Jump to content


Photo

Are Atheists Subhuman?


  • Please log in to reply
129 replies to this topic

#21 Guest_Taikoo_*

Guest_Taikoo_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 November 2009 - 05:38 PM

In terms of truth??? Using the way you used the term truth, even Star Wars could be real to a point.

The big difference is that you can actually go to the places that the Bible talks about, but you can't concerning The Lord of the Rings or Star Wars.

Also Biblical Archaeology has already uncovered many of the cities that once existed in the Old Testament.  Archaeology has done much for the Bible.  Most of the events that happened in the Bible actually happened, and are Archaeologically supported with evidence.

The only thing debated about the Bible is God, Creation, the miracles, and some supernatural things/objects associated with the miracles.  The people in the Bible are supported by other historical evidences besides the Bible.

View Post



Take out the magic, and allow for the fact that the historical parts are only partially verifiable and there really isnt a whole lot left.

#22 Loungehead

Loungehead

    Troll

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 260 posts
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 04 November 2009 - 05:40 PM

In terms of truth??? Using the way you used the term truth, even Star Wars could be real to a point.

Why not? It's based on the beliefs of George Lucas.

The big difference is that you can actually go to the places that the Bible talks about, but you can't concerning The Lord of the Rings or Star Wars.

So geography is the important difference. What about Harry Potter? We can go to London.

Also Biblical Archaeology has already uncovered many of the cities that once existed in the Old Testament.  Archaeology has done much for the Bible.  Most of the events that happened in the Bible actually happened, and are Archaeologically supported with evidence.

Again geography. London exists. Does that make Harry Potter true. United States exists, does that make superman true?

The only thing debated about the Bible is God, Creation, the miracles, and some supernatural things/objects associated with the miracles.  The people in the Bible are supported by other historical evidences besides the Bible.

View Post

Historical people are named in the Bible. Does that mean all people in the Bible are true.

Homer wrote about a city called Troy, which evidence shows existed. Should we take it the Olympic gods, goddesses, and demigods in the story existed?

#23 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 04 November 2009 - 05:48 PM

Why not?  It's based on the beliefs of George Lucas.

So geography is the important difference.  What about Harry Potter?  We can go to London.

Again geography.  London exists.  Does that make Harry Potter true.  United States exists, does that make superman true? 
Historical people are named in the Bible.  Does that mean all people in the Bible are true. 

Homer wrote about a city called Troy, which evidence shows existed.  Should we take it the Olympic gods, goddesses, and demigods in the story existed?

View Post


Huh? You are going way out of hand on this one. Yes you can go to London, but you can't go to Hogwarts now can you??? Nope.

George Lucas made Star Wars, but you can't go to Tatooine now can you??? Nope.

The Bible, you can go to Israel, Jerusalem, Jericho, Egypt, Lebanon, Nazareth, Gaza, Sinai, the Jordan, and Rome. The list goes on but you do get the picture.

Excavations have even uncovered coins with the words Sodom and Gomorrah, plus the remains of a burnt city in the same area with a burnt tower which all contained the remains of human skeletons. You can either see this in regular Archaeological papers, the History Channel, and you could go to the site yourself if you have the money.

The fact is that the Bible has supporting evidence, and lots of it. I'd be joking if I said the evidence was small or non-existant.

#24 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 04 November 2009 - 05:53 PM

Take out the magic, and allow for the fact that the historical parts are only partially verifiable and there really isnt a whole lot left.

View Post


Well there wasn't much magic in the Bible... There was a Witch of Endor. Not much more magic than that I suppose.

#25 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 04 November 2009 - 06:15 PM

If I'm wrong, please present your reasons for why the Bible is true.

The argument I present above, while a simplified version of what Christians tell me, is fundamentally what they are saying.

View Post


Sure, but I would be more interested in the tangible evidences you have that it isn't true. I mean, other than your opinions and presuppositions. And, if any Christian posited such a silly notion, I would speak to them myself, to help straighten them out. But, I have the feeling that no one of intellectual substance has ever really used that argument with you. Of course, that's just my opinion, and I can live with that.

#26 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 04 November 2009 - 06:17 PM

Take out the magic, and allow for the fact that the historical parts are only partially verifiable and there really isnt a whole lot left.

View Post


Really, can you provide the historical evidences that in any way impugn the historicity of the New Testament? Other than your a priori opinions of course.

#27 Loungehead

Loungehead

    Troll

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 260 posts
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 04 November 2009 - 06:27 PM

Huh? You are going way out of hand on this one.  Yes you can go to London, but you can't go to Hogwarts now can you???  Nope.

You can go to Jerusalem, but you can't go to hell now can you??? Nope.

Excavations have even uncovered coins with the words Sodom and Gomorrah, plus the remains of a burnt city in the same area with a burnt tower which all contained the remains of human skeletons.  You can either see this in regular Archaeological papers, the History Channel, and you could go to the site yourself if you have the money.

I'm not denying the history. But I am asking how much of this serves as the basis for truth of other things, such as God, hell, magic ... etc.

The fact is that the Bible has supporting evidence, and lots of it.  I'd be joking if I said the evidence was small or non-existant.

View Post

There are geographical facts that support geographical claims in the Bible. But that is the end of it. That's the micro-truth of the Bible. And I can agree with that. But there is no evidence of the macro-truth of God, hell, magic ... etc. Macro-truth is just a belief. There is no evidence to support it.

#28 Guest_Taikoo_*

Guest_Taikoo_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 November 2009 - 07:17 PM

Well there wasn't much magic in the Bible... There was a Witch of Endor.  Not much more magic than that I suppose.

View Post



Well creating the universe for one...turning snakes into sticks...parting the red sea...an awful lot of what strikes me as magic.

Joseph Smith's gold books. more magic.

Prophesy is fun too... putting effect before cause is a good trick.

#29 Loungehead

Loungehead

    Troll

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 260 posts
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 04 November 2009 - 07:23 PM

Well creating the universe for one...turning snakes into sticks...parting the red sea...an awful lot of what strikes me as magic. 

Joseph Smith's gold books.  more magic. 

Prophesy is fun too... putting effect before cause is a good trick.

View Post

My favorite is water into wine. But I suspect the apostles were doing some recycling, rather than any actual magic.

#30 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 04 November 2009 - 10:25 PM

Yes.  With the major difference being that Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist.

View Post


If education is what makes the difference. Then Darwin and lyell have a big problem with zero degrees in science.

#31 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 04 November 2009 - 10:34 PM

Well creating the universe for one...turning snakes into sticks...parting the red sea...an awful lot of what strikes me as magic. 

Joseph Smith's gold books.  more magic. 

Prophesy is fun too... putting effect before cause is a good trick.

View Post


Taking an idea from pagan religion that dates back to the time of Moses. Making it sound scientific and calling it evolution is a good trick as well.

Egytians believed that they came from the slime of the Nile River. Then turned into animals, then man. This is why there were paintings on the wall of half man half animal figures.

Darwin having a degree in theology tells us that Darwin knew about this pagan belief, And put his twist on it to make it sound scientific.

#32 Loungehead

Loungehead

    Troll

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 260 posts
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 05 November 2009 - 01:43 AM

Taking an idea from pagan religion that dates back to the time of Moses. Making it sound scientific and calling it evolution is a good trick as well.

Egytians believed that they came from the slime of the Nile River. Then turned into animals, then man. This is why there were paintings on the wall of half man half animal figures.

Darwin having a degree in theology tells us that Darwin knew about this pagan belief, And put his twist on it to make it sound scientific.

View Post

Is this a case of Poe's Law?

#33 Guest_Alcatraz_*

Guest_Alcatraz_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 November 2009 - 01:43 AM

...George Lucas made Star Wars, but you can't go to Tatooine now can you??? Nope.


View Post


At the risk of sounding pedantic....Yes you can. Tatooine (Tataouine) is an actual city in Tunisia where the sand desert scenes were filmed. :)

#34 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 05 November 2009 - 04:22 AM

Is this a case of Poe's Law?

View Post


Is that the best you can do to debunk it? Try to make it sound like a parody when you have zero evidence to prove other wise?

#35 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 05 November 2009 - 04:38 AM

My favorite is water into wine.  But I suspect the apostles were doing some recycling, rather than any actual magic.

View Post


So, you were there to refute it? Or, you're just ridiculing it because you don't understand it. Most do that out of ignorance and shame for not understanding.

#36 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 05 November 2009 - 04:42 AM

How can I accept a truth that has no objective basis.

God and the Bible is a circular argument.

1.  God is true; the Bible says so.
2.  The Bible is true; God said so.
:.  Therefore, God and the Bible are true; the Bible and God say so.


1) Evolution is true because it has mountains of evidence.
2) Evolution is as provable as electricity or gravity.
3) There are no missing links, all have been found. So therefore evolution is now an implied absolute true fact, and no one better disagree with that. Why? Because "I" say so. And the mass majority agree.

Not much difference from what I see.

The conclusion is self-referential and tautological.  It's the same as saying, "It is true, because it is true."  How is do you qualify the truth of that claim, and how does it lead to common sense?


At least we can admit to faith, and don't have to change faith into a scientific explanation.

And why should any of this be taken as a true statement about what God thinks?


1) It's in His inspired word.
2) Why do you worry if you truly believe He does not exist?

So, you think I am evil?  You think I have a reprobate mind; you thinkn I am one who refuses to accept.  And you think I choose not to accept, because the Bible told you that is what I am doing?


The difference between sin and evil is:

1) Sin is where you sin against yourself, with no agenda against God.
2) Evil is where you use sin to work against God, therefore your sin has an agenda.

Now have you ever done anything that can be considered working against God? Being here to convince Christians of evolution, to try and convert them is what? Good? In who's eyes?

So it's by your own actions that evil is done, not by my opinions.

Did you ever think to ask me?  And where is the common sense in taking a piece of writing, written by someone else, divine or mortal, as an absolute truth?


I realize that science claims there are no absolutes. Which makes it hard for you to understand something absolutely. But what do you think.... Does absolutes exist or not? If not then you answer your own question as to the reason my answer will never be accepted.

I don't reject the Bible because its true and can't handle its truth.  To suggest I do is another way of degrading me by suggesting I have a weak mind.  Frankly, it's as prejudicial as what Comfort's says.  And as bad as when atheists claim religious people are weak minded.  IMO anyone (atheist or Christian) who degrades the mental capacity of another person for not believing what they think is true, is a bigot.

View Post


Does truth border on absolutes? And what is the general opinion of evolution among evolutionists? Evolution is a true proven fact with mountains of evidence. So even though absolutes are not suppose to exist, it's still okay to imply one?

And the other part of not wanting Christians to down grade you. I have no problem with this request as soon as you guys quit it as well. Deal?

#37 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 05 November 2009 - 04:53 AM

The difference between magic and the power of God is the source in which it comes from. In the Lord of the Rings movie, the representation of good was no different from evil. Why? The source of the so called good was a warlock. White magic and black magic (white and black warlocks), which what was being promoted in this film. Gets it's source from the same place. Evil. Are there warlocks in Heaven?

So just because the magic welder only uses his or her magic for only good or evil, it has no bearing on what kind it is when the source comes from the same place.

Does not the Bible say: Lucifer is an angel of light (white magic)?
And that where he lives is total darkness (black magic)?

#38 Guest_Alcatraz_*

Guest_Alcatraz_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 November 2009 - 06:00 AM

Does not the Bible say: Lucifer is an angel of light (white magic)?
And that where he lives is total darkness (black magic)?

View Post



Ike,

If I could refer you to this thread on this topic.

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=2830

#39 Guest_Taikoo_*

Guest_Taikoo_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 November 2009 - 06:03 AM

So, you were there to refute it? Or, you're just ridiculing it because you don't understand it. Most do that out of ignorance and shame for not understanding.

View Post



Judging by the fact that i never run across a creationist who has more than a sketchy / inaccurate / incomplete idea of what evolution is... AND... the fact that their social life, their dreams of eternal life, their whole construct of reality would collapse of evolution were accepted as real...

I would say that the near universal tendency of creationists to try to ridicule evolution is exactly from ignorance, and the fear of what understanding it would do to them.

#40 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 05 November 2009 - 06:04 AM

My favorite is water into wine.  But I suspect the apostles were doing some recycling, rather than any actual magic.

View Post


The reason that Christ did not create wine is because creation was over when man sinned. Sin brought a trinity into time which we know as: Past-Present-Future. Before sin there was only Alpha-Omega time. Which is time minus present time. Which is basically Past-future only. Adding present time puts all living things on a forward motion time-line. Which includes birth-aging-death. Alpha Omega time does not have all living things on a forward motion time-line. Because without the present time being present, where in time would you be? And since "birth-aging-death" are not present in Alpha Omega time. Hence the reason for the need for something to be created.

So either "birth-aging-death" exist, or "creation with age" exist. The two are conflicting and cannot exist together.

You see, creation "replaces" the birth-aging-death laws of present time. But when those laws became in effect, they replaced creation so that nothing else could ever be created again. So like a flow chart:

Creation - man sinned - present time is added - creation is replaced.

So instead of Christ creating wine (Alpha-Omega laws), Christ had to alter the water to make wine (Birth-aging-death laws). What ever dimension Christ is in, He has to abide by the laws of that dimension. So while in our dimension, He cannot create from nothing because the laws that allowed this during creation are no longer in effect.

That is also why Christ made more fish a bread to feed thousands of people. He was not creating what did not exist, He was taking what already existed and making more of it.

And this is why we don't generally understand creation laws, because we don't live in it and therefore don't experience it or see it as an example. And is also the reason why the Birth-aging-death laws of present time, do not even begin to explain how the creation worked. So in order to understand it, you have to use Deductive Reasoning to work out how the other time-line of Alpha-Omega works. And how you know you have it right is when you can reverse the process and it abides by the laws of what we know.

Example:

1) If Alpha-Omega laws do not have Birth-aging-death. Then all has to be created. Hence the beginning of everything (creation from nothing).
2) If "aging" is not part of the Alpha Omega laws, then creation with age already added is applicable.
3) Why create things with age already added? Because when man sins, which adds present time laws (Birth-aging-death). All matter must abide by the Birth-aging-and death laws, even though all matter was created under Alpha Omega laws.
4) Why does this have to be this way? Because any created working universe, that breaks any laws while converting to new dimensional laws, destroys itself because it becomes non-working.

So the working universe created under Alpha-Omega laws, had to be created in working order under Birth-aging-death laws of present time as well.

So when God created, He had to have in mind the laws of both dimensions. And had to create a universe capable of working under both laws so that the universe does not become self destructive.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users