Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yes, you're right, because it is special pleading. Why don't you believe in the Koran, or the Bhagavad-Gita? Simply because you were born, geographically where the bible is taught. There is no more evidence to assume the bible is correct over the Koran. They are supernatural claims that can not be backed up. What's worse, is that if this god does exist, why on earth would he be rely on ancient peoples to pass this on in the way that it happened? If this god is omnipotent, and wanted to communicate his message to his beings, he could have chosen a less controversial way to do so. There are too many glaring questions such as these if I were to accept the bible, and so I remain unconvinced about the truth of the bible whatsoever. I think it is an interesting document, but I don't see how anybody could actually think it was inspired by an all-knowing, ever-present, loving deity. It would seem the opposite, made by a god who doesn't care enough to use better mediums to transmit his message. There is plenty of room for doubt in assessing the bible, and the excuse of faith is not a justification for believing, and it is not virtuous to have faith. It is gullibility, in my opinion.
As for why I am here, this is a creationist DEBATE thread made by someone who questioned creationism.
I do believe in both the Quran and the Bhagavad-Gita. I choose to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.
But since you're so convinced that God doesn't exist, why do you spend so much effort trying to persuade us that we are wrong?
If we are wrong then let us be wrong. How does it hurt you?
It's not so simple to "leave you alone" because the actions of religious people affect others.
Plenty of people think Bibles and korrans and Mafioso Books of the Dead do relate an accurate worldview, and that opinion crosses into social constructs, and those social constructs impact individuals’ freedoms. It leverages political decisions. It lends weight to laws that are developed and implemented.
Yet one cannot, according to you, apply the same strictures humans gain for knowledge against your holy book. Your particular interpretation, you argue, "gets a pass".
No, it doesn't. Your argument highlights the notion that "I've heard some who say that you have some sort of body in the afterlife" is not a firm requirement of all knowledge-based issues of human endeavor. Just because Christians claim the bible has a reputation of "holiness" doesn't qualify it as having some sort of special dispensation. It boils down to facts: Either these things happened, or they didn't. Either the message is a true one, or it's a false one.
Logic allows us to read and understand the contextual message of Bibles at the very start. Without logic and reason, you wouldn't understand the thing at all. I see no reason then, halfway through, to jettison the same rules of logic and reason as magically inapplicable, simply because the book has some sort of special reputation as being "holy".
Read it like fiction. Because that is what it is. How do we know this? Because from the outset, it tells a tale that is demonstrably false, as false as the Origin fables of Valhalla, or the sky lodge of the Iroquois. We never have any debates over the whole "It's turtles all the way down" creation myths, do we?It's always the “holy text” of the week mythology we wrestle over.
Which is completely without merit.
It doesn't hurt me. This is a debate. It is fun to exchange ideas. I am still technically open to the idea of a god, if I am convinced. I hold no presuppositions that a god necessarily doesn't exist, since I don't believe that god doesn't exist. I simply don't hold the belief that one does. This distinction may seem non-existent, but it is very important. I tried for many years to be a christian, talking to pastors in college, reading the bible, praying... I was never convinced that any of it was true. I never felt anything, and it never helped me.
You believe in the god of the Koran too, in the teachings, in the claims? This is impossible, as the propositions of Islam and Christianity are mutually exclusive. If Jesus said "I am the only way to god," That means that there is no other way, excluding all other possibilities. Muslims believe the Koran is the final word from god, so what it says in that book supercedes anything written in the bible. Christianity and Islam can not both be true. If it can, please tell me how.
What would it take for you to believe?
Do you need a miracle? Do you need to see God with your own eyes?
As a Christian I believe the only way to The Father is through the Son. So both Chistianity and Islam cannot be true. IMO
It would take a miracle for me to believe, because at this point, I think the christian god is a logical impossibility, by its very own definition. It is claimed to be a perfect being, yet needs a relationship with us. That is a contradiction. A perfect being wouldn't need anything, and wouldn't be jealous. These are all very human attributes, and so, imperfect. I am therefore absolutely certain that the christian god does not exist. However, I can not be certain that some kind of deity does exist somewhere within, or even outside the universe, such as a deist god. There is so much about the christian god that seems so highly implausible to me at this point. To be honest, I want to believe because I struggle with mental health quite a bit and it causes me a lot of suffering, and an all loving god is a really nice thought, but that doesn't mean it exists. I refuse to let my emotional needs create something to alleviate personal suffering. In other words, I am not going to believe something because it feels good. I want it to be true. I care more about truth, than about what feels good to my limited mind.
What would it take for you to believe?
Do you need a miracle? Do you need to see God with your own eyes?
As a Christian I believe the only way to The Father is through the Son. So both Chistianity and Islam cannot be true. IMO
It would take a miracle for me to believe, because at this point, I think the christian god is a logical impossibility, by its very own definition. It is claimed to be a perfect being, yet needs a relationship with us. That is a contradiction. A perfect being wouldn't need anything, and wouldn't be jealous. These are all very human attributes, and so, imperfect. I am therefore absolutely certain that the christian god does not exist. However, I can not be certain that some kind of deity does exist somewhere within, or even outside the universe, such as a deist god. There is so much about the christian god that seems so highly implausible to me at this point. To be honest, I want to believe because I struggle with mental health quite a bit and it causes me a lot of suffering, and an all loving god is a really nice thought, but that doesn't mean it exists. I refuse to let my emotional needs create something to alleviate personal suffering. In other words, I am not going to believe something because it feels good. I want it to be true. I care more about truth, than about what feels good to my limited mind.
So if one is perect he doesn't need relationships? Explain that.
Why wouldn't God share some of the same attributes as his creations?
In order to be a Christian it requires faith.
Don't mention the number of peer reviewed articles for ID and cite this as evidence that ID is a legitimate scientific theory. In comparison to the number of peer reviewed articles about evolution, it is next to nothing. Why is this? Because the facts for ID don't bear out.
Project Steve: A list of scientists named Steve, who support the theory of evolution. (hint: it is more than the entire list of creation pseudo-scientists who "dissent from evolution")
Project Steve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
NP, at the risk of sounding like Loki, this is an appeal to the masses fallacy. Also, even though I will make the claim now, my post before was only related to the fact that ID peer-reviewed studies exist and so far Hollie has chosen to ignore them. I do believe ID is legitimate science, every bit as legitimate as the Darwinian Myth.
Of course it is an appeal to popular opinion to cite Project Steve, but it still illustrates a point. It doesn't necessarily make the claims of evolution true, and that wasn't why I posted it, but it does mean that thousands upon thousands of experts who know far more than you or I about the subject at hand, do think that evolution is true. What's more, is they are actively using this information in their field to improve and understand our world, demonstrated by the technology we see around us in medical biology (ie, vaccines). This is a concrete example of the fruits of understanding evolution, as it lies at the center of understanding biology. The same can not be said for IDers, as their model provides no predictive power. Name one example of predictive power that ID provides.
If the tables were turned, but the facts of evolution were the same, including its inception time (150 years ago), and there only a handful of scientists who believed in it, and the vast majority of scientists believed in creationism; again, it wouldn't mean that either side was necessarily true or false, but it would mean that people who have the firmest grasp of the material seem to be convinced that the propositions of ID are true. Based on this, I might also more seriously consider that side based simply on popular opinion, because this involves somewhat esoteric knowledge, especially in application, which neither you or I have the capability to do. You may study evolution simply to further debunk it, which I know you do, but you do not actually attempt to every apply this knowledge to anything in the universe, because your ideas are not empirically tested in any way. That's a critical distinction. Biologists do. Iders don't, because their hypothesis doesn't offer them this capability .
I do believe in both the Quran and the Bhagavad-Gita. I choose to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.
But since you're so convinced that God doesn't exist, why do you spend so much effort trying to persuade us that we are wrong?
If we are wrong then let us be wrong. How does it hurt you?
It's not so simple to "leave you alone" because the actions of religious people affect others.
Plenty of people think Bibles and korrans and Mafioso Books of the Dead do relate an accurate worldview, and that opinion crosses into social constructs, and those social constructs impact individuals freedoms. It leverages political decisions. It lends weight to laws that are developed and implemented.
Yet one cannot, according to you, apply the same strictures humans gain for knowledge against your holy book. Your particular interpretation, you argue, "gets a pass".
No, it doesn't. Your argument highlights the notion that "I've heard some who say that you have some sort of body in the afterlife" is not a firm requirement of all knowledge-based issues of human endeavor. Just because Christians claim the bible has a reputation of "holiness" doesn't qualify it as having some sort of special dispensation. It boils down to facts: Either these things happened, or they didn't. Either the message is a true one, or it's a false one.
Logic allows us to read and understand the contextual message of Bibles at the very start. Without logic and reason, you wouldn't understand the thing at all. I see no reason then, halfway through, to jettison the same rules of logic and reason as magically inapplicable, simply because the book has some sort of special reputation as being "holy".
Read it like fiction. Because that is what it is. How do we know this? Because from the outset, it tells a tale that is demonstrably false, as false as the Origin fables of Valhalla, or the sky lodge of the Iroquois. We never have any debates over the whole "It's turtles all the way down" creation myths, do we?It's always the holy text of the week mythology we wrestle over.
Which is completely without merit.
I concur with Hollie. Lonestar, you ask me to "leave you alone," yet in no way, do you leave me alone. Christians have been trying to inch their way into the political establishment since this country started, and in doing so, attempt to affect my life. It is again, asking for special treatment of me to not bother you, when your beliefs are responsible for attempts at undermining the constitution, and my rights.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb6Z6NVmLt8"]Evolution Predicts Ring Species[/ame]NP, at the risk of sounding like Loki, this is an appeal to the masses fallacy. Also, even though I will make the claim now, my post before was only related to the fact that ID peer-reviewed studies exist and so far Hollie has chosen to ignore them. I do believe ID is legitimate science, every bit as legitimate as the Darwinian Myth.
Of course it is an appeal to popular opinion to cite Project Steve, but it still illustrates a point. It doesn't necessarily make the claims of evolution true, and that wasn't why I posted it, but it does mean that thousands upon thousands of experts who know far more than you or I about the subject at hand, do think that evolution is true. What's more, is they are actively using this information in their field to improve and understand our world, demonstrated by the technology we see around us in medical biology (ie, vaccines). This is a concrete example of the fruits of understanding evolution, as it lies at the center of understanding biology. The same can not be said for IDers, as their model provides no predictive power. Name one example of predictive power that ID provides.
Evolution does not provide predictive power ...
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form and empty. And darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved on the face of the waters.
Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light. And there was light.
Gen 1:4 And God saw the light that it was good. And God divided between the light and the darkness.
Gen 1:5 And God called the light, Day. And He called the darkness, Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
If God created with lengthy days that means death happened before the punishment was handed down to man for sin.
Astounding Evidence for a Young Earth - Bruce Malone - YouTube
YWC, I've watched the video and listened to some of his assertions and I just don't agree with them. He is basing his points of HIS interpretation of the Creation story outlined in Genesis. He says that the you can't refute the fact that Genesis refers to 7 solar days, but for the first three "days" of Creation, we don't even have the sun yet. Also, he claims the author is repeating himself when talking about man twice. I get the whole argument about the dating methods and their inaccuracy. Even Loki would admit they are scientifically proven for the short timeframe we can measure and account for. However, I've been to the Grand Canyon. I've seen an overwhelming amount of evidence that points to a much older earth. But back to the story: If I want to take the Creation story literally and chronologically, I have to consider the fact the story about Adam comes later after Creation and after spirit-less hominids, male and female, roamed the earth, and multiplied. There are two stories, one in which male and female are created in a day, and another in which Adam was created, hung out with the animals in the garden for a while and then got lonely. Does it only take Adam 24 hours to name the animals and realize he needs a woman? The speaker has not considered this. He tells me to take the Bible exactly as it is written, but then he does not do so himself. If male and female were created in a solar day, then this does not reconcile with the Adam and Eve story. I believe God did place his new Creation, Homo Sapien, in the garden. Again, let's take the Bible exactly as it is written. We are told Adam and Eve have two sons. We are not told of any other children prior to this. Yet Cain goes to another land and takes a wife. The guy in your video wants to make up the fact that Adam and Eve had other children, but how can this additive story reconcile with the Bible? It can't. Again, your speaker is not taking the Bible for what it exactly says, but is filling in the blanks to make HIS version of the story fit his interpretation. Cain took a Neanderthal wife and there is dna evidence to back this up. Also, this interpretation of the story can be reconciled with fossil evidence, and it doesn't cram all of Creation into 6,000 years. Creationists are locked into as 6,000 year old earth, because they cling to the notion everything was made in six earthly days, including Adam, and then they lock themselves into the calculations of times for the genealogy of Christ. However, if they actually read Genesis for the information it conveyed to the Jews at the time it was written, they would realize that the earth could have existed for billions of years, and the garden of Eden only in the last six to ten thousand years. They also miss the Jewish tradition of leaving un-noteworthy individuals out of the family tree, so the genealogy fails to account for missing generations. I put the garden at 10,000 years ago and believe God visited the earth to create them both with a new dna structure. Adam would be different than all the hominids before. They would be given the choice. He would no longer act on instinct, but would choose to have God's knowledge of good and evil. An animal does not care that it is naked. An animal has no remorse over killing its food. Adam and Eve would be different. They would see things through God's eyes. Once they ate of the tree, they immediately realized they were naked.
Some of the points I've made can be crammed fit into the Creation story. Yet, I don't really even feel the need to do that to a point. Jesus was fond of telling parables that conveyed a deeper meaning. How do we, as modern day Christians, know that Moses was writing down a literal story. Maybe it was a parable told to generations of Jews to convey the deeper principles of the fall. The Jews at the time could have no the story was a metaphor, but over the course of thousands of years, someone along the way decided it was literal. Who was that? And again, my question for you, who decided Christ command to gouge out your eye was not literal? There are alot of Christians that just want a little neat black and white story that doesn't beg any questions. They need to fit Christianity into a little box because they don't want to think about the bigger questions. I do want to think about the bigger questions. While I believe the Bible is true, God is not the Bible. And God cannot be contained in the Bible. The Bible says God spat stars out of his "mouth" [I don't believe God has a mouth. The Bible also says God is spirit. Obviously, I believe Jesus had a mouth while he was on earth]. Do you have any idea how big Star R136a1 is? I don't need to make my massive God fit in 66 tiny little books. I believe the Bible is inspired scripture, but it isn't God. It was written by man, and it can't contain God, or even begin to describe how awesome and how massive our Creator is. If most Christians really had a feel for the reality of that, they would be alot more humble, myself included.
I can't say what the light was before the sun and moon was created but clearly he described a day as we see it. If you do not trust the bible what are your beliefs in God based on ? Why are elements still found in rocks that should have been gone in an old world view ? That is supposedly what the age of the earth is based on correct ? At the rate the moon and earth are receding that to is a problem for old earth views. If the bible was inspired by God that is the only book that provides an eyewitness to creation and the beginning. If would put text books ahead of what the bible say's in a sense what is being done ?
Fundie Christians don't react well to challenges to their bible tales.
What challenge have you offered ,you run from my questions, you copy and paste things that have nothing to do with my ????. You are bold writing some of the things you write knowing people are reading this thread.
YWC, if you want to use the bible as a credible source, it has to be demonstrated as being a credible source first. You, nor anyone else, can do that, because it simply is not, just like the Koran is not a credible source, or the Bhagavad Gita. It is special pleading to simply ask people to accept the bible as authority without justification. There is plenty reason to think the bible is not credible. It is an ancient book. We know none of the authors, have no signatures, and they are all translations or translations of copies of translations by authors with an agenda. You can not demonstrate empirically that any of it is the word of god, and therefore, that any of it, is actually true, hence why you must take it on faith. So, stop using the bible in this thread as if it means anything here in terms of proving you're point, because it doesn't. You can't use the bible to prove the bible.
You can't demonstrate that all of those different authors, are who they say they are. The historicity of the bible does not even bear out with what we know to be true about history, which is another indictment against its credibility. For instance, Matt, Mark, Luke and John, were not the authors of their respective gospels. We have no signatures on those documents. Those names were assigned to those gospels later. Who's to say the same wasn't done to books in the OT? Until you can provide justification for someone else to believe the bible is credible, citing passages from it is really pointless.
NP, at the risk of sounding like Loki, this is an appeal to the masses fallacy. Also, even though I will make the claim now, my post before was only related to the fact that ID peer-reviewed studies exist and so far Hollie has chosen to ignore them. I do believe ID is legitimate science, every bit as legitimate as the Darwinian Myth.
Of course it is an appeal to popular opinion to cite Project Steve, but it still illustrates a point. It doesn't necessarily make the claims of evolution true, and that wasn't why I posted it, but it does mean that thousands upon thousands of experts who know far more than you or I about the subject at hand, do think that evolution is true. What's more, is they are actively using this information in their field to improve and understand our world, demonstrated by the technology we see around us in medical biology (ie, vaccines). This is a concrete example of the fruits of understanding evolution, as it lies at the center of understanding biology. The same can not be said for IDers, as their model provides no predictive power. Name one example of predictive power that ID provides.
Evolution does not provide predictive power so I'm not sure what your point it. Here is an article for you though...
Darwin's God: Evolution (Not) Crucial in Antibiotics Breakthrough: How Science is Actually Done
If the tables were turned, but the facts of evolution were the same, including its inception time (150 years ago), and there only a handful of scientists who believed in it, and the vast majority of scientists believed in creationism; again, it wouldn't mean that either side was necessarily true or false, but it would mean that people who have the firmest grasp of the material seem to be convinced that the propositions of ID are true. Based on this, I might also more seriously consider that side based simply on popular opinion, because this involves somewhat esoteric knowledge, especially in application, which neither you or I have the capability to do. You may study evolution simply to further debunk it, which I know you do, but you do not actually attempt to every apply this knowledge to anything in the universe, because your ideas are not empirically tested in any way. That's a critical distinction. Biologists do. Iders don't, because their hypothesis doesn't offer them this capability .
This is nonsense. We would be MUCH farther along if we viewed biology as having been designed. A reverse engineering approach would provide answers much faster than drudging along trying to prove how it randomly happened. More time is wasted trying to bolster the Darwin party line by looking for proof's than is spent actually looking for solutions. If we already know the solution, i.e., it was designed. We can go about the work of scientific advancement.
Also, don't think for one second the mass brainwashing of scientists doesn't have HUGE metaphysical implications and motivations.
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form and empty. And darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved on the face of the waters.
Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light. And there was light.
Gen 1:4 And God saw the light that it was good. And God divided between the light and the darkness.
Gen 1:5 And God called the light, Day. And He called the darkness, Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
If God created with lengthy days that means death happened before the punishment was handed down to man for sin.
Astounding Evidence for a Young Earth - Bruce Malone - YouTube
YWC, I've watched the video and listened to some of his assertions and I just don't agree with them. He is basing his points of HIS interpretation of the Creation story outlined in Genesis. He says that the you can't refute the fact that Genesis refers to 7 solar days, but for the first three "days" of Creation, we don't even have the sun yet. Also, he claims the author is repeating himself when talking about man twice. I get the whole argument about the dating methods and their inaccuracy. Even Loki would admit they are scientifically proven for the short timeframe we can measure and account for. However, I've been to the Grand Canyon. I've seen an overwhelming amount of evidence that points to a much older earth. But back to the story: If I want to take the Creation story literally and chronologically, I have to consider the fact the story about Adam comes later after Creation and after spirit-less hominids, male and female, roamed the earth, and multiplied. There are two stories, one in which male and female are created in a day, and another in which Adam was created, hung out with the animals in the garden for a while and then got lonely. Does it only take Adam 24 hours to name the animals and realize he needs a woman? The speaker has not considered this. He tells me to take the Bible exactly as it is written, but then he does not do so himself. If male and female were created in a solar day, then this does not reconcile with the Adam and Eve story. I believe God did place his new Creation, Homo Sapien, in the garden. Again, let's take the Bible exactly as it is written. We are told Adam and Eve have two sons. We are not told of any other children prior to this. Yet Cain goes to another land and takes a wife. The guy in your video wants to make up the fact that Adam and Eve had other children, but how can this additive story reconcile with the Bible? It can't. Again, your speaker is not taking the Bible for what it exactly says, but is filling in the blanks to make HIS version of the story fit his interpretation. Cain took a Neanderthal wife and there is dna evidence to back this up. Also, this interpretation of the story can be reconciled with fossil evidence, and it doesn't cram all of Creation into 6,000 years. Creationists are locked into as 6,000 year old earth, because they cling to the notion everything was made in six earthly days, including Adam, and then they lock themselves into the calculations of times for the genealogy of Christ. However, if they actually read Genesis for the information it conveyed to the Jews at the time it was written, they would realize that the earth could have existed for billions of years, and the garden of Eden only in the last six to ten thousand years. They also miss the Jewish tradition of leaving un-noteworthy individuals out of the family tree, so the genealogy fails to account for missing generations. I put the garden at 10,000 years ago and believe God visited the earth to create them both with a new dna structure. Adam would be different than all the hominids before. They would be given the choice. He would no longer act on instinct, but would choose to have God's knowledge of good and evil. An animal does not care that it is naked. An animal has no remorse over killing its food. Adam and Eve would be different. They would see things through God's eyes. Once they ate of the tree, they immediately realized they were naked.
Some of the points I've made can be crammed fit into the Creation story. Yet, I don't really even feel the need to do that to a point. Jesus was fond of telling parables that conveyed a deeper meaning. How do we, as modern day Christians, know that Moses was writing down a literal story. Maybe it was a parable told to generations of Jews to convey the deeper principles of the fall. The Jews at the time could have no the story was a metaphor, but over the course of thousands of years, someone along the way decided it was literal. Who was that? And again, my question for you, who decided Christ command to gouge out your eye was not literal? There are alot of Christians that just want a little neat black and white story that doesn't beg any questions. They need to fit Christianity into a little box because they don't want to think about the bigger questions. I do want to think about the bigger questions. While I believe the Bible is true, God is not the Bible. And God cannot be contained in the Bible. The Bible says God spat stars out of his "mouth" [I don't believe God has a mouth. The Bible also says God is spirit. Obviously, I believe Jesus had a mouth while he was on earth
Sorry UR i have to ask this,you get onto evolutionist using maybe's, might haves, and possible faulty assumptions for evolution but you don't have that same view on the same explanations for the age of the universe and earth, why ?
To add to that, you can't supermagical gods without an entire hierarchy of super - supermagical gods.Ah, yes. With your first sentence you have employed the "you can't disprove it", tactic.
It really is a standard ploy for those whose arguments are intellectually bankrupt and bereft support or substantiation.
So yes, I have proof that there was no great flood, that no one ever rose from the dead and the sea never parted.
Prove I don't.
To add to that you can't prove naturlistic processes that converted nonliving matter to living organisms.
The problem you have is believing that a gap in scientific knowledge somehow proves your gods. That, if course, is a false assumption on your part. It really is much less a problem than you are able to comprehend. In terms of defining the origins of life, molecular biologists have made much progress. If you consider that the origin of life is an event that occurred billions of years ago and that experiments must be made using material that was in the early atmosphere, the success that scientists have achieved thus far, limited though it is, is amazing.
What causes fundies so much angst is that experiments continue and bit by bit, science has taken away the fears and superstitions that fundies require for literal belief in their gods.
Not really. Not consistent with the Bible story. Sorry.
For good reason.
You weren't there either. Explain yourself.
Right. You need neither verifiable evidence nor valid logic to hold your belief, but you insist upon absolute conclusive proof to change your mind.
We are well aware of the intellectual dishonesty practiced by the faithful.
Nonsense.
C'mon Loki!! Noah "might have" built an ark [we see many modern day men building ships] and he "could have" taken two of every animal in with him [we see lots of animals rounded up by men for modern day zoo's] and a flood that covered the whole earth "might have" happened [we've seen some pretty big modern day floods with the tsunami's and all]. Sheesh, that sounds just like one of them there just so Darwin stories you are always spoutin' off about. Guess I've outlaid irrefutable scientific evidence of Noah and the Ark using some good old Darwinian magic. Yep, it's a fact alright.
In fact, by some mistake on Noah's part, the giraffe's cages had no food. They had to try and get food from the Hippo's pen above. Only the giraffe's with the long necks survived the boat ride. The short necked giraffes on the Ark died of starvation.
Either we believe the scriptures or we do not.
What challenge have you offered ,you run from my questions, you copy and paste things that have nothing to do with my ????. You are bold writing some of the things you write knowing people are reading this thread.
YWC, if you want to use the bible as a credible source, it has to be demonstrated as being a credible source first. You, nor anyone else, can do that, because it simply is not, just like the Koran is not a credible source, or the Bhagavad Gita. It is special pleading to simply ask people to accept the bible as authority without justification. There is plenty reason to think the bible is not credible. It is an ancient book. We know none of the authors, have no signatures, and they are all translations or translations of copies of translations by authors with an agenda. You can not demonstrate empirically that any of it is the word of god, and therefore, that any of it, is actually true, hence why you must take it on faith. So, stop using the bible in this thread as if it means anything here in terms of proving you're point, because it doesn't. You can't use the bible to prove the bible.
You can't demonstrate that all of those different authors, are who they say they are. The historicity of the bible does not even bear out with what we know to be true about history, which is another indictment against its credibility. For instance, Matt, Mark, Luke and John, were not the authors of their respective gospels. We have no signatures on those documents. Those names were assigned to those gospels later. Who's to say the same wasn't done to books in the OT? Until you can provide justification for someone else to believe the bible is credible, citing passages from it is really pointless.
This is preposterous!! No one questions the authorship or credibility of the Illiad and the Odyssey.
Do I have something against a southern heritage? Aside from inbreeding, pig fucking and bad moonshine? No.
And that also answered my second question. Which would be a definite. "yes".
What up? The revenuers take away your still?
NP, at the risk of sounding like Loki, this is an appeal to the masses fallacy. Also, even though I will make the claim now, my post before was only related to the fact that ID peer-reviewed studies exist and so far Hollie has chosen to ignore them. I do believe ID is legitimate science, every bit as legitimate as the Darwinian Myth.
Of course it is an appeal to popular opinion to cite Project Steve, but it still illustrates a point. It doesn't necessarily make the claims of evolution true, and that wasn't why I posted it, but it does mean that thousands upon thousands of experts who know far more than you or I about the subject at hand, do think that evolution is true. What's more, is they are actively using this information in their field to improve and understand our world, demonstrated by the technology we see around us in medical biology (ie, vaccines). This is a concrete example of the fruits of understanding evolution, as it lies at the center of understanding biology. The same can not be said for IDers, as their model provides no predictive power. Name one example of predictive power that ID provides.
Evolution does not provide predictive power so I'm not sure what your point it. Here is an article for you though...
Darwin's God: Evolution (Not) Crucial in Antibiotics Breakthrough: How Science is Actually Done
If the tables were turned, but the facts of evolution were the same, including its inception time (150 years ago), and there only a handful of scientists who believed in it, and the vast majority of scientists believed in creationism; again, it wouldn't mean that either side was necessarily true or false, but it would mean that people who have the firmest grasp of the material seem to be convinced that the propositions of ID are true. Based on this, I might also more seriously consider that side based simply on popular opinion, because this involves somewhat esoteric knowledge, especially in application, which neither you or I have the capability to do. You may study evolution simply to further debunk it, which I know you do, but you do not actually attempt to every apply this knowledge to anything in the universe, because your ideas are not empirically tested in any way. That's a critical distinction. Biologists do. Iders don't, because their hypothesis doesn't offer them this capability .
Austin federal judge Sam Sparks dismissed a suit by the Dallas-based Institute of Creation Research, which seeks the right to grant a masters degree in science from a biblical perspective. And by dismissed, we mean the judge tore it apart.
But first, a summary of the suit, as reported today by the San Antonio Express-News. The Institute seeks to offer a masters degree that critiques evolution and champions a literal interpretation of the biblical account of creation. Texass higher education board nixed the groups application, because of the proposed programs creationist slant. This, the Institute contended, was a violation of its First Amendment Rights.
That claim was dismissed by Sparks in an opinion that criticized the Institutes arguments as incoherent. At one point he writes that he will address the groups concerns to the extent [he] is able to understand them. At another, he describes the groups filings as overly verbose, disjointed, incoherent, maundering and full of irrelevant information. Click here for the judges opinion.
There is no more evidence to assume the bible is correct over the Koran.
It doesn't hurt me. This is a debate. It is fun to exchange ideas. I am still technically open to the idea of a god, if I am convinced. I hold no presuppositions that a god necessarily doesn't exist, since I don't believe that god doesn't exist. I simply don't hold the belief that one does. This distinction may seem non-existent, but it is very important. I tried for many years to be a christian, talking to pastors in college, reading the bible, praying... I was never convinced that any of it was true. I never felt anything, and it never helped me.
You believe in the god of the Koran too, in the teachings, in the claims? This is impossible, as the propositions of Islam and Christianity are mutually exclusive. If Jesus said "I am the only way to god," That means that there is no other way, excluding all other possibilities. Muslims believe the Koran is the final word from god, so what it says in that book supercedes anything written in the bible. Christianity and Islam can not both be true. If it can, please tell me how.
What would it take for you to believe?
Do you need a miracle? Do you need to see God with your own eyes?
As a Christian I believe the only way to The Father is through the Son. So both Chistianity and Islam cannot be true. IMO
It would take a miracle for me to believe, because at this point, I think the christian god is a logical impossibility, by its very own definition. It is claimed to be a perfect being, yet needs a relationship with us. That is a contradiction. A perfect being wouldn't need anything, and wouldn't be jealous. These are all very human attributes, and so, imperfect. I am therefore absolutely certain that the christian god does not exist. However, I can not be certain that some kind of deity does exist somewhere within, or even outside the universe, such as a deist god. There is so much about the christian god that seems so highly implausible to me at this point. To be honest, I want to believe because I struggle with mental health quite a bit and it causes me a lot of suffering, and an all loving god is a really nice thought, but that doesn't mean it exists. I refuse to let my emotional needs create something to alleviate personal suffering. In other words, I am not going to believe something because it feels good. I want it to be true. I care more about truth, than about what feels good to my limited mind.
Yes, you're right, because it is special pleading. Why don't you believe in the Koran, or the Bhagavad-Gita? Simply because you were born, geographically where the bible is taught. There is no more evidence to assume the bible is correct over the Koran. They are supernatural claims that can not be backed up. What's worse, is that if this god does exist, why on earth would he be rely on ancient peoples to pass this on in the way that it happened? If this god is omnipotent, and wanted to communicate his message to his beings, he could have chosen a less controversial way to do so. There are too many glaring questions such as these if I were to accept the bible, and so I remain unconvinced about the truth of the bible whatsoever. I think it is an interesting document, but I don't see how anybody could actually think it was inspired by an all-knowing, ever-present, loving deity. It would seem the opposite, made by a god who doesn't care enough to use better mediums to transmit his message. There is plenty of room for doubt in assessing the bible, and the excuse of faith is not a justification for believing, and it is not virtuous to have faith. It is gullibility, in my opinion.
As for why I am here, this is a creationist DEBATE thread made by someone who questioned creationism.
I do believe in both the Quran and the Bhagavad-Gita. I choose to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.
But since you're so convinced that God doesn't exist, why do you spend so much effort trying to persuade us that we are wrong?
If we are wrong then let us be wrong. How does it hurt you?
It's not so simple to "leave you alone" because the actions of religious people affect others.
Plenty of people think Bibles and korrans and Mafioso Books of the Dead do relate an accurate worldview, and that opinion crosses into social constructs, and those social constructs impact individuals freedoms. It leverages political decisions. It lends weight to laws that are developed and implemented.
There is no more evidence to assume the bible is correct over the Koran.
Wrong!!! The Bible is a collection of 66 works written over the course of thousands of years. The Koran was written by ONE man with an agenda within the span of a few years.
I do believe in both the Quran and the Bhagavad-Gita. I choose to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.
But since you're so convinced that God doesn't exist, why do you spend so much effort trying to persuade us that we are wrong?
If we are wrong then let us be wrong. How does it hurt you?
It's not so simple to "leave you alone" because the actions of religious people affect others.
Plenty of people think Bibles and korrans and Mafioso Books of the Dead do relate an accurate worldview, and that opinion crosses into social constructs, and those social constructs impact individuals freedoms. It leverages political decisions. It lends weight to laws that are developed and implemented.
Yet one cannot, according to you, apply the same strictures humans gain for knowledge against your holy book. Your particular interpretation, you argue, "gets a pass".
No, it doesn't. Your argument highlights the notion that "I've heard some who say that you have some sort of body in the afterlife" is not a firm requirement of all knowledge-based issues of human endeavor. Just because Christians claim the bible has a reputation of "holiness" doesn't qualify it as having some sort of special dispensation. It boils down to facts: Either these things happened, or they didn't. Either the message is a true one, or it's a false one.
Logic allows us to read and understand the contextual message of Bibles at the very start. Without logic and reason, you wouldn't understand the thing at all. I see no reason then, halfway through, to jettison the same rules of logic and reason as magically inapplicable, simply because the book has some sort of special reputation as being "holy".
Read it like fiction. Because that is what it is. How do we know this? Because from the outset, it tells a tale that is demonstrably false, as false as the Origin fables of Valhalla, or the sky lodge of the Iroquois. We never have any debates over the whole "It's turtles all the way down" creation myths, do we?It's always the holy text of the week mythology we wrestle over.
Which is completely without merit.
I concur with Hollie. Lonestar, you ask me to "leave you alone," yet in no way, do you leave me alone. Christians have been trying to inch their way into the political establishment since this country started
