the Bible is not an advocate of such behaviours. These examples appearing in Scripture are historical accounts of human sin, which God disapproves of.

Thus saith the LORD of hosts ... go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

1 Samuel 15:2-3

They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.

Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.

Numbers 31:7-18

God doesn't approve of everything that happens in Scripture. The whole book is about God pursuing his people, in mercy, despite their unworthiness and sinfulness.

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.

Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.

Exodus 21:20-21

on and on and on .....

My question to you is. If there is no God and therefore no ultimate truth or standard of morality, then why do you say rape etc. is wrong? By what standard are you making such a claim? Who determines right and wrong if God doesn't exist? You?

How arrogant a position, have you heard of empathy? We have morals through being a social, evolutionary animal.

Are you saying that without your god you would rape pillage and murder?

Can you point out something good a christian does that an atheist couldn't?

BTW you always pick and choose your discussions don't you? :P

Sir Patrick Crocodile

8th October 2009, 02:57 PM

God gave me autism. I'd rather have cancer than autism. In fact why did he even make cancer? He's a powerful loving God isn't he? And no I don't need to have my "faith" tested thank you. I have no faith in him to test. So why does he make bad things happen Pete if he is so loving? Why does he? Eh?

Sir Patrick Crocodile

8th October 2009, 03:01 PM

f4aHRnrqhPY&color1=0x000000&color2=0x000000

wearestardust

8th October 2009, 03:08 PM

Of course I have a problem with such behaviours. However, the Bible is not an advocate of such behaviours. These examples appearing in Scripture are historical accounts of human sin, which God disapproves of....

Have you ever actually read the bible?

I have to admit I don't carry my bibles with me any more but about 12 seconds on google found me this:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/imm_bibl3.htm#geno

My question to you is. If there is no God and therefore no ultimate truth or standard of morality, then why do you say rape etc. is wrong? By what standard are you making such a claim? Who determines right and wrong if God doesn't exist? You?

Oh FFS squared.

Can I say to you, Peter, that you are ignorant bordering on intellectual dishonesty. I and many others on this site have a good understanding of faith positions. Some of us go through the dread task of informing ourselves of the theist arguments against atheism. I certainly do; you will recall I even read the Flew book that you recommended. You, however, just keep trotting out the same tired arguments that have been trotted out for years, without any clue that there are hundreds, probably thousands, of pages of argument against these. I note you've managed to slop out the argument about teh onus of proof, and the arguments from authority, incredulity, and now the weakest of them, the argument from morals.

You don't have to agree with the atheist positions, but you should acquaint yourself with them so you're not here playing with the senior forms with your kindergarten knowledge.

This is at best discourteous and and worst dishonest. If this were my forum I would say GTFO and apply the banhammer until you could come back and explain to us why our views are wrong, not just keep bringing up the same old crap as if it were new and challenging.

Sir Patrick Crocodile

8th October 2009, 03:10 PM

And if this was my forum I would redirect him to a random porn site everytime he attempts to log in. :D

Bruce Long

8th October 2009, 03:17 PM

...These examples appearing in Scripture are historical accounts of human sin, which God disapproves of. God doesn't approve of everything that happens in Scripture. The whole book is about God pursuing his people, in mercy, despite their unworthiness and sinfulness....

Here is another classic. The sin construct. That bizarre piece of metaphysical invention conjured up by some cranky monk/priest or early theologian to give everyone, including decent people, a reason to need - guess what - the god character's help. It's not difficult anymore to understand why Pete speaks like this when you are able to see what something like the clumsy, metaphysically inelegant idea of sin is really for. It is hard to get the peasant to see the point of redemption when the guy knows he hasn't done anything seriously foul or even questionable to anyone. It's ironic that the really decent people - or people who are being really decent - are the primary thorn in the side of doctrine spinners. Everyone has the potential for good and bad in them, but - you have to give the doctrine spinners credit - you really have to work hard intellectually to come up with a valid reason to make someone think they are somehow mostly bad without your religious 'solution.' The sin fiction/construct is the chosen device (ironically - it's a thorn in one's flesh.)

My question to you is. If there is no God and therefore no ultimate truth or standard of morality, then why do you say rape etc. is wrong? By what standard are you making such a claim? Who determines right and wrong if God doesn't exist? You?

I'd have to say Pete has a point here. In philosophy we call it the objective moral realism stance. It is the position that says that there MUST be some kind of objective basis for our morals, and that morals must be real things, or else *induced irrational panic* everyone will behave really badly all the time like - err - like the god character in the old testament narrative. It is, I think, a mistake for atheists to embrace moral realism, and especially objective moral realism. Some atheists have attempted to provide a naturalistic basis for moral realism, but I doubt it works too well. The best way to approach it is probably with some kind of quasi-pragmatic error theory (although I normally don't like Jamesian pragmatism much.) An error theory basically says there is no way of finding an objective basis for validating a certain moral realism or definition of morals, because all attempts have serious metaphysical and logical problems. The answer to the fact that morals are not real things, however, is not to invoke the agency of some fictional god like being - whose character is really vicious, violent and murderous - to provide a foundation for your morals, or for a belief in morals as real things. It does not logically follow that just because someone doesn't have Pete's belief in objective moral realism underpinned by some supernaturalist fictional character that they will be an awful, unprincipled, nasty, vicious person (like the god character of the old testament - or the genocidal Hebrew tribesmen said character was associated with.) But of course - that's why he has to throw the sin construct at you - to make you think that there is only one solution - the god construct.

See - it's easy when you understand where poor old Pete is coming from.

wearestardust

8th October 2009, 03:49 PM

See - it's easy when you understand where poor old Pete is coming from.

I think you may be reading a bit too much sophistication into Pete's position. I don't think Pete is thinking about the abstract idea of moral realism. The argument is more, people are wicked and without someone telling us what to do we'd all be murdering each other in our beds. Which has the same shoe size as the moral realism issue, but really is to moral realism as learning how to bounce a ball is to Newton's law of gravity.

I'd have to say Pete has a point here. In philosophy we call it the objective moral realism stance... etc

Been a while since I've been to philosophy school and then, at least at the institution I was at, moral realism wasn't seen as much of an issue except as one of the things you had to learn as part of the the standard canon of introduction to ethics courses. Anyway: consequentialism gets by, usually, without an objective basis and indeed in the versions I find attractive the attraction is precisely because the argument goes "if there is a moral principle that is pursuasive then it's going to be around improving peoples ".

It is, I think, a mistake for atheists to embrace moral realism, and especially objective moral realism.

I think [I]people shouldn't embrace moral realism, especially objective moral realism!;)

Some atheists have attempted to provide a naturalistic basis for moral realism, but I doubt it works to well....etc

Any accessible references to this?

..It's ironic that the really decent people - or people who are being really decent - are the primary thorn in the side of doctrine spinners. Everyone has the potential for good and bad in them, but - you have to give the doctrine spinners credit - you really have to work hard intellectually to come up with a valid reason to make someone think they are somehow mostly bad without your religious 'solution.' The sin fiction/construct is the chosen device (ironically - it's a thorn in one's flesh.)

Nice point.

By the way, Pete, did you note that? Two atheists having different opinions on something, yet our worldviews are not collapsing! Not even the slightest inclination to go and set some car bombs to kill my fellow atheist who disagrees with me on some point of detail. Well, not on my part anyway.:cool:

Bruce Long

8th October 2009, 04:15 PM

I think you may be reading a bit too much sophistication into Pete's position. I don't think Pete is thinking about the abstract idea of moral realism. The argument is more, people are wicked and without someone telling us what to do we'd all be murdering each other in our beds. Which has the same shoe size as the moral realism issue, but really is to moral realism as learning how to bounce a ball is to Newton's law of gravity.

Quite so. Sometimes it helps to give the theist an idea of the required 'depth'.

Been a while since I've been to philosophy school and then, at least at the institution I was at, moral realism wasn't seen as much of an issue except as one of the things you had to learn as part of the the standard canon of introduction to ethics courses. Anyway: consequentialism gets by, usually, without an objective basis and indeed in the versions I find attractive the attraction is precisely because the argument goes "if there is a moral principle that is pursuasive then it's going to be around improving peoples ".

Consequentialism is definitely a better approach than OMR, but I think I still prefer an error theory. The determinism/compatibalism question (regarding free will and determinism) complicates consequentialism a bit, and there is the question of who judges what is a good or bad outcome/consequence.

I think [I]people shouldn't embrace moral realism, especially objective moral realism!;)

Can but agree. We are unlikely to see it amoungst the deluded. I was one for 16-17 years, and let me tell you, indoctrinification is powerful stuff.

Any accessible references to this? [naturalistic objective moral realism]

Pay per. : http://www.springerlink.com/content/t56035r14897437m/
Restall and West's paper on moral fictionalism is very good:
http://philpapers.org/browse/moral-error-theories-and-fictionalism

I can't find any free ones. Look into JStor for naturalistic theories of objective moral realism and moral error theory. There should be something. Any good recent introductory philosophy of ethics or meta-ethics text should provide some recent material.

By the way, Pete, did you note that? Two atheists having different opinions on something, yet our worldviews are not collapsing! Not even the slightest inclination to go and set some car bombs to kill my fellow atheist who disagrees with me on some point of detail. Well, not on my part anyway.:cool:

That's what stardust thinks - after I finish picking the baby out of my teeth I am gonna get him ;) :D

Bruce Long

8th October 2009, 04:20 PM

@wearestardust
For a testimony to why scientists need analytic philosohpers:

Moral Monkeys (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article5733638.ece)

:rolleyes:

atheist_angel

8th October 2009, 05:53 PM

An ex-believer claims to know more about the Bible and the Christian faith than a believer. Unbelievable! The fact that you are not a Christian means that you indeed never were a believer in the first place. You obviously missed the point. I wish you would reconsider, but for this to happen you will need to consider that maybe you got it wrong and it needs a second look. However, this takes humility, which perhaps will be your biggest stumbling block. I can relate, pride was also my biggest stumbling block too. It still is something that I am working on and will always be. I thank God for his mercy, patience and faithfulness.So, I suggested that he may have an abnormal psychological condition and he says that I'm missing the point.

I know severely mentally-challenged people, that are not this mentally-challenged!

How in the world, can someone be so high functioning and be so lost? :confused:

Sir Patrick Crocodile

12th October 2009, 09:39 AM

It's funny that theists are often the ones responsible for starting off the longest threads in the forum. :D

Sir Patrick Crocodile

12th October 2009, 09:57 AM

Are you counting Mister-Old-Pommy-Truck (who shall not be named) as a theist?You mean Mister-Life-Starts-At-Conception-You-Bloody-Bastard who just got released from prison? Oh he's just a little confused at where life starts because in reality it started ages ago. I classify him as a "theistic atheist" at the moment...

wearestardust

12th October 2009, 10:23 AM

Following the link Buddles gave me to another link, I found this which is quite apropos the earlier discussion of the theist proposition "god is a nice guy and wouldn't hurt a fly'.

http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn11/profilesfaithjoshua.htm

the key bit is as follows:

The Gibeonites, terrified by the encroaching Israelites, concocted a deceitful plan to save their lives. Although they were really only a few miles away from the Israelites, some of their men posed as representatives of a faraway land seeking to establish a peace treaty with Israel.
"But when the inhabitants of Gibeon heard what Joshua had done to Jericho and Ai, they worked craftily, and went and pretended to be ambassadors. And they took old sacks on their donkeys, old wineskins torn and mended, old and patched sandals on their feet, and old garments on themselves; and all the bread of their provision was dry and moldy. And they went to Joshua, to the camp at Gilgal, and said to him and to the men of Israel, 'We have come from a far country; now therefore, make a covenant with us' " (Joshua 9:3-6).
After questioning these men and being convinced they had traveled from far away, Joshua agreed to spare them. However, Israel had failed to inquire of God what should be done in this case (verses 14-15). Should Joshua have consulted God on the matter? Yes, but he didn't. Nonetheless, the Gibeonites became Israel's servants, and the Bible shows they remained faithful servants of Israel for centuries.
The Gibeonites accepted the requirements imposed on them, preferring service as woodcutters and water-carriers for Israel rather than the fate that met the other inhabitants of the land.
Now, this is part of a page of a theist website, about bible characters to emulate. The Gibeonites are bad guys, because they were deceitful ... because they didn't want to be the victims of genocide. They were faithful servants ... because they didn't all want to be murdered.

Again: who are really the bad guys here?