- A cruel god would place the tree of knowledge there and either: not tell them the consequences or trick them into eating it.
- A cruel god would create a bunch of lesser creatures and force them into unscrupulous situations and declare that they obey his own rules or suffer when they never deserved it in the first place
Neither case is that of the Christian God. Now unless you're talking about certain other views like that of the Westboro Baptist Church...

No. Archeological and Historical findings did show us that slaves and free workers existed throughout Egypt. Historians and archeologists made it clear, however, that most of the slaves and workers were not foreigners but rather came from their own people. The problem is people like to then falsely extrapolate that the Israelite were never there in the first place. Nobody said the Israelite constituted the entirety of the slave population to ever have existed in Egyptian culture, not even the Bible said that these people built all the pyramids and structures of that time. They were for what, about a couple centuries? And think about how long the Egyptian civilization has been around. If the historians were able to properly and perfectly map out every detail of the longest recorded civilized human society in history, we wouldn't have historians or archeologists anymore. Unless we were there some millenniums ago, we may never know whether anything ever existed and not a huge collusion or lie, but anyways:
Innocent? Egyptians? They burned their own children to worship their gods and idols, they brainwashed their children and other people at the time. Pharaoh's people aren't as pristine as you think they are (besides, if the people did, they'd probably try to stir a revolution).

Also, regarding the first borns. First nobody knows for sure if every one of these people were all innocent and innocuous. Like I said it's possible they could've been brainwashed by their parents. Second, sure the Egyptian first borns may have died but think about how many Israelite first borns the egyptians killed annually. Historians have said that the ratio of Egyptian first borns killed to a few years worth of Israelite first born deaths is about 1:40. Even killing ALL the egyptians at the time wouldn't have equaled the cumulative number of deaths the Israelites suffered - your assertion that "the Egyptians are hurting people, so we will hurt them back even harder" is invalid because God actually went pretty easy on these people. Third and more importantly, when innocents die, they aren't being punished at all, thus god wouldn't be sending these people to hell. There's this whole issue of the "age of understanding" theologians talk about everyday.

You have yet to show me an example of where God murders innocent people for no reason at all. Please show me examples in the Bible and I'll tell you why God did what he did.
You asked or raised issues regarding what's in the Bible so why would you refuse biblical quotes which corroborate what I'm telling you? If you hold such a bitter sentiment towards what the Bible says, fine, but if you are only going to continue posting here with a closed and bigoted mindset and only argue for the sake of venting out your hatred, then you need to stop wasting your time and move on.
Like I already told you, "beaming" his message of loving into everyone's brains is NOT giving people the choice to love and develop relationships. Thus my point still stands.

Just like how laughable I find your views on Christianity/religion. I've seen better and less myopic arguments/views from Christians and apologists. In fact, even the other Atheists here on this site and other communities I'm a part of offer more thought provoking and mature arguments than anything you have said here. I suggest you learn from those people first.

Just because an issue or question(s) exists doesn't automatically mean it "disproves" something. I recommend reading up on some of the responses these people have.

The excuse given for this by priests and others who think about these kinds of things, day and night, have come up with a simple solution: God is omnipotent, omniscient and omni-benevolent, essentially 'perfect.' This is what has made him unable to understand why we do, what we do and how we perceive things, are much different than what we do. Yet angels, who were created by god and are not all of these things, also not 100% perfect, can defect and understand things differently than either we or god does in the same sense. This is why it seems as though they act on things, where as god does not in the sense that we have Satan, fallen angels, demons and divine intervention. God does things to test us, see how we react and help himself understand us, yet again this is impossible. If anything, I thoroughly believe that God has given up on us if anything, if he even does exist. Maybe he neglects us as failed creations and has restarted elsewhere. Yet he couldn't bring himself to destroy us or didn't feel any reason to do so at this point. Think of it as two parents with a child that no matter how many times or what punishment was brought, even killing him and let him be reborn, didn't change. So they left him to fend for himself once he grew older without any form of contact.

Now don't think I am on either side here, I have just been to many churches, experienced many religions and seen a lot of sides. Currently, if anything, I feel that I just believe in a higher power. Forget the name of it.

Also: Just posting because Vrael told me not to.

That's just a tu quoque fallacy. So tell me, why do you assume blind faith is correct, and logic is an invalid way of knowing?

Okay then, you just admitted I was right, e.g. C (highlighted in red):

Interesting stuff, that link.

By the way, Jack, I'm still waiting for a real response to these:

A simple yes or no to each would suffice.

I Know I'm doing this in vain.

but for however long i can keep people distracted from arguing about their beliefs (which is pretty much arguing just for the sake of argument), the better. this'd also give me a chance to advertise my thread =P

Take a look at this: http://www.staredit.net/topic/13368/

Now, I'm gonna leave before the inevitable ragestorm begins.

It is a legitimate use of Tu quoque. I assume one thing, you and every other person with a philosophy assumes at least one thing. You could call me up, and indeed have called me up, for assuming something, but you shouldn't because you also must assume something for your philosophy.

? I said God was not omnibenevolent. That doesn't mean the rest of what you have said is correct ;0

You're not going to get a yes/no answer for those questions. For the simple reason that you're saying if tje Bible is demonstrably false, would you believe it? It is not demonstrably false, so your questions are not ever something that I will have to decide upon.

"It is not demonstrably false"

Demonstrate how the story of Noah and the Flood can be reconciled with known physics and biology, then.

Why not?

The are two valid answers to that. 1) Goddidit. 2) The earth's crust was once one piece, there were no seas, then when the water under the crust burst out, breaking the crust into pieces, the Flood happened.

Bedazed not sure who or what your question is aimed at :S

1) Nice circular reasoning and 2) How exactly did it "burst out"? If it really did "burst out", the Earth would be thrown into its first and most violent fit of earthquakes ever, how could the bible not mention it? And if it did, how could Noah's ark not topple because of the turbolence? Without water above the Earth's surface, how can life be sustained (remember that according to the bible, humans were the last creatures to be created by god)? How could the puny combined greenhouse effect sustained by only other gases like CO2 and methane protect the Earth? Why was the water ALL beneath the surface in the first place? How could marine species survive UNDERNEATH the crust? How did Noah get said marine animals onto the ark (since if he didn't then lots of them will end up flopping inland)? How did Noah figure out how to build such a huge ship, especially with ABSOLUTELY NO WATER around on land at that time? How did some of the underground water get salt and become seawater? Where did early phytoplankton, algae and diatoms in the water get their fill of sunlight?
Guys, contribute to the bombardment please :3

I actually wasn't specifically referring to where the water came from, or went, but exactly how Noah was supposed to store tens of millions of animals on a wooden ark for 40 days and nights without them killing each other, let alone storing the food and removing the waste products with just his wife and sons to do the work.

Please show that such an ark is possible without violating the known laws of physics, or biology. You said that Bible isn't demonstrably false, which means you must be able to demonstrate that it is true. So, here's your chance. Enlighten us.

@rai I never said there was no water above the surface of the earth; I said there were no seas.

@lanth Goddidit. Honestly, I could go on about ways for Noah to get past the many difficulties in shipping around so many animals but it won't change the fact that Goddidit and it won't make you think that the Bible is true. It must NOT necessarily mean that I have to demonstrate that it's true.

What tens of millions of animals are these anyway?

There is water -> evaporation -> rain -> sea. Also, if there were no seas, where do sea animals go? Moist salt shakers???
Tens of millions = all the animals on Earth. Also, since Noah must also save marine animals (since there is a large chance they'll end up stuck inland flopping) which requires him to store huge amounts of water onboard, Noah's ark goes one more step towards impossibility. And there are trees. And no, don't give me the "trees can survive by their own", they even die when you water them too much again and again for a week, let alone 40 days.

At least we can agree on this one thing. I'm kinda pissed that no one on my side of the argument gave you any credit for pointing that out. They're starting to look a little dogmatic to me

Does this mean that you just said that a logical fallacy is not fallacious.

I never said assuming was bad. I merely asked why you think blind faith is better than reason.

If you recall correctly, I said that you had proved one of my four propositions correct. not all of them.

Why, are you afraid of doubting your own beliefs? I doubt evolution and agnosticism from time to time. There's nothing wrong with changing what you believe in, because "if you don't change your mind once in awhile, it gets dirty."

That's like saying "I don't think I'll ever get in a car crash since I'm such a safe driver. After all, I've never been in a collision before. Therefore, I will never need to wear a seat belt."


Also, in Evolution Discussion Page 12 you said
... implying that you say that the Bible cannot be literally 100% true. After all, all arguments for the Bible can pretty much be summed up with this picture:

Jack, are you afraid of being wrong? Are you afraid that the world might be different than how you perceive it? Are you afraid that you've spent so many hours and years in defense of the wrong expo? There's nothing to be afraid of.

I know you probably won't change. I know you probably have so much blind faith the God and the Bible that you believe you have an impenetrable holy light of blind faith wrapped around your arguments. I don't need to remind you how many times you have used self-discrediting logical fallacies. I know that you have no intention of changing anytime soon, because you are afraid that you have the slightest change of being wrong.

But for those of you out there who are not afraid, welcome. Welcome to a world in which you are not restricted by a pile of pages from a backwards era. Welcome to a world where each individual is not afraid to think unconstrained. You do not need to rely on your peers, your parents, or your pastor in your search for truth. Listen to them, yes, but do not take everything they say as unquestionable fact. You never need to be afraid again.

I know I am not afraid. And I know most others are not afraid either. Reasonable men and women are not all members of any one religion in particular. They are Muslims, and Jews, and Buddhists, and Hindus, and atheists, and agnostics, and yes, they are Christians. The only thing that separates these fearless citizens is that they think for themselves. They take their holidays from both their house of worship and their nation. They take their morals from both society and their religion. And they take empirical evidence from earthly observation.

So welcome. Welcome one and all, who decide for themselves to become fearless, reasonable, free thinkers.

i suggest you read about tu quoque a bit more. There is a legitimate, non-fallacious use of it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque#Legitimate_use
I don't think that. I don't have any more blind faith than you. If you say I do you, you're getting rather ad hominem-ey.
i was making sure you didn't think I agreed with you 100% ;0
I do doubt my beliefs from time to time. But so far Christianity has all the answers for me, and nothing else does.
No, it's like saying I DRIVE A TANK, there are no seatbelts, and I CRASH INTO YOU, not you into me ;0
i think the Bible is 100% true, but parts of it are poetic; they are true but not literal.
pfft, I'm never wrong ;0 I could say exactly the same to you; what is YOUR answer to that question?

Replace God and the Bible in the first paragraph with evolution and humanistic philosophies, and read it to yourself as if I said it.

Foe the rest, k.

Wait, if you are saying that God is not omnibenevolent, then are you saying God is not a good God? Remember, kindness does not equate to goodness; to be good is to not be kind at times.

Omni-benevolent as in all-loving. Probably not the most accurate definition of the term, as the Latin it comes from is all-good, but the English definition on Wiktionary has both all-good and all-loving. God doesn't love everything, but God is 100% good.

Using tu quoque undermines your credibility, but I suppose it doesn't invalidate your other arguments. Would you care to prove how blind faith is a better way of knowing than any other method?

Please explain. You believe completely in the Bible, which can only be validated by blind faith. I believe in logic and reason as a way of knowing. I am asking you why do you think your way is better than all the others.

Christian scientists != real scientists. Christian scientists have conclusions and then search for evidence that supports their conclusion, and hide/throw away the evidence that undermines their already-"known"-to-be-true law. Real scientists go into the field, observe the natural world, and then draw conclusions from experimental data.

Obviously, the side with the Bible is more valid, since it only takes the data that helps the pre-formed conclusion.[/sarcasm]

Except for I'm driving a train, and it's carrying 10,000 tanks, so when you try to take me head on, you'll get crushed.

Hasn't there ever been a time when the Bible was demonstrated to be false? I'm pretty sure the Earth revolves around the sun.

Oh wait, that was actually a poetic passage. How are we supposed to tell the difference?

Please, Jack, show us how the Bible is so infallible. Hopefully your arguments will not be broken by the Circle of Power.

I am not infallible. I could be wrong. I probably am wrong on some subjects. We are all human, thus we are not perfect. (Unless you define perfect to be what you currently are. That is known as arrogance in most circles.)

I thought God loves everybody (as in, all humans). If God loves all humans, why does he allow needless suffering (such as malaria) to happen? Couldn't he just make the world so that you only get mortally sick after committing a terrible sin? Or is being born poor a sin in itself?

You're making a lot of assumptions here. First, how do you know it was tens of thousands? All dogs today could have come from a single dog. Also, the animals on board were probably babies. One type of cat, one type of dog, one type of lizard, etc. There are only a couple thousand different KINDS of animals.

Also, the boat could have been constructed with a moon well so it wouldn't break in two as it went over the crest of large swells. The moon well could also be used as a giant piston to circulate fresh air to the bottom levels. Also, you're assuming people were the same size as they are now; according to Creationism people were a lot larger in the past due mainly to nutritional and atmospheric differences, actually, all organisms were larger including trees and the cubit (length of forearm) used to measure the ark.

This should answer all your qeustions and then some with some very interesting and capably solid answers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SY0rj-TEx4o - Warning, it is a long video. Although, if you're so interested in attacking Creationism you ought to study it and figure out what it is before casting judgement.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Apr 12 2011, 12:36 am by CecilSunkure.

Assumption.

Assumption. Baby animals are also much more difficult to look after than adults, and much more likely to die during a 40 day and night voyage. So you're trading the "space" problem for one in difficulty of actually caring for young. Most young mammals can only survive on their mothers milk, also.

In which case you're argueing in favour of evolution. There are lots of different existing species of animals that can be shown to be infertile when bred together. As in, tens of thousands. But apparently there are only about a thousand "kinds" of animals? So how come new species exist now which cannot interbreed with each other.

If all this happened less than 7000 years ago, lets see all these skeletons and fossils of these huge people and other animals.

Sorry, but all your answers fall into "wishful thinking".