See the first thing you tried to do was search for a reason to dismiss the video. Instead you should listen to the video and where it’s coming from before resorting to childish dismissals.
And the information isn’t just coming from the internet, it’s coming from a man named Ken Miller. So instead of quickly dismissing the video because it’s on the internet, you should check to see who he is and if his information is reliable.
Lots of information on the internet is good information, you should learn to check sources instead of taking the lazy way out which is: If information goes against what you believe then immediately think of best way to dismiss it.
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
Here’s a great video that talks about faith and why it’s nonsensical to believe in the god of the bible or any god for that matter. Skip to 6 minutes for the best part but the whole thing is pretty good:
[/quote]
You thought that was great? So because he doesn’t understand the Bible and and why and how God doe what he does, you shouldn’t believe it? His lack of understanding is his own problem. Just because he does not understand the Bible and it’s origin, point, purpose and authorship, neither disproves that the text is wrong, nor the existence of God. It just proves he doesn’t get it. Again, that’s his own fault, perhaps he should do some more research.
Ultimately what counts in a text is what it says. No author is famous or important unless his writing has some value. So unless you understand the texts of the bible, the intended purpose for each verse, chapter, book and Bible itself, along with the culture it came from and intended audience, then you really don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about. AND even for the sake of argument, the Bible was a load of crap, it doesn’t mean that God does not exist. That can be prove philosophically without the Bible or religion. I love how atheists always try to mine the Bible for phrases that sound mean on the surface, out of context with out putting forth the slightest effort to understand it with in it’s intended context, purpose, culture and audience.
The fallacy he is engaging in is argumentum ad ignorantiam"I don’t get it, so it must be false!" That’s hilarious to me. I don’t understand neutrinos, they must be fake.
I’d like to see an atheist argue against something that is actually a theist philosophical proposition and try to argue against that. All I see is tactics of avoiding the actual points to argule a lesserr point which is also a Red Herring.
If you are going to argue against the bible, it helps to know a little something about it.[/quote]
“Just because he does not understand the Bible and it’s origin, point, purpose and authorship, neither disproves that the text is wrong,”
That was one of the points in the video:
If God wanted to deliver his message, why did he only deliver it to very few people using text, and then beyond that make it difficult to understand? Why wouldn’t he make it very clear so that there is no question at all?
[/quote]
This is the whole “Why isn’t God more obvious” argument. I don’t know since I am not God. I don’t know why people masturbate at peep shows either, doesn’t mean it’s not happening. Just because God doesn’t act like you think he should, doesn’t mean he’s wrong and he doesn’t exist. I didn’t realize he was subjected to your authority…“Hey God, do it my way!”
No it doesn’t. Apparently your speak authoritatively about a book you never read. How does that work? “I never read it, but I know what it says!” I know where you get this shit from, I have made it a point to learn how atheists think. It makes it easier for me to destrop their positions. I have been on those websites too. They are good for a laugh, especially how self inflated and admiring of themselves they are. “Hey look, I absolutely destroyed this strawman, those silly theists are reeling now!”
Well he missed something along the way because what he said about it was patently false. Reading and understanding are two different things. Fundamentalists can practically quote the bible word for word, but they show no demonstrative knowledge of it. What’s ironic as hell, is that atheists and wacko fundamentalists say the exact same things about the bible. So technically, your position is more closely related to religious extremism than mine and most people’s.
It’s definitely not an easy book, it takes work to get it. A lot of work, but when you do it’s clear. You cannot just take a couple passages and pass judgement on the whole body of work.
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
…murder, slavery among other things which is completely immoral.
[/quote]
Please don’t use the word immoral if you don’t mean it.[/quote]
Please don’t make weird statements and then not explain what the heck you’re talking about.[/quote]
You made a statement of fact about something (moral/immoral, good/evil) that isn’t testable by science. Say something like, ‘these things are risky to participate in.’ Leave the superstitious moral/immoral stuff to us.[/quote]
I said the Bible condones murder, slavery, stoning, other crazy stuff, and that stuff is immoral. So that brings the whole book into question obviously because if it’s supposed to be the word of God then why does it encourage such horrible and stupid things? Well because it’s not the word of god, it’s the word of the people living at that time and slavery, stoning etc. were apart of that era.[/quote]
Really? So you are a Biblilcal scholar and you know this? You understand each and every on of the 72 books of the bible, the purpose of each, the context in each were written, the target audeince it was written for and why it says what it does and what the point of each passage is?
Or are you just mining those silly little atheist propaganda websites recycling the same tired old sentiments that have no basis in fact or reality.
You want to know why athiests always lose these arguments? Because they attack false premises. They knock down strawman they say is Christianity. Well it’s not and since you clearly don’t know the subject matter, so you are arguing from a point of weakness.
I have yet to see a legitimate argument from an atheist that 1) proves God does not exist. 2) What the bible actually, really says and why it says it is wrong, in context for it’s intended purpose.
Atheism is a weak minded, cowardly position.[/quote]
“I have yet to see a legitimate argument from an atheist that 1) proves God does not exist.”
We don’t have to prove something doesn’t exist. We first have to have evidence that it DOES exist.
Accepting something as true because there isn’t evidence that it’s not true is called the argument from ignorance: Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia
So now do you see why it’s wrong to say “I have yet to see a legitimate argument from an atheist that proves God does not exist” ?
“What the bible actually, really says and why it says it is wrong, in context for it’s intended purpose.”
The bible gives clear instruction to stone your son to death if he’s disobedient. There is nothing to interpret about the context or anything there. You’re just using an excuse to ignore the bad things in the bible by saying “You don’t understand that context”
Well go ahead and explain how I’m not supposed to stone someone who doesn’t believe the bible because that’s what it says.
And also go and explain why god’s message is so vague and unclear when he’s supposed to be very powerful and I would assume good communication comes along with that.
See the first thing you tried to do was search for a reason to dismiss the video. Instead you should listen to the video and where it’s coming from before resorting to childish dismissals.
And the information isn’t just coming from the internet, it’s coming from a man named Ken Miller. So instead of quickly dismissing the video because it’s on the internet, you should check to see who he is and if his information is reliable.
Lots of information on the internet is good information, you should learn to check sources instead of taking the lazy way out which is: If information goes against what you believe then immediately think of best way to dismiss it.[/quote]
Ken Miller, For those who do not know, was the leading evolutionary biologist in the Kitzmiller Vs Dover case. In which Intelligent Design was argued against evolution, interestingly enough Ken is a a Christian. He seems like a person Pat would get along quite well with:) Anyways, carry on men…
See the first thing you tried to do was search for a reason to dismiss the video. Instead you should listen to the video and where it’s coming from before resorting to childish dismissals.
And the information isn’t just coming from the internet, it’s coming from a man named Ken Miller. So instead of quickly dismissing the video because it’s on the internet, you should check to see who he is and if his information is reliable.
Lots of information on the internet is good information, you should learn to check sources instead of taking the lazy way out which is: If information goes against what you believe then immediately think of best way to dismiss it.[/quote]
First, I believe in evolution, so I need no further convincing. Second, I don’t need your silly videos. I can post a bunch of videos too, doesn’t make a damn. Speak for yourself, your welcome to back it up with links, but I am not going to waste my time letting other people speak for you.
The is the same kind of crap Ephrem, Big Flamer, pookie and every other atheist has tried to do. Post a bunch of crap and say, he, I believe it so should you. I am not here to argue with a video, I don’t know, can’t talk to that guy. Speak for yourself and make solid points. Make provable arguments or counter arguments.
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
If God wanted to deliver his message, why did he only deliver it to very few people using text, and then beyond that make it difficult to understand? Why wouldn’t he make it very clear so that there is no question at all?
[/quote]
This is the whole “Why isn’t God more obvious” argument. I don’t know since I am not God. [/quote]
Ok but what is your opinion on how ridiculous it is for anyone to accept that an all powerful being capable of creating other beings isn’t capable of coming to earth to talk to us and instead just gives some vague book to a few people? Don’t you think that it’s pretty bad communication for an all powerful God?
If there was a company on Earth called God and they had no phone system, no email, no building, no employees, no nothing except an old book that someone found, would you do business with this company? How would you even go about attempting to do business with a company that has no fucking system of communication? HELLO!? ANYBODY THERE?!
No but I’m supposed to dedicate my time and my life to worshiping some asshole who never came to talk to us. Oh but he left this book, see!
I don’t think you’re a dummy Joe, but I’m unable to say this in a more apparently tactful manner. You are woefully ill and unequipped for these kinds of discussions at present. You are one the most intellectually lazy and undisciplined individuals we’ve had around here for a long time. Which I hasten to add once again, is not the same thing as stupid. I have to believe you ARE capable of better, but are comfortable enough letting other people do your thinking for you.
Ya know what’s one of the great side benefits about being a Christian to me Joe? I not only love you folks, but I like you too. All of you. I mean it. You included. Even the most hateful vitriolic and vicious heathens who call me obscene insulting names. I don’t get angry, I don’t get a knot in my stomach, I don’t even get insulted. Ya know why? Because I KNOW who I am, whose I am and where I’m going. It’s not that you don’t matter to me. Of course you do. You’re my fellow creature bearing the image of my Father, broken though it is in sin. I want you as my brother. If you knew me in real life, you’d believe in miracles my friend because there was a time when I would have taken the money out of your wallet if I saw you dying on the street.
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
…murder, slavery among other things which is completely immoral.
[/quote]
Please don’t use the word immoral if you don’t mean it.[/quote]
Please don’t make weird statements and then not explain what the heck you’re talking about.[/quote]
You made a statement of fact about something (moral/immoral, good/evil) that isn’t testable by science. Say something like, ‘these things are risky to participate in.’ Leave the superstitious moral/immoral stuff to us.[/quote]
I said the Bible condones murder, slavery, stoning, other crazy stuff, and that stuff is immoral. So that brings the whole book into question obviously because if it’s supposed to be the word of God then why does it encourage such horrible and stupid things? Well because it’s not the word of god, it’s the word of the people living at that time and slavery, stoning etc. were apart of that era.[/quote]
Really? So you are a Biblilcal scholar and you know this? You understand each and every on of the 72 books of the bible, the purpose of each, the context in each were written, the target audeince it was written for and why it says what it does and what the point of each passage is?
Or are you just mining those silly little atheist propaganda websites recycling the same tired old sentiments that have no basis in fact or reality.
You want to know why athiests always lose these arguments? Because they attack false premises. They knock down strawman they say is Christianity. Well it’s not and since you clearly don’t know the subject matter, so you are arguing from a point of weakness.
I have yet to see a legitimate argument from an atheist that 1) proves God does not exist. 2) What the bible actually, really says and why it says it is wrong, in context for it’s intended purpose.
Atheism is a weak minded, cowardly position.[/quote]
“I have yet to see a legitimate argument from an atheist that 1) proves God does not exist.”
We don’t have to prove something doesn’t exist. We first have to have evidence that it DOES exist.
[/quote]
Well that’s bullshit to start with, because if not God, then what? You have two options, both bad. 1) There is nothing. ← That’s flat illogical and unprovable. 2) Is just because it is. <-That’s bullshit because it’s circular.
Also, I already presented a clear argument for the existence of Gad earlier in the thread. Remember when I was talking about contingency, causation, infinite regress and all that stuff, or I supposed you missed it. I am not going to rehash it so I will give you two choices, find what I wrote about it a few pages back or read these links which explain the position pretty clearly.
So is accepting something is false. It works in both directions.
You are wrong. I already presented an argument. You missed it or dismissed it. But see the above links and it will clear up any misconceptions.
The laws books were estabishing a rule of law for an unruly people. It’s not stone your son if he sneaks out of the house to hang with his girl friend. It’s if he is a danger to himself and others and all else fails you have a duty to protect others. It’s designed to scare them strait because they were a unruly people. Do you have any evidence that it was ever used? It was harsh words for a harsh people. Your looking at it through a 21rst century well-ordered society paradigm. It was for those people at that time. It no longer applies because we have an ordered society with established laws that deal with dangerous people. They did not have that.
First, it’s not vague, it’s pretty damn clear. But the component of freewill is in play here. If God jumped in all the time it would effect our ability to choose him freely. I don’t have all the answers here, though because I don’t know why God chose not to be obvious at this time. But one day it will be.