Theist logic

Originally posted by no1marauder
So we should simply take your and your cult leaders' word that most scientists are atheistic?? Sorry, I'm not as gullible as you. 1600 members of the faculties at leading universities is a pretty good statistical sample. I realize that statistics is a science so you're opposed to it and don't think it's of any use but that's your ignorance talking yet ag ieve that everyone lives forever or that this body does. Learn how to read, dimwit.

Originally posted by no1marauder

So we should simply take your and your cult leaders' word that most scientists are atheistic??

This just proves what I’ve been saying. You know nothing about my beliefs, or what I’ve been saying. I’m not part of a cult as you want me to be, and I’m not asking people to take my word on God, or science.

This was the question that I asked.

Originally posted by The Chess Express
How do you know that only a “small minority” of scientists would argue that there is no afterlife? How do you know that the majority wouldn’t in fact argue this?

Your 1600 person surveys show nothing.

This is what I said.

It’s my belief that science will prove one day that there is an afterlife, and science and religion will converge.

Your blind stupidity has changed this all around.

1600 members of the faculties at leading universities is a pretty good statistical sample. I realize that statistics is a science so you're opposed to it and don't think it's of any use but that's your ignorance talking yet again.

It is you who reject science and statistics if you think that 1600 represents the millions of scientists world wide.

You keep trying to change the words

Correction, I keep changing them back to the way they were. You’re the one who changes them.

The study asked whether someone believed in a "personal God who is in intellectual and affective communication with humankind" not "communion" (whatever the hell that is). That is a far from universal belief. And a question asking about "personal immortality" is too vague to be useful; most people don't believe that everyone lives forever or that this body does. Learn how to read, dimwit.

Your ignorance surprises even me. Most theists believe that God is intelligent and communicates with them. The term immortality in this sense means life after death, hence an afterlife. Most people who believe in God also believe in an afterlife.

com·mun·ion [kə mynyən]
(plural com·mun·ions)
n
1. intimacy: a feeling of emotional or spiritual closeness
2. connection: an association or relationship

Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

This is what being a theist is about. Don’t talk about things that you know nothing about. It just highlights your stupidity.

Originally posted by The Chess Express
Originally posted by no1marauder

[b]So we should simply take your and your cult leaders' word that most scientists are atheistic??

This just proves what I’ve been saying. You know nothing about my beliefs, or what I’ve been saying. I’m not part of a cult as you want me to be, and I’m not asking people to take my word on God, or sci ...[text shortened]... ’t talk about things that you know nothing about. It just highlights your stupidity.[/b]

LMFAO!!!!! You're nuts. You don't know anything about statistics. You don't know anything about scientists. You don't know anything about other religions. You don't know the English language if you think "being in intellectual and affective communication" = "communion". You have proven,as you always do, that you are one of the stupidest people on this site and that's saying something.

Originally posted by no1marauder
LMFAO!!!!! You're nuts. You don't know anything about statistics. You don't know anything about scientists. You don't know anything about other religions. You don't know the English language if you think "being in intellectual and affective communication" = "communion". You have proven,as you always do, that you are one of the stupidest people on this site and that's saying something.

Somehow, I don’t think even the insanity defense would work for you…

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Thanks for your interesting post, but I believe that you are missing the point. The point I am making is why believe in god, but not the power of my right finger? You can neither prove nor disprove either. You have precisely the same amount of evidence for both assertions. The question is why believe in one, but not the other?

At first, I didn't believe in God. I was wary. I saw the hypocricy in the religion I was raised in and so didn't trust it. But which religion should I trust? And so I started an earnest search and God revealed Himself to me. Then I had first hand experience and couldn't deny the truth of it.
I learned that there's a difference between religion and God. That's why you see so many Christians harp on the Bible, because some of the "Christian" religions aren't trust worthy, but the Bible is. You see the point of a religion is to get you into a personal relationship with God. Some don't have that as their goal.
In short, I now know God (I don't "believe" in Him, I know Him personally - yes I know that statement will get me a lot of wise cracks) because I gave Him the benefit of the doubt and He showed Himself to me. And I'd be a fool to discount something I've experienced first hand.

DF

Originally posted by DragonFriend
At first, I didn't believe in God. I was wary. I saw the hypocricy in the religion I was raised in and so didn't trust it. But which religion should I trust? And so I started an earnest search and God revealed Himself to me. Then I had first hand experience and couldn't deny the truth of it.
I learned that there's a difference between religion and God ...[text shortened]... to me. And I'd be a fool to discount something I've experienced first hand.

DF

Goody for you. Next time you and him have a chat ask him if he can do anything about cancer and artificial turf.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Some would say that the bible is evidence of the existance of god. I do not. Apparently, I do get to decide what I choose to be evidence, based upon the ability to verify it or not.

Interesting basis to use, the ability to verify it or not.
Have you verified, first hand, all you accept as true?
Have you verified that the cells of your body are made up of proteins and amino acids? How about man having walked on the moon? Did you go up there and check? What about your mother loving you? How did you verify that? Because, for every action she took on your behalf, I can come up with another reason for her to do so.

We all draw lines as to how much we need to verify first hand and how much we are willing to accept based on a trusted source. Christians start by verifying the Bible. Once the research has assured us that the Bible is a reliable source, we accept all of what it says and try to understand it.

Yes, you do get to choose what you accept as evidence (there's that pesky free will again). So test the Bible stories against what archeologists have actually dug up and see if any of what they've found contradicts the stories in the Bible. This assumes you accept archeology as a trusted source. If not, research archeology and conclude for yourself if they are trustworthy or not.

It all starts somewhere for each of us. The point is, to start. Do the research. But be willing to accept what you find. That's true science.

DF

Originally posted by DragonFriend
Interesting basis to use, the ability to verify it or not.
Have you verified, first hand, all you accept as true?
Have you verified that the cells of your body are made up of proteins and amino acids? How about man having walked on the moon? Did you go up there and check? What about your mother loving you? How did you verify that? Because, for every a ...[text shortened]... to start. Do the research. But be willing to accept what you find. That's true science.

DF

Fine.

Well, here's the first one. You should be able to find it - it's on the first page of the bible. That pesky little bit about land plants being created before the sun. Oh and birds being created before land animals. Both easily scientifically refuted.

I can start refuting on page 2 now if you'd like? How many errors must the bible contain before I can start to say I don't trust it as a factual source?

Originally posted by scottishinnz

Fine.

Well, here's the first one. You should be able to find it - it's on the first page of the bible. That pesky little bit about land plants being created before the sun. Oh and birds being created before land animals. Both easily scientifically refuted.

I can start refuting on page 2 now if you'd like? How many errors must the bible contain before I can start to say I don't trust it as a factual source?

Well, here's the first one. You should be able to find it - it's on the first page of the bible. That pesky little bit about land plants being created before the sun. Oh and birds being created before land animals. Both easily scientifically refuted.

While I’m inclined to believe that there needed to be light before there were plants, I disagree with your interpretation of Genesis.

Genesis 1:3 And God said let there be light: and there was light.

Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after its kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

It appears that there was light well before there were plants according to the scripture.

I agree that Genesis 1:20-25 appears to say that fowl were made before land animals, but it also says that all life came from the ocean (after God of coarse). Science agrees with this.

There is still plenty of uncertainty as to whether birds came from reptiles or not. I don’t believe your claim that the fossil record has easily proved it one way or the other. Here are some links that tell the other side of the story.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter4.asp

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/dinobird.html

Originally posted by The Chess Express
[b]Well, here's the first one. You should be able to find it - it's on the first page of the bible. That pesky little bit about land plants being created before the sun. Oh and birds being created before land animals. Both easily scientifically refuted.

While I’m inclined to believe that there needed to be light before there were plants, ...[text shortened]... ngenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter4.asp

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/dinobird.html[/b]

Obviously you can't read. He says the Sun was created before plants, not light. You need more than just light to grow plants.

He said birds were created before land animals. Whether birds evolved from reptiles is irrelevant to that claim; there were certainly land animals long before there were birds.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Fine.

Well, here's the first one. You should be able to find it - it's on the first page of the bible. That pesky little bit about land plants being created before the sun. Oh and birds being created before land animals. Both easily scientifically refuted.

I can start refuting on page 2 now if you'd like? How many errors must the bible contain before I can start to say I don't trust it as a factual source?

There are a many things in this world which are "scientifically refutable". Naturally, to utilize such refutation as the means of discerning truth, one accepts that the method is capable of doing so. This, however, certainly holds some problems. 😉

Originally posted by Omnislash
There are a many things in this world which are "scientifically refutable". Naturally, to utilize such refutation as the means of discerning truth, one accepts that the method is capable of doing so. This, however, certainly holds some problems. 😉

Yes, the methods of science are certainly incapable of yielding any useful knowledge. Thanks for typing that bit of info onto the computer that God created for you.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Obviously you can't read. He says the Sun was created before plants, not light. You need more than just light to grow plants.

He said birds were created before land animals. Whether birds evolved from reptiles is irrelevant to that claim; there were certainly land animals long before there were birds.

Obviously you can't read. He says the Sun was created before plants, not light. You need more than just light to grow plants.

As if there was something that the sun could give plants that God’s light couldn’t…

He said birds were created before land animals. Whether birds evolved from reptiles is irrelevant to that claim; there were certainly land animals long before there were birds.

It’s obvious you know nothing about God, the scripture, or the fossil record. For your information the fossil record is believed by some to show that birds evolved from reptiles.

Where do you think birds came from, elephants?

Originally posted by The Chess Express
[b]Well, here's the first one. You should be able to find it - it's on the first page of the bible. That pesky little bit about land plants being created before the sun. Oh and birds being created before land animals. Both easily scientifically refuted.

While I’m inclined to believe that there needed to be light before there were plants, ...[text shortened]... ngenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter4.asp

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/dinobird.html[/b]

A theory of the genesis of the world should be internally consistent. To compare
Evolution with Creation is silly, because each claims that the other is wrong. The
issue is: Is Evolution internally consistent within itself? Thus far, to my knowledge,
there have been no ratified internal contradictions.

Scott looked at 'page 1,' but he didn't go far enough. In Genesis 1, we see the
following progression: light (verse 3), dome (verse 6), dry land (verse 9), vegetation
(verse 11), stars/moon/sun (verses 14, 16), birds, swiming stuff (verses 20, 21),
land animals and humankind (verses 24, 26). We know this progression because the
first chapter outlines the days rather explicitly.

Now, turn to 'page 2' and look at the progression of things in the other genesis
story. 2:4-7 -- ...At the time when the Lord god made the earth and the heavens --
while as yet there was no field shrub on earth and no grass of the field had sprouted,
for the Lord God had sent no rain upon the earth and there was no man to till the soil, but
a stream was welling up out of the earth and was watering all the surface of the ground --
the Lord God formed man out of the clay of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath
of life, and so man became a living being.

That's right: unlike the first story which has vegetation, birds, man (third day, fifth day,
and sixth day respectively), the second story has man created before vegetation or any
animals.

This contradiction alone, without flipping any other pages, is enough to rule out the
historicity of this event (the fact the Evolution demonstrates the falsity of both of these
claims is not even necessary).

Either man was created before or after vegetation and animal life. It can't be both, unless
you're insane.

Nemesio

Originally posted by no1marauder
Yes, the methods of science are certainly incapable of yielding any useful knowledge. Thanks for typing that bit of info onto the computer that God created for you.

I thought my computer evolved from an Atari which randomly manifested itself over a vast spance of time, from the building blocks of the primordial pool of Radio Shack parts.

Originally posted by The Chess Express
[b]Obviously you can't read. He says the Sun was created before plants, not light. You need more than just light to grow plants.

As if there was something that the sun could give plants that God’s light couldn’t…

[b/]He said birds were created before land animals. Whether birds evolved from reptiles is irrelevant to that claim; there were ...[text shortened]... me to show that birds evolved from reptiles.

Where do you think birds came from, elephants?[/b]

A) Goddunnit.

B) Read what I wrote or have someone brighter than you explain it to you. Birds either evolved from A) Reptiles or B) Some other type of land animal. In either case, land animals existed prior to birds in the fossil record. This is contrary to a literal reading of Genesis.