26 Nov 08
Originally posted by ZahlanziI am not convinced. Is it your claim that they are dishonest and you are not?
there is a difference and you know it.
one thing to claim to have seen the flying spaghetti monster one night and another one to present the grand canyon as conclusive proof that the spaghetti monster exists and that is his unfinished irrigation system for his garden of eden.
It is normal for humans to look for evidence for their beliefs and they frequently 'adjust' or outright make up that evidence.
When challenged on Jesus' resurrection you gave an example of a dog that was cryogenically frozen even though event though it had no real relevance and proved nothing.
26 Nov 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadif i challenge you to prove string theory what will you say?
I am not convinced. Is it your claim that they are dishonest and you are not?
It is normal for humans to look for evidence for their beliefs and they frequently 'adjust' or outright make up that evidence.
When challenged on Jesus' resurrection you gave an example of a dog that was cryogenically frozen even though event though it had no real relevance and proved nothing.
perhaps better example is to ask you what happends past the event horizon of a black hole.
god cannot be proven. god requires faith. as long as that faith doesn't harm anyone but quite the opposite it is a blankie for the soul it isn't harmful. i function exactly the same as you and you have no proof that i am more stupid than an atheist version of me. believing in god is exactly the same as an atheist believing his friend will not double cross him out of the money the atheist lend him.
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
26 Nov 08
Originally posted by KellyJayI would agree with Zahlanzi. It is one thing to view things differently, another to steadfastly cling to a view that can be easily disproven wrong and yet the YEC believer ignores fact and reason in favor of "faith". Whatever.
LOL, really he sees things wrongly! Wow, glad you are here to tell every
one how to see things correctly.
Kelly
26 Nov 08
Originally posted by BadwaterFacts, I don't think so, assumptions made by many yea I'll give you
I would agree with Zahlanzi. It is one thing to view things differently, another to steadfastly cling to a view that can be easily disproven wrong and yet the YEC believer ignores fact and reason in favor of "faith". Whatever.
that much.
Kelly
27 Nov 08
Originally posted by KellyJayplease admit that just because you may have a diminished understanding in a certain subject it doesn't make it incorrect. if you do not agree with something the logical course of action is to bring evidence to support your claims.
Facts, I don't think so, assumptions made by many yea I'll give you
that much.
Kelly
evidence, not phd's who take the other side so that they not be a part of the flock of evolutionists, not "scientists" who claim that faith in the lord should be applied in their line of work as well, not illogical college dropouts who marvel as to why nobody sees the light of their wisdom when it is so bright for them.
06 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Zahlanzi"god cannot be proven. god requires faith". So does creation but you call peole who believe in that "retards", then go on to complain when others insult you in this thread!
if i challenge you to prove string theory what will you say?
perhaps better example is to ask you what happends past the event horizon of a black hole.
god cannot be proven. god requires faith. as long as that faith doesn't harm anyone but quite the opposite it is a blankie for the soul it isn't harmful. i function exactly the same as you and you hav ...[text shortened]... atheist believing his friend will not double cross him out of the money the atheist lend him.
What is the point of faith in a god who can raise the dead, but cannot control time or matter as he chooses?
Credibility in this debate surely stems from initialy holding one of the polarized viewpoints: god (as a being with ultimate power) either exists or he doesn't? A compromise that god is little bit powerfull in the resurection department, but not in the creation arena almost deserves derision.
06 Dec 08
Originally posted by ZahlanziWhat I admit is that if your facts are based upon assumptions than
please admit that just because you may have a diminished understanding in a certain subject it doesn't make it incorrect. if you do not agree with something the logical course of action is to bring evidence to support your claims.
evidence, not phd's who take the other side so that they not be a part of the flock of evolutionists, not "scientists" who c ...[text shortened]... ts who marvel as to why nobody sees the light of their wisdom when it is so bright for them.
you do not have a solid foundation of facts, instead you have one
of assumptions.
Kelly
08 Dec 08
Originally posted by divegeesteryou wrongly assume god and creationism are in the same category of faith fueled concepts.
"god cannot be proven. god requires faith". So does creation but you call peole who believe in that "retards", then go on to complain when others insult you in this thread!
What is the point of faith in a god who can raise the dead, but cannot control time or matter as he chooses?
Credibility in this debate surely stems from initialy holding one ...[text shortened]... full in the resurection department, but not in the creation arena almost deserves derision.
god is something that cannot be proven because god lives outside the observable universe. if i tell you that past the event horizon of a black hole there be pink fluffy unicorns, how will you prove me wrong? you can of course say that science forbids baseless assumptions when we lack information, but other than that, how can you prove i am wrong, that there are not unicorns past the event horizon? or a gateway to another universe?
creation as described in the bible on the other hand HAS been disproved. if we know now that explanations about certain events have been found, then why should i insist in saying that God only made it appear like those explanations are true when they aren't. So god wasn't lying in the bible, he is lying and trying to deceive us now.
just because god has absolute power doesn't mean he will act illogical. sure he can, but it is one thing to assume he will act in a totally erratic manner (just because he can) or to trust the evidence that tell us how god acted.
i understand your argument. you say that if religious people complicate things by saying that god exists, they are not allow to draw a line and say "this is as much as we are willing to believe of god, no more". That if we went and invented god, we will accept any nonsense presented to us. You are saying that religious people are retards (sorry, "almost deserving of derision"😉 which is the reason i take offense in people like you not that you do not agree with you.
08 Dec 08
Originally posted by KellyJaywell let's look on one of your assumptions (correct me if you do not agree with something i say now ):
What I admit is that if your facts are based upon assumptions than
you do not have a solid foundation of facts, instead you have one
of assumptions.
Kelly
one of your claims is that the isotope dating method is flawed. that when a certain isotope dating method tells a figure, that figure is wrong.
my first question is if you understand how that method works or is supposed to work.(if you do not, please look on wikipedia for the description and not one of your religious sites.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope_dating )
next please tell me why would so many scientists support a dating method that would be so flawed as to give out a figure (4.28 billion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldest_rock ) so far off your "real" earth age of 6000-7000
you also make the assumption that the bible is wholly inspired by god, that everything in it is approved by god.
please tell me why do you think that? is there any possibility that if some of the authors would have said "god created the world in 6 days" when he did it in 15, god would have let it slide? how many writers were smote because they tried to write lies? what was god thinking when he ordered all those genocides in the old testament and then his son asked us to turn the other cheek?
11 Dec 08
Originally posted by ZahlanziSorry I lost you a bit in your post. I'm not saying religious people are retards; you said in a previous post that you did not want to be included with "that bunch of retards" - refering to creationists I think; whilst at the same time defending (or believing in?) the resurection. It was that statement which I felt was 'almost deserving of derision'.
you wrongly assume god and creationism are in the same category of faith fueled concepts.
god is something that cannot be proven because god lives outside the observable universe. if i tell you that past the event horizon of a black hole there be pink fluffy unicorns, how will you prove me wrong? you can of course say that science forbids baseless assum ...[text shortened]... which is the reason i take offense in people like you not that you do not agree with you.
I'm uncertain of your standpoint - are you a christian making a point about believing in the resurection but rejecting creation, or an athiest hypothesizing about what is or isn't believeable?
11 Dec 08
Originally posted by divegeesteri am a christian. metaphysically wrinkle free free christian. a christian who believes in the idea of jesus, the idea of his sacrifice. for that i don't require proof. jesus died for my sins, a perfect being (so we are told) not needing to die, died nonetheless to present the idea of sacrifice, of living (and dying) for the benefit of others. i believe in his existence, but even if he were a fabrication, a fairy tale, he would be a fantasy worth believing into.
Sorry I lost you a bit in your post. I'm not saying religious people are retards; you said in a previous post that you did not want to be included with "that bunch of retards" - refering to creationists I think; whilst at the same time defending (or believing in?) the resurection. It was that statement which I felt was 'almost deserving of derision'. ...[text shortened]... n but rejecting creation, or an athiest hypothesizing about what is or isn't believeable?
we all live our lives for abstract notions. wealth, greed, happiness, progress, etc. for what its worth Jesus is another abstract idea. love, unconditional love. is he really the son of god? what if he isn't? is his message any less worthy? read the bible(the parts that matter) and you will get it.
i believe in Jesus. i really do. But because i have faith. sure, there are some historical records that a certain ted nugent look alike lived in Judea and died on the cross. but witnesses are impressionable and at times unreliable. records can be altered with the passing of time. but still Jesus is a good idea to believe in.
now to creationism. the grand idea that god created the world in 6 days. that he created day and night and the plants before the sun. that all the animals of the earth were vegetarians until something pissed god off and told animals to eat each other. but while jesus embodies something useful and warm and fuzzy, this idea is freakin useless. not only that, we have found proof it is useless and incorrect. it is one thing to believe in santa clause, but when you see your parents stuff the presents under the tree and eat the cookies, it is time to rethink your system of beliefs.
now tell me believing in god and believing in what some ignorant Jewish shepherds plagiarized from babylonian mythology is the same thing. coz i see only a slight shadow of similarity.
11 Dec 08
Originally posted by ZahlanziZahlanzi, this sounds like a cop-out position to me both spititually and intelectually. You say you are christian who believes in the 'idea of christ' but doesn't accept the bible as the word of God and are not convinced on his deity either.
i am a christian. metaphysically wrinkle free free christian. a christian who believes in the idea of jesus, the idea of his sacrifice. for that i don't require proof. jesus died for my sins, a perfect being (so we are told) not needing to die, died nonetheless to present the idea of sacrifice, of living (and dying) for the benefit of others. i believe in h ...[text shortened]... zed from babylonian mythology is the same thing. coz i see only a slight shadow of similarity.
For me, unless Jesus is exactly who he says is and exactly who the Bible says he is, then he is still dead, we are still dead in our sins, and he was a liar and a fraud. I would have no capacity to even consider listening to the teachings of such a person. If he was a fairy tale figure as you conjecture, then I'd rather believe in Darth Vader thanks!
Refering to my earlier post where I said your viewpoint (i.e claiming to be a christian but holding creationists who believe the word of god in contempt and calling them retards) was almost worthy of derision - I'm sorry but your latest post does nothing to change my mind, except to drop the "almost".
11 Dec 08
Originally posted by divegeesterthats your opinion of course
Zahlanzi, this sounds like a cop-out position to me both spititually and intelectually. You say you are christian who believes in the 'idea of christ' but doesn't accept the bible as the word of God and are not convinced on his deity either.
For me, unless Jesus is exactly who he says is and exactly who the Bible says he is, then he is still dead ...[text shortened]... m sorry but your latest post does nothing to change my mind, except to drop the "almost".
youre entitled to it even if you are wrong.
your entire argument rests on the fact that either we believe the bible to be the exact word of god, we we dismiss it entirely as fabrication. did you processed this thought much? if someone is lying one time, that someone can never tell the truth anymore? do you find that there are only absolute truths and absolute lies? and you hold me worthy of derision with the almost died of overexposure to pure atheist awesomeness.
i am convinced jesus is god's junior. it is called faith. from an atheist point of view however i said that the idea of jesus is enough. we should all believe in the idea of jesus as a minimum.
btw i dont hold only cristians in contempt. i hold atheists like you in contempt as well. atheists who find that just because there are loopholes in a theory, that theory should be discarded entirely. with your post you just insulted not only every christian, but also muslim, jew, in fact every spiritual person in the world.