Staredit Network > Forums > Serious Discussion > Topic: "Read the bible to believe god exists?"
"Read the bible to believe god exists?"
Dec 10 2008, 6:46 am
By: KrayZee
Pages: < 1 15 16 17 18 1922 >
 

Apr 6 2011, 5:03 am MillenniumArmy Post #321



Quote from name:private_parts
Quote from MillenniumArmy
Private_parts, you seem to be baffled about how anyone can consider this God loving or just.
- God made very clear to Adam and Eve not to eat from a certain tree, otherwise they will be banished from the Garden. They ended up eating an apple from that tree, and as a result that is where sin entered the world. It's so simple: do. not. eat. from the tree or you WILL suffer the consequences, that is a Just God. Do not get "just" and "cruel" confused.
Yes the 'tree of knowledge', the tree we musn't go near. You can see the analogy with religion there, I'm sure....

A God who was not cruel would not even place the tree there. Nor would such a God create a bunch of lesser creatures and then force them to obey his own rules or suffer. Perhaps you and I have a different definition of cruel? From what I can see, your God is a sadist...
- 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...

Quote
Quote from MillenniumArmy
- The Egyptians enslaved the Israelites for years. Treated them like shit, beat them up, killed many of their babies. Horrible stuff. God sent Moses to tell the Pharaoh to put an end to all this atrocity, otherwise they will be punished. Pharaoh refused. So the first plagued happened, Pharaoh still refused, then the second came, it took ten to wake Pharaoh up and realize what he was doing is wrong. This is the work of a Just God, all the guy had to do was follow a simple and very doable thing, but no he chose to do it the hard way..
Ok well firstly no historian will tell you that the Egyptians enslaved the Israelites. The slave-owner myth has been shown to be false through archeological and historical findings. Exodus did not happen, what we do know actually contradicts with the Bible. But of course, if you take words in a book over empirical evidence, then what I have said won't mean much to you, which is unfortunate.
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:
Quote
Second, it is just another case of the barbaric thinking back then. The Egyptians are hurting people, so we will hurt them back even harder! And not only that, but God punishes everyone else for the Pharaohs own stubbornness, punishes innocents. Nowhere in today's morality will you find anyone advocating the transference of punishment from the wicked to the innocent, it is completely backward... Killing a hundreds of first borns for the actions of one man is NOT what an omnibenevolent creature would do. But, as I said with Jack - if you are holding the question of omnibenevolence 'off the table' - then you HAVE to justify absolutely everything he does as somehow being good, no matter how wicked it actually is...
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.
Quote
Quote from MillenniumArmy
- Ok, since we "chose" to sin, that means we're all doomed to hell and we're going to suffer like no other? How malicious! No, like Jack said, sending His son to take our punishment for us is a sign of love.
Quote from John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

I could give more examples, but I don't want to waste any more time.
Yes, please stop wasting time, Bible quotes mean absolutely nothing to me, as said above in Jack's comment. Please, use your own words.
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.
Quote
Quote from MillenniumArmy
"But wait, why didn't he just simply say 'you are all forgiven' and be done like that?"
Because he wants us to choose to love him, to have a relationship with him. Otherwise, we'd be like robots who do everything as he commands. That's not love, love is a choice. And do not get "just" and "malevolence" mixed up. He is a just God in that he makes it clear what the ramifications are if we choose not to accept him. "Wait so God is blackmailing us into having to believe in him!" No, he just asks us to do something so simple. I could go on, but I highly doubt you'll read or care any further.
No. I mean why was the method of forgiveness a HUMAN SACRIFICE. This would basically be God's train of thought.
"HMMM - I want to forgive everyone of their transgressions conditionally."
"How should I do this...?"
"I know - I will send a portion of myself down to planet Earth, and then get myself killed, and then bring myself back to life. Yeah, that'll do the trick"
"Ha yes, my plan worked perfectly. Now I will set up the condition being you have to believe in me and/or follow a certain amount of commandments (different sects of Christianity differ here), and if they don't do that - then I'm sending them to Hell!"

It is just so silly.... He could have done the same thing without the sacrifice - he's omnipotent! He could have beamed his message of love into everyones brains, he could have written his statement of forgiveness in blazing fire across the sky, he could have gone around personally hugging everyone. But he does nothing of the sort, he has it be a violent act of murder followed by a nonsensical resurrection.
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.

Quote
To someone who is not already believing in God and trying to justify these things after the fact - it is just so laughably obvious that the story is wrong. Even as a work of fiction - ugh, its a terrible story.
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.

Quote from rayNimagi
If God is omniscient and omnipotent, he has the power to do anything and everything.
If God is omnibenevolent, he never lets anything bad happen in the world.
Bad things happen in the world.
Therefore, God is either:
A) not omniscient, and/or
B) not omnipotent, and/or
C) not omnibenevolent, and/or
D) God has a different definition of "good" than the Bible does.

As I said before, it's possible for a non-omnipotent God to exist. But the real world... let's say... "disproves"... the God of the Bible.

...
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.



None.

Apr 7 2011, 10:28 pm LoveLess Post #322

Let me show you how to hump without making love.

Quote from MillenniumArmy
Quote from name:private_parts
Quote from MillenniumArmy
Private_parts, you seem to be baffled about how anyone can consider this God loving or just.
- God made very clear to Adam and Eve not to eat from a certain tree, otherwise they will be banished from the Garden. They ended up eating an apple from that tree, and as a result that is where sin entered the world. It's so simple: do. not. eat. from the tree or you WILL suffer the consequences, that is a Just God. Do not get "just" and "cruel" confused.
Yes the 'tree of knowledge', the tree we musn't go near. You can see the analogy with religion there, I'm sure....

A God who was not cruel would not even place the tree there. Nor would such a God create a bunch of lesser creatures and then force them to obey his own rules or suffer. Perhaps you and I have a different definition of cruel? From what I can see, your God is a sadist...
- 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...

Quote from rayNimagi
If God is omniscient and omnipotent, he has the power to do anything and everything.
If God is omnibenevolent, he never lets anything bad happen in the world.
Bad things happen in the world.
Therefore, God is either:
A) not omniscient, and/or
B) not omnipotent, and/or
C) not omnibenevolent, and/or
D) God has a different definition of "good" than the Bible does.

As I said before, it's possible for a non-omnipotent God to exist. But the real world... let's say... "disproves"... the God of the Bible.

...
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.



None.

Apr 9 2011, 8:15 pm rayNimagi Post #323



Quote from Jack
Awright *cracks knuckles*
at some point in time, every philosophy has circular reasoning involved. One must assume at least one thing to base a philosophy on, for example, I think, therefore I am.the Christian religion assumes the Bible is true as the foundation.

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?

Quote from Jack
God is not omnibenevolent. 'Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated.' ever heard of Sodom and Gomorrah? The flood? How about hell? No, God is not omnibenevolent, and the Bible never says He is.
Okay then, you just admitted I was right, e.g. C (highlighted in red):

Quote from MillenniumArmy
Quote from rayNimagi
If God is omniscient and omnipotent, he has the power to do anything and everything.
If God is omnibenevolent, he never lets anything bad happen in the world.
Bad things happen in the world.
Therefore, God is either:
A) not omniscient, and/or
B) not omnipotent, and/or
C) not omnibenevolent, and/or
D) God has a different definition of "good" than the Bible does.

As I said before, it's possible for a non-omnipotent God to exist. But the real world... let's say... "disproves"... the God of the Bible.

...

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.
Interesting stuff, that link.

By the way, Jack, I'm still waiting for a real response to these:
Quote
Jack, do you believe in the atomic theory? If the Bible said that atoms did not exist, would you believe the Bible?

Jack, do you believe in a geocentric universe? The Bible says that the sun revolves around the Earth. Do you believe the Bible?

Do you believe in unicorns? If the Bible said that unicorns exist, and no one has even seen a unicorn, would you believe the Bible?

If the Bible said that you should cut your limbs off at the age of 21, would you do so? Would you cut others' limbs off in the name of God, if he declared it to be holy?

Why do you believe so steadfastly in a document that has become obsolete (or at least many parts of it)? I, and many people here, agree with many of the morals here, but why would you hold back progress because just people didn't know any better two thousand years ago?

If Jesus came to Earth and declared that the Bible had been corrupted by mortals, what would you believe? If Jesus said that Evolution is true, and the Earth was several billion years old, would you still believe in the Bible?

A simple yes or no to each would suffice.



Win by luck, lose by skill.

Apr 9 2011, 8:53 pm UnholyUrine Post #324



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.



None.

Apr 9 2011, 8:54 pm Jack Post #325

>be faceless void >mfw I have no face

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.



Red classic.

Apr 9 2011, 9:12 pm Lanthanide Post #326



"It is not demonstrably false"

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



None.

Apr 9 2011, 9:29 pm BeDazed Post #327



Why not?



None.

Apr 10 2011, 1:04 am Jack Post #328

>be faceless void >mfw I have no face

Quote from Lanthanide
"It is not demonstrably false"

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



Red classic.

Apr 10 2011, 3:05 am Raitaki Post #329



Quote from Jack
Quote from Lanthanide
"It is not demonstrably false"

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



None.

Apr 10 2011, 3:17 am Lanthanide Post #330



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.



None.

Apr 10 2011, 3:31 am Jack Post #331

>be faceless void >mfw I have no face

@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?



Red classic.

Apr 10 2011, 1:53 pm Raitaki Post #332



Quote from Jack
@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.



None.

Apr 10 2011, 9:31 pm ClansAreForGays Post #333



Quote from Jack
God is not omnibenevolent. 'Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated.' ever heard of Sodom and Gomorrah? The flood? How about hell? No, God is not omnibenevolent, and the Bible never says He is.
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 :unsure:




Apr 11 2011, 2:24 am rayNimagi Post #334



Quote from Jack
It is a legitimate use of Tu quoque.
Does this mean that you just said that a logical fallacy is not fallacious.

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

Quote
? I said God was not omnibenevolent. That doesn't mean the rest of what you have said is correct ;0
If you recall correctly, I said that you had proved one of my four propositions correct. not all of them.

Quote
You're not going to get a yes/no answer for those questions.
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."

Quote
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.
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
Quote
I don't think all the Bible should be taken literally
... 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:
Quote from Apos
How to Defeat Circular Reasoning

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.



Win by luck, lose by skill.

Apr 11 2011, 3:11 am Jack Post #335

>be faceless void >mfw I have no face

Quote from rayNimagi
Quote from Jack
It is a legitimate use of Tu quoque.
Does this mean that you just said that a logical fallacy is not fallacious.
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
Quote
Quote
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 never said assuming was bad. I merely asked why you think blind faith is better than reason.
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.
Quote
Quote
? I said God was not omnibenevolent. That doesn't mean the rest of what you have said is correct ;0
If you recall correctly, I said that you had proved one of my four propositions correct. not all of them.
i was making sure you didn't think I agreed with you 100% ;0
Quote
Quote
You're not going to get a yes/no answer for those questions.
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."
I do doubt my beliefs from time to time. But so far Christianity has all the answers for me, and nothing else does.
Quote
Quote
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.
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."
No, it's like saying I DRIVE A TANK, there are no seatbelts, and I CRASH INTO YOU, not you into me ;0
Quote
Also, in Evolution Discussion Page 12 you said
Quote
I don't think all the Bible should be taken literally
... 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:
Quote from Apos
How to Defeat Circular Reasoning
i think the Bible is 100% true, but parts of it are poetic; they are true but not literal.
Quote
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.
pfft, I'm never wrong ;0 I could say exactly the same to you; what is YOUR answer to that question?

Quote
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.
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.



Red classic.

Apr 11 2011, 6:13 am MillenniumArmy Post #336



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.



None.

Apr 11 2011, 9:49 am Jack Post #337

>be faceless void >mfw I have no face

Quote from MillenniumArmy
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.



Red classic.

Apr 12 2011, 12:11 am rayNimagi Post #338



Quote from Jack
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
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?

Quote from Jack
I don't have any more blind faith than you.
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.

Quote from Jack
I do doubt my beliefs from time to time. But so far Christianity has all the answers for me, and nothing else does.
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]

Quote from Jack
Quote from rayNimagi
Quote from Jack
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.
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."
No, it's like saying I DRIVE A TANK, there are no seatbelts, and I CRASH INTO YOU, not you into me ;0
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? :wut:

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

Quote
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.
Quote from Jack
pfft, I'm never wrong ;0 I could say exactly the same to you; what is YOUR answer to that question?
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.)

Quote from Jack
Quote from MillenniumArmy
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.
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?



Win by luck, lose by skill.

Apr 12 2011, 12:25 am CecilSunkure Post #339



Quote from Lanthanide
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.
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.



None.

Apr 12 2011, 1:25 am Lanthanide Post #340



Quote
All dogs today could have come from a single dog.
Assumption.

Quote
Also, the animals on board were probably babies.
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.

Quote
There are only a couple thousand different KINDS of animals.
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.

Quote
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.
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".



None.

Options
Pages: < 1 15 16 17 18 1922 >
  Back to forum
Please log in to reply to this topic or to report it.
Members in this topic: None.
[09:33 am]
Suicidal Insanity -- I may have helped a little :P
[06:53 am]
O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- Zoan
Zoan shouted: it's just funny that our site has had an impact like that on Blizz - like int he Blizz launcher it says "Return of EUD maps!" We caused that :3
reminds me of when they patched them out XD
[06:24 am]
Cool-Knight -- LMAO! Zoan
Zoan shouted: should called them MEMEs instead of EUDs
Ah. So it's thanks to Heinermann should called them MEMEs instead of EUDs then blizz coulda been like MEME MAPS HAVE RETURNED!
[06:09 am]
Heinermann -- I had nothing to do with EUDs coming back lol
[05:26 am]
Zoan -- then blizz coulda been like MEME MAPS HAVE RETURNED!
[05:26 am]
Zoan -- should called them MEMEs instead of EUDs
[05:25 am]
Zoan -- Ah. So it's thanks to Heinermann
[05:23 am]
lil-Inferno -- Zoan
Zoan shouted: Didn't we come up with the term EUD thou
Heinermann did, ya, and I'm pretty sure he was talking with Blizzard developers a while ago which is likely how they picced up the name
[05:19 am]
Zoan -- Hyper Fog of War is a relic now
[05:00 am]
Ahli -- blizz re-added euds because they are srs bsnss in kr, afaik
Please log in to shout.


Members Online: RIVE, Roy, Kimsan, Heinermann