religious debate

[Guest]

Wrong. Yes, the Bible has been torn apart by many- and they suceeded. Many things in the Bible contradict themselves too.

I strongly recommend that everyone involved in the debate checks this out. The list is huge!

The first contradiction "God good to all or just a few" is wrong. Psalms is a bunch of songs written by David. This is his opinion about God. (I agree with him) Jeremiah is talking about when the enemies of God's chosen people, the Jews, are to be destroyed. God said to Moses when He led the Jews out of Pharoh's grasp, that God will "bless those that bless you, and curse those that curse you." He is simply keeping His word to protect His people.

"War or Peace" is contradicting itself. These two different verses are talking about two different parts of The Trinity.

"Who is the Father of Joseph" In Bible times, people had several different names, as we do today, (first, middle, last) only more than those. They can be called by either one of those 3 names. Also, different countries have different names for the same person (if that makes sense). In the U.S., the name Julia is pronounced joo-lee-u. in. . . Germany for example, Julia is pronounce yoo-lee-u. Now, you are probably thinking, "but they're spealt differently!!!" You are right, they are(duh). However, because of the difference of alphabets, we do not have the right letters.

"Who Was at the Tomb?" ALL OF THEM!!!!! Read Luke chapter 24. It says, "They, and CERTAIN OTHER WOMEN WITH THEM. . ." I know it does not say any names, but I believe that if you read the other gospels(Matthew Mark Luke John), you can figure it out.

That's all the time I have for today (and remember, God made you special, and he loves you very much, BYE!!!!) [taken from the end of all veggie tales episodes] [[on VHS only, the changed it when they put it on air]]

unreality has been pwned

[Guest]

As said on the first page of this discussion, it is impossible to prove 100% that there is a god of any sort, including Greek and Roman mythological gods.

It is impossible to prove anything 100%. But most of us don't believe in incredible claims without incredible evidence, except many give God a free pass.

However, the Christian Bible states in Hebrews 11:1 that "Now faith is a substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen, for by it the elders obtained a good report." (Kind James Version) This means that faith is believing things that you can't prove, but still believing in them because of the evidences all around you.

There is zero evidence anywhere for any gods. If there was evidence all around us for a god, faith would not be needed.

I remember my fifth grade teacher making us put "evidences of a creator" on every single one of our science tests.

And that teacher was a science teacher? That teacher should be shot.

This reminded us that just by looking around, you can tell that there is a god of some kind. I.E., photosynthesis, the ability of green plants to make food for themselves, is an evidence of a creator, or at least some kind of higher power beyond what we can understand.

Sorry, photosynthesis or anything else that occurs in nature is not evidence of a creator.

It is unbelievable ridiculous that one of two atoms in space just happened to collide with the other ONE atom in space.

No where in science is there a theory that two lone atoms collided. You're making up a highly unlikely scenario as some sort of evidence of a highly unlikely omniscient, omnipotent being existing. This sort of thing is getting very old in this thread.

In the old testament of the Bible, it states that "as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up." Then, in the new testament, Jesus Christ "the Son of Man" is crucified on the cross "lifted up". This is merely on proof that the Bible is true.

This is merely on proof that the Bible is true? That makes no sense and there is zero evidence that the Bible reflects truth and there is plenty that it doesn't.

[Guest]

"Who is the Father of Joseph" In Bible times, people had several different names, as we do today, (first, middle, last) only more than those. They can be called by either one of those 3 names. Also, different countries have different names for the same person (if that makes sense). In the U.S., the name Julia is pronounced joo-lee-u. in. . . Germany for example, Julia is pronounce yoo-lee-u. Now, you are probably thinking, "but they're spealt differently!!!" You are right, they are(duh). However, because of the difference of alphabets, we do not have the right letters.

You're saying that Heli and Jacob are the same person? They weren't; they were brothers.

[unreality]

Sharpie:

I am trusting what you are saying about some of the contradictions being wrong since you obviously know a lot more about the Bible than me and I did not make that list of contradictions- but you only falsified a few of the contradictions. That's a huge list that can't be ignored, know what I mean? And you didn't combat the rest of what I said about the Bible... so are you selectively hearing or something? You cant "pwn" what I said until you tackle my entire reply to bocinki's 'bible proof', not just one little section of which I know the least about (which is why I provided the website)

As said on the first page of this discussion, it is impossible to prove 100% that there is a god of any sort, including Greek and Roman mythological gods. However, the Christian Bible states in Hebrews 11:1 that "Now faith is a substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen, for by it the elders obtained a good report." (Kind James Version) This means that faith is believing things that you can't prove, but still believing in them because of the evidences all around you. I remember my fifth grade teacher making us put "evidences of a creator" on every single one of our science tests. This reminded us that just by looking around, you can tell that there is a god of some kind. I.E., photosynthesis, the ability of green plants to make food for themselves, is an evidence of a creator, or at least some kind of higher power beyond what we can understand. It is unbelievable ridiculous that one of two atoms in space just happened to collide with the other ONE atom in space. Pardon me, but i just believe this is stupid because of the seemingly infinite vastness of space.

are you serious? Are you saying photosynthesis is evidence of God? And about the atoms thing, I believe you are misinformed about that, though I wont go into detail- Martini knows the most about the big bang stuff, though I will say that even if that isnt true (i am a big bang skeptic as well) the entire point of science is to hypothesize and come up with new theories and correct old theories etc etc. There is no one theory agreed upon by all scientists ever. That's the beauty of it. So if you have a problem with 'two atoms flying around' (even though if they exist forever the probability is actually very high of it happening- 100% if they exist forever, a little less than that depending on speed, sizes, lifetimes, etc, though I'm not gonna debate this since I know so little about the Big Bang stuff, Martini can tell ya though).

Anyway, about the photosynthesis, your notions are ridiculous. Just because you're ignorant and haven't opened a Biology textbook to learn how photosynthesis actually works, doesn't mean God runs the show. Sorry.

The last section "for by it the elders obtained a good report," means that our ancestors (Moses, Abraham, Jacob, Esau, Joseph, etc. . .) were rewarded for their strong faith in God. Also, I'm not sure where, but the Bible also states that, "with the faith of a mustard seed, you can move mountains." Now, this does not necessarily mean that it will happen. It will only happen if God sees fit that it should.

Is any of this relevant? All this shows is that the Bible says you get rewarded for your faith in God. We already know that the Bible says that. That doesn't make the Bible any more than a mythology book or God any more real than Santa Claus. (if Santa Claus exists, if you can prove that to me, I will look deeper for God)

In the old testament of the Bible, it states that "as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up." Then, in the new testament, Jesus Christ "the Son of Man" is crucified on the cross "lifted up". This is merely on proof that the Bible is true. I am not saying, however, that other holy books are not true. Also, i am not saying that they are, because i do not know much about them.

How is a biblical account of Jesus being lifted onto the cross make it true? We don't even know if Jesus existed, though last time I checked they're pretty sure, though most accounts give him as a non-magical person. Just a religious movement leader. Though I'm not entirely sure if it was that or if he didn't exist at all. Anyway, the Bible may have seeds of truth in various aspects. There may have been a flood in the Middle East that caused some deaths in that time- there have been thousands in almost every region of the world. Floods were devastating to many earlier civilizations, that's why religions viewed floods as "divine wrath". There was never a flood that covered the entire world. Ever.

Anyway what I'm getting back to is that the Bible may have seeds of truth- Jesus was probably real and probably got crucified by the Romans. Probably, most likely, etc. That doesn't prove that most of the rest of the Bible is true, or that its message is true. Think of a historical fiction book of Holocaust survivors. The actual names and people aren't true, but the background story is. That's semi-relevant to what I was just saying, so don't correlate the two examples literally. But you get my point- much in the Bible has been proved false, as much or more as what has been speculated as true. So don't give evidence from WITHIN the Bible as evidence that the Bible was completely accurate and that God exists, etc, etc.

edit: martini got a post in before I did. Oh well. I will read his post now

[Guest]

I forgot to mention this earlier and it wouldn't let me edit, about "Who is the Father of Joseph": in Bible times, the also used numbers instead of letters when writing out names. I learned this from the history channel when it was talking about the antichrist and 666 and 777 and all that stuff. It mentioned how they added up the # value of each letter and each person had their own number. (A is 1, B is 2, c is 3, for the English alphabet.) That is also how someone can have more than 1 name.

Edited March 1, 2008 by Sharpie357

[unreality]

Satan = 19+1+20+1+14=55

Devil = 4+5+22+9+12=52

Lucifer = 12+21+3+9+6+5+18=74

???

maybe you mean multiplication?

Satan = 5320

Devil = 47520

Lucifer = 3674160

obviously not. So I'm confused. What name are you using for the devil?

Also that system makes no sense. Two people's names could add up to the same number... anyway, I dont see how this is relevant to the debate, though it is interesting

[Guest]

are you serious? Are you saying photosynthesis is evidence of God?

yes. i am saying that. i also said that there are more. Here are some i took from WikiAnswers. the first is my favorite:

1. Intelligent life on earth - the human mind

2. Intricacies and varieties of life forms - plants and animals

3. Information - transmitted/received with coding/decoding mechanisms contained in every living cell -- today, especially observations of DNA.

4. Conscience - knowledge of good and evil

5. Free-will - the ability to choose God or not is considered evidence of his character

6. Creativity - the beautiful display by which everything is presented in nature

7. Laws - everything that governs life, order, harmony, and beauty for our intelligent observation

8. Justice - for those who are wrongfully accused or put to death, on those who get away with murders, thefts, selfish greed, adulteries, rapes, sexual perversions, child molestations, child abductions, tortures, deceptions, spiteful destructions, blasphemies, and cheating; and justice for those who are hungry, those who weep, are tormented in life, are empty, broken, lifeless, crushed, abandoned, aborted, rejected, and spit on.

And about the atoms thing, I believe you are misinformed about that, though I wont go into detail- Martini knows the most about the big bang stuff, though I will say that even if that isnt true (i am a big bang skeptic as well) the entire point of science is to hypothesize and come up with new theories and correct old theories etc etc. There is no one theory agreed upon by all scientists ever. That's the beauty of it. So if you have a problem with 'two atoms flying around' (even though if they exist forever the probability is actually very high of it happening- 100% if they exist forever, a little less than that depending on speed, sizes, lifetimes, etc, though I'm not gonna debate this since I know so little about the Big Bang stuff, Martini can tell ya though).

I also know little about the big bang, but you still get my point. the statistical odds of everything happening by chance are like 1 in 10 to the 21st power.

Anyway, about the photosynthesis, your notions are ridiculous. Just because you're ignorant and haven't opened a Biology textbook to learn how photosynthesis actually works, doesn't mean God runs the show. Sorry.

refer to the previous thing. (I actually haven't taken biology yet. Im a Freshman. )

Is any of this relevant? All this shows is that the Bible says you get rewarded for your faith in God. We already know that the Bible says that. That doesn't make the Bible any more than a mythology book or God any more real than Santa Claus. (if Santa Claus exists, if you can prove that to me, I will look deeper for God)

No it is not relevant. I only said this part to explain the rest of the verse.

So don't give evidence from WITHIN the Bible as evidence that the Bible was completely accurate and that God exists, etc, etc.

Here's some evidences for Bible to Modern Time predictions

[Guest]

Satan = 19+1+20+1+14=55

Devil = 4+5+22+9+12=52

Lucifer = 12+21+3+9+6+5+18=74

???

maybe you mean multiplication?

Satan = 5320

Devil = 47520

Lucifer = 3674160

obviously not. So I'm confused. What name are you using for the devil?

You have made a very common mistake. The Antichrist is NOT the devil, satan, lucifer etc. . . . but he is just a "regular" man with special powers. in Revelation, the Bible speaks about two religious men or prophets that will warn people about the impending doom. These men will not be able to be killed or harmed in any way (except by words of course). the Antichrist is like another one of these men, but his intentions are the EXACT OPPOSITE. He will want to kill everyone, but the two prophets will want to save everyone. to find out more about this stuff, read the Left Behind series by Tim LaHaye and Larry B. Jenkins. or just read Revelation. Google also helps too.

Also that system makes no sense. Two people's names could add up to the same number... anyway, I dont see how this is relevant to the debate, though it is interesting

. . .Which is why it is no longer used!!!!

Edited March 1, 2008 by Sharpie357

[Guest]

yes. i am saying that. i also said that there are more. Here are some i took from WikiAnswers. the first is my favorite:

1. Intelligent life on earth - the human mind

2. Intricacies and varieties of life forms - plants and animals

3. Information - transmitted/received with coding/decoding mechanisms contained in every living cell -- today, especially observations of DNA.

4. Conscience - knowledge of good and evil

5. Free-will - the ability to choose God or not is considered evidence of his character

6. Creativity - the beautiful display by which everything is presented in nature

7. Laws - everything that governs life, order, harmony, and beauty for our intelligent observation

8. Justice - for those who are wrongfully accused or put to death, on those who get away with murders, thefts, selfish greed, adulteries, rapes, sexual perversions, child molestations, child abductions, tortures, deceptions, spiteful destructions, blasphemies, and cheating; and justice for those who are hungry, those who weep, are tormented in life, are empty, broken, lifeless, crushed, abandoned, aborted, rejected, and spit on.

NONE of these things are evidence for any gods existing! If you're going to say intelligent life is evidence for a god, you're going to have to explain how instead of just claiming it is. Arguments without explanations are not arguments and if this sort of thing continues in this thread, posts are going to start getting deleted as they add zero substance to this debate.

I also know little about the big bang, but you still get my point. the statistical odds of everything happening by chance are like 1 in 10 to the 21st power.

Don't make up probabilities without backing up how you arrived at that figure. Maybe you can give us the mathematical probability of an omniscient, omnipotent god existing and explaining why He doesn't need a creator.

Here's some evidences for Bible to Modern Time predictions

No more relevant than so called Nostradamus predictions coming true. This has been discussed in this thread multiple times.

[Guest]

. . .Which is why it is no longer used!!!!

It never was. Names were always names in the Bible; numbers were never used in place of them.

Let's stay on topic.

[Guest]

It never was. Names were always names in the Bible; numbers were never used in place of them.

Let's stay on topic.

you can't prove that it never was. search the history channel website for the video if you really care that much.

this is on the topic of "Who is the Father of Joseph" and bible contradiction and the truth of the bible, and therefore proof of a god or higher being.

[Guest]

you can't prove that it never was. search the history channel website for the video if you really care that much.

this is on the topic of "Who is the Father of Joseph" and bible contradiction and the truth of the bible, and therefore proof of a god or higher being.

I don't have to prove it never was; the burden of proof is with you. Heli and Jacob are different people in the Bible and no one disputes that but you.

This thread is not about picking something you think is inaccurate from a link someone posted and debating that one point.

[Guest]

One doesn't discredit something by saying they don't believe in it. It is up the one making the claim to provide evidence, not for the skeptic to disprove it it. And the Bible is no more evidence, direct or otherwise, for a god than is the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita or the Talmud.

If the most important stories found in the OT and NT are even remotely historic, then scientific evidence should exist for an escape of large numbers of Jews from Egypt in the 13th century BCE and 40 years of wandering in the desert. It does not. Physical evidence should exist for a Golden Age in a combined kingdom of Israel and Judea around 1000 BCE and the Temple of Solomon. It does not.

Historical evidence should also exist for the extraordinary events reported to have occurred at the time of Jesus’ birth. It does not. From the absence of evidence that should exist from the scientific and historical record, we can conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that these extraordinary events did not take place as the Bible describes.

The genealogy of Jesus can be traced back to Adam and Eve using the Bible. It spans about 4000 years. If the first humans lived 6000 years ago, all scientific evidence should point to that. It does not.

The Bible reads as an assembly of myths fashioned by ancient authors who had no concept of historical accuracy. It’s description of the world reflects the scientific and historical knowledge of the age in which the manuscripts were composed.

The information and insights contained in scriptures and other revelations look just as they can be expected to look if there is no God who revealed truths to humanity that were recorded in sacred texts.

Unless you have a very good grasp of evolutionary theory, how do you go about deciding when someone is defending evolution, and knows what he's talking about, has been defeated?

What kind of evidence would exist to show that a large number of Jews escaped from the Egyptians? What kind of evidence should exist for a golden age? What kind of events are you talking about around Jesus' birth? What scientific evidence shows that that the first humans lived more than 6000 years ago?

If there is a professor in philosophy or biology, and he can't even answer all the questions posed to him, and his opponent answered all of his questions. I call that winning a debate.

[Guest]

What kind of evidence would exist to show that a large number of Jews escaped from the Egyptians? What kind of evidence should exist for a golden age? What kind of events are you talking about around Jesus' birth? What scientific evidence shows that that the first humans lived more than 6000 years ago?

Moses supposedly led the Jews out of captivity in Egypt and wandered the the Sanai Desert for forty years. During his wanderings, according to the scripture, Moses often talked to God, obtained the Ten Commandments, and made a covenant between the people of Israel and Yahweh. With God's guidance, Moses finally brought his people to the Promised Land (the one place in the Middle East without oil).

No archaeological evidence has been found of an Israelite presence in Egypt prior to the thirteenth century BCE, when most scholars believe the Exodus took place. This was around the time of Pharaoh Ramses II. According to the Biblical account, six hundred thousand Jews participated in the escape from Egypt. Not a single campsite or sign of occupation from the time of Ramses II and his immediate predecessors and successors has even been identified in Sanai. Modern archaeological techniques are capable of tracing even the very meager remains of small bands of far more ancient hunter-gatherers and pastoral nomads all over the world.

Lack of evidence from outside scripture surrounds the most important tale of the New Testament- Jesus' crucification and resurrection. Christian literature is filled with claims that these events were foretold. But again we have nothing outside of the Gospels that rules out what is the more plausible account: the authors of the Gospels formulated the life and death of Jesus to conform to their conception of the Messiah of the Old Testament.

Many people say they believe because of the many eyewitnesses who said they saw Jesus walking after he was supposed to be dead. However, the testimony is only recorded in the Bible, second hand, and years after the fact. Eyewitness testimony would still be opened to question two thousand years after the fact. Eyewitness testimony recorded decades later is hardly extraordinary evidence.

The scientific evidence that humans have been around for more than 6000 years ago is very easy to find. Not one credible scientist would dare to claim otherwise. That the scientific consensus is that modern humans have been around for more than 6000 years ago is common knowledge. Asking me to show you what the scientific evidence for this is akin to me asking you where in the Bible it says that Jesus was crucified. Do some simple Google searches to see what evidence archaeologists, biologists, etc. have for modern humans existing for at least 100,000 years. I'm not going to do your homework for you.

Now that you have asked me to prove a negative, you should start answering the many questions you have left unanswered and show some evidence that a god exists. Once again, it's not our job to prove one doesn't.

If there is a professor in philosophy or biology, and he can't even answer all the questions posed to him, and his opponent answered all of his questions. I call that winning a debate.

One doesn't lose a debate by not having every answer to difficult questions stored in their brains. Even experts on evolution can't answer every "How did this or that get here" on the spot and they shouldn't be expected to- no one should be expected to be a walking text book. The bottom line remains- claiming that a god exists is an incredible claim and requires incredible evidence. That's what the believer must provide in the debate. Asking someone how something got here without a god poofing it into existence and that person not having the answer isn't very persuasive.

[Guest]

Moses supposedly led the Jews out of captivity in Egypt and wandered the the Sanai Desert for forty years. During his wanderings, according to the scripture, Moses often talked to God, obtained the Ten Commandments, and made a covenant between the people of Israel and Yahweh. With God's guidance, Moses finally brought his people to the Promised Land (the one place in the Middle East without oil).

No archaeological evidence has been found of an Israelite presence in Egypt prior to the thirteenth century BCE, when most scholars believe the Exodus took place. This was around the time of Pharaoh Ramses II. According to the Biblical account, six hundred thousand Jews participated in the escape from Egypt. Not a single campsite or sign of occupation from the time of Ramses II and his immediate predecessors and successors has even been identified in Sanai. Modern archaeological techniques are capable of tracing even the very meager remains of small bands of far more ancient hunter-gatherers and pastoral nomads all over the world.

Lack of evidence from outside scripture surrounds the most important tale of the New Testament- Jesus' crucification and resurrection. Christian literature is filled with claims that these events were foretold. But again we have nothing outside of the Gospels that rules out what is the more plausible account: the authors of the Gospels formulated the life and death of Jesus to conform to their conception of the Messiah of the Old Testament.

Many people say they believe because of the many eyewitnesses who said they saw Jesus walking after he was supposed to be dead. However, the testimony is only recorded in the Bible, second hand, and years after the fact. Eyewitness testimony would still be opened to question two thousand years after the fact. Eyewitness testimony recorded decades later is hardly extraordinary evidence.

The scientific evidence that humans have been around for more than 6000 years ago is very easy to find. Not one credible scientist would dare to claim otherwise. That the scientific consensus is that modern humans have been around for more than 6000 years ago is common knowledge. Asking me to show you what the scientific evidence for this is akin to me asking you where in the Bible it says that Jesus was crucified. Do some simple Google searches to see what evidence archaeologists, biologists, etc. have for modern humans existing for at least 100,000 years. I'm not going to do your homework for you.

Now that you have asked me to prove a negative, you should start answering the many questions you have left unanswered and show some evidence that a god exists. Once again, it's not our job to prove one doesn't.

One doesn't lose a debate by not having every answer to difficult questions stored in their brains. Even experts on evolution can't answer every "How did this or that get here" on the spot and they shouldn't be expected to- no one should be expected to be a walking text book. The bottom line remains- claiming that a god exists is an incredible claim and requires incredible evidence. That's what the believer must provide in the debate. Asking someone how something got here without a god poofing it into existence and that person not having the answer isn't very persuasive.

As mentioned several times in this debate, it is impossible to prove that a god exists. This is where faith comes in, as I mentioned before. So if you really want to look hard at this debate, the debate seems moot, because it is impossible for us to prove that a god exists, and impossible for you to prove that one doesn't.

Maybe we haven't found any evidence because we're looking in the wrong place. Or maybe God doesn't want us to find it.

I agree with the part about wining or losing a debate.

Edited March 2, 2008 by Sharpie357

[Guest]

As mentioned several times in this debate, it is impossible to prove that a god exists.

But it hasn't stopped you from claiming that there is evidence of a god.

it is impossible for us to prove that a god exists, and impossible for you to prove that one doesn't.

And it's impossible for anyone to prove that invisible flying unicorns don't exist. But it's unreasonable to believe that they do without evidence.

Maybe we haven't found any evidence because we're looking in the wrong place. Or maybe God doesn't want us to find it.

Or maybe He's a construct of the human mind like invisible flying unicorns. Without any credible evidence for such a fantastic claim, that would be the reasonable position to hold.

[Guest]

I meant to add:

If God can hide the Garden of Eden, who knows what else He can hide too!!

Edit: I made this post before I saw Scruf's reply.

Edited March 3, 2008 by Sharpie357

[Guest]

Scraff:

So how do you believe the world came into existence?

[Guest]

And it's impossible for anyone to prove that invisible flying unicorns don't exist. But it's unreasonable to believe that they do without evidence.

I'm sure you get tired of endlessly reiterating the same bit of logic. I know I certainly get tired of hearing it. But to quote a wise man, I believe your comparison of God to flying unicorns is "apples to turnips." (I did like your choice of words, even if I didn't agree with the thought ^^).

When a person considers the complexity of the universe and everything in it, it is completely natural, based on our human experience, to presume a designer. For any complex function having a known origin which involves the interaction of many parts to accomplish a specific purpose, we recognize that there must be an intelligence behind it. We would never stumble upon something as complex as a computer or a car and assume that it was produced by a natural process involving countless random changes. Yet, by comparison, living things are far more complex. Now, such a conclusion could, of course, simply result from a lack of perspective, a limitation of our tiny viewpoint. Humans have arrived at many intuitive, but incorrect, conclusions due to a lack of perspective, such as believing that the earth is flat, or that time is constant. Simply being intuitive doesn't make it right. It is therefore possible that the natural processes that resulted in our observable universe are too large in scope and require too much time for our small minds to easily grasp. At the same time, neither are intuitive conclusions wrong, and it is not illogical to presume they are correct until proven otherwise.

So, herein lies a major difference between believing in unicorns and believing in God. Positing a creator actually provides an explanation for these natural conclusions we make regarding the need for a designer. Flying unicorns explain nothing. Of course, the atheist immediately fires back with: "If complexity requires a designer, then wouldn't the designer, being more complex, require a designer? You've only replaced one set of problems with another." Perhaps. But how is that different than the quandary faced by the atheist? Where did all the matter and energy, and all the laws governing their behavior, come from? You inevitably reach the conclusion that there is something eternal, so I don't see how supposing that the eternal prime mover could be intelligent is any less logical than supposing everything was merely a cosmic accident. This goes back to the assertion, frequently made by Martini, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the burden of proof is thus on the believer, not the atheist. If positing an intelligent first cause reduces a great number of enigmas into just a few (where did God come from?, why would he permit suffering?, etc.), then I don't believe it's reasonable to assert that this is an irrational viewpoint which somehow requires more or less evidence than believing in nothing. After all, by not believing in God, you implicitly believe that everything we observe was the result of a colossal coincidence. I consider that an extraordinary claim which requires extraordinary evidence, and you have no more to offer than does the believer.

I don't claim that every argument present by the believers, myself included, is rock solid, or even presented in the most logical fashion. We certainly don't all agree amongst ourselves. However, what I would really like to see in these forums is a bit more respect for the views of believers, rather than the arrogant dismissal of belief in God as an ignorant and irrational viewpoint.

Incidentally, when I find time, I'd definitely like to take a stab at that list of contradictions. A quick scan revealed that most of them are trivial and easily dismissed.

[Guest]

Duh Puck:

So, in a nutshell, you're saying that everything the atheists have said to us, the theists, can be fired right back at them? If so, I agree, and I'm very glad to finally have someone else on my side.

What you are saying about showing more respect is stated in 1 Peter 3:15. I suggest all theists to check it out.

[Guest]

But it hasn't stopped you from claiming that there is evidence of a god.

It hasn't stopped you from debating it either.

And it's impossible for anyone to prove that invisible flying unicorns don't exist. But it's unreasonable to believe that they do without evidence.

Or maybe He's a construct of the human mind like invisible flying unicorns. Without any credible evidence for such a fantastic claim, that would be the reasonable position to hold.

Like Duh Puck said, "apples to turnips"

[Guest]

I believe in love.that is only and highest religion,I think. 

One thing that comes into play almost every day in my life is religion, mostly because I'm atheist, and people just won't tolerate it.

I just kinda wanted to start a debate where we all talk about our religions and well, show why we chose that religion, and just kind of talk about religion in general.

Anyone with me?

[Guest]

Like Duh Puck said, "apples to turnips"

Those were actually Scraff's words from a different thread.

So, in a nutshell, you're saying that everything the atheists have said to us, the theists, can be fired right back at them? If so, I agree, and I'm very glad to finally have someone else on my side.

Be careful not to oversimplify. I believe in God, but to be honest, I generally find the logic of atheists to be more compelling than that of theists. I believe this is because the view that we were created by God is more simplistic and intuitive, and thus held by more people who don't give it much critical thought, whereas the atheist has to think it through and consider the facts to arrive at a conclusion which differs from natural inclination. Of course, as atheism becomes more mainstream, you will end up with plenty of atheists who believe what they do simply because their parents did. Actually, that is already the case in countries like China and Russia.

So, while I'm 'on your side' in the sense that we both believe in God and the Bible, I'm not going to wholeheartedly accept or support your reasoning at face value. As I've noted before, my beliefs differ significantly from mainstream Christianity, so it's unlikely we'd agree on most of the finer details of our beliefs.

[unreality]

I believe in God, but to be honest, I generally find the logic of atheists to be more compelling than that of theists. I believe this is because the view that we were created by God is more simplistic and intuitive, and thus held by more people who don't give it much critical thought, whereas the atheist has to think it through and consider the facts to arrive at a conclusion which differs from natural inclination.

very true which is why I think some theists that blindly follow like sheep should spend some serious, unbiased, genuine thought time about their religion, and if the current religion still stands, then it's probably good enough for them ;D

Of course, as atheism becomes more mainstream, you will end up with plenty of atheists who believe what they do simply because their parents did. Actually, that is already the case in countries like China and Russia.

Which is sad. People deserve the ability to learn things for themselves, know what I mean? I dont want to see rebellious spirit against atheism just because the communists were atheists and passed it down, forcing it upon people. Openness and thinking are our greatest tools, not our opposable thumbs or supposed "souls that are better than animals" (one of the big things I dislike about religion, how humans are set apart from animals according to most religions. That's called arrogance of the human race, lol)

[Guest]

... or supposed "souls that are better than animals" (one of the big things I dislike about religion, how humans are set apart from animals according to most religions. That's called arrogance of the human race, lol)

I like animals too, unreality. Sometimes they're a lot more likable than people.

However ... regardless of how you think we got here, humans are vastly different from other animals. Even if you categorized technology as simply an advancement in the use of tools, which some animals are capable of, there is a phenomenal gap between what humans and animals have accomplished. And when you factor in abstract thought, mathematics, art, music, religious inclination, morals, highly complex languages, etc., etc., it seems silly to me to think that categorizing humans as different is somehow a form of racial arrogance. Even if we share 99.5% of the DNA of chimpanzees, there is simply no question of vast human superiority in almost every respect, with the exception of physical strength. Of course, evolutionary theory would reason that physical strength is not as important if you excel in intelligence. I can't argue with that.

[edit]

I just found this essay. Pretty amusing, imo.

Edited March 3, 2008 by Duh Puck